Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member. It is a very powerful place to visit to see that reality.

Like many colleagues in the House, I have been in Kyiv when the city has been under attack. It is important to recognise the particular brutality of attacks in recent days and the loss of life. There have been attacks on trains, civilians, kindergartens and schools, leaving families not only in the cold but without access to water and without light. As part of our school twinning programme, I spoke just the other day with young children in a school in Kyiv that is twinned with a school here in the UK. Luckily, they had power at that time and could do the link-up, but there had been a major attack nearby. That reality should sit starkly in all our minds.

Of course, there is a proud link between my part of the United Kingdom and the temporarily occupied territories: Cardiff was twinned with Luhansk, and Donetsk was founded by a Welshman. We also have many links with Crimea: Welsh troops fought in the Crimean war, and that is why we have a Sebastopol in the south Wales valleys. These things echo down our history, and we stand with Ukraine today and will continue to do so into the future.

We will stand by Ukraine’s side until peace comes, and until those territories are returned. In the meantime, we welcome the continued US-led peace efforts, including last week’s trilateral talks. Let us be clear: Ukraine is the one showing its commitment to peace and to agreeing a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and Russia is stalling, repeating maximalist demands and continuing to carry out vicious strikes against Ukraine’s civilian population, plunging families into freezing conditions and starving them of necessities.

Next month marks a solemn milestone: four difficult years since the full-scale invasion. Soon after that, it will be 12 years since the occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea. As Members have rightly highlighted, Russia’s occupation has always been rooted in repression, including systematic human rights abuses, the suppression of Ukrainian culture, language and independent media, and the deportation and attempts at the Russification of children. Schools have been forced to follow Kremlin curriculums, residents have been pushed to use the rouble and obtain Russian passports, and Russia has attempted to absorb the occupied regions into its legal system. That is not governance; it is despotism, and we should see it for what it is.

The humanitarian situation in the occupied territories is extreme. Medical facilities are overstretched, and often prioritise the Russian military’s needs over those of civilians. Civilians face arbitrary detention, deportation and strict movement controls, with independent monitoring simply impossible; I am glad that Members have raised individual cases today. We have spoken many times about the appalling and heinous crime of the forced deportation of Ukrainian children and their attempted indoctrination in so-called patriotism camps with military-style training. We stand with the children of Ukraine and all those seeking to return, identify and trace them. I pay tribute to the cross-party work that has gone on around that, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who is not in her place.

We have announced additional support in recent weeks to respond to humanitarian concerns, particularly on energy, including an additional £20 million for energy security and resilience to keep lights on and homes warm when civilians need it most. We will also be expanding our school twinning scheme, building resilience between our peoples, and ensuring that we continue to provide support for reconstruction and the development of Ukraine’s economy. We look to a time when there will hopefully be peace, when Ukraine can be reconstructed and we can get back to a situation where its people are able to thrive independently—and with hope—as Ukrainians in the future.

Accountability has rightly been raised many times today. Just before Christmas, I was proud to sign a treaty in The Hague that established a claims commission for Ukraine, providing a route for accountability and reparation, including for the families of illegally deported children. Last week, registered claims reached 100,000, with more categories to follow. That sends a clear message that violations of international law will not go unanswered, and we will continue to support the commission’s work, building on our role chairing the register of damage.

Sanctions were rightly raised, and we continue to increase the economic pressure on Putin. We have sanctioned more than 900 individuals, entities and ships, including 520 oil tankers. We are working with partners to counter the shadow fleet through further sanctions. We will also—although I will not comment on future designations—look at those who have been involved in the commission of atrocities, and of course Members rightly mentioned those who have been involved in the deportation of children. These measures are making a tangible difference: Russian oil revenues are at a four-year low and Russia’s economy is in its weakest position since the start of the full-scale invasion.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and positive responses to questions. In a recent debate, I made a point about accountability for those who have committed massacres, persecution, rape and sexual abuse. It is very important that those who think they have got away with it do not get away with it. Is that part of the accountability process?

[Stephen Doughty]

It absolutely is. We are supporting the Ukrainian authorities with their own domestic accountability processes and through our work with the International Criminal Court, the special tribunal and the claims commission for the damage that Russia has done.

Our work through the coalition of the willing, which was raised by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), is unwavering, because Russia’s aggression threatens not only Ukraine, but Europe and all of us here in the UK. The coalition of the willing is committed to delivering robust security guarantees. Importantly, the Paris meeting delivered a declaration of intent to deploy a multinational force and a vision for a multi-layered package of security guarantees supported by the United States. For obvious reasons, I will not get into specific operational details; the Opposition have asked us a number of times, but I do not think that would be helpful at this stage. However, Members can be assured that that declaration, as well as the additional support for training and equipping Ukrainian forces so that they can defend their country and deter against future aggression—Interflex, Orbital and other things were mentioned—is crucial.

Many different points were raised, and I will happily come back to Members on specific questions if I have not covered them. We are deeply concerned about the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which was mentioned, and have consistently underlined that the only way to ensure nuclear safety and security at Zaporizhzhia is for the plant to be returned to Ukraine. We continue to invest a huge amount in military support. We have invested £600 million in drones alone and delivered 65,000 military drones to Ukraine in just six months. We have invested £13 billion in total in military support. Many Members have rightly made it clear that they speak on behalf of their constituents who want to stand with the people of Ukraine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made that very clear.

The Government will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We will continue working with our partners to hold Russia to account. Internationally agreed borders cannot be changed by force. Attempts to impose an Administration on Ukrainian territory will never legitimise any false claims by Russia. We will never waver in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine will endure and we will be by its side.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Of course it is extant, Mr Speaker. It is an arrangement between ourselves and the United States. It has been updated on a number of occasions, which I have listed. As I have said, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US agreement, and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. I am staggered that some on the Opposition Benches have only just clocked this; we have been aware of it and we engage with the United States every single day. That was made clear even before Christmas to the noble Lord Callanan in response to the question he asked my noble Friend Baroness Chapman. Again, this deal secures the base for the operations of ourselves and the United States, and we will continue to engage with the United States on a daily basis on it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. He and I share concerns on the issue on human rights, and I want to ask a question about that. As the chairperson of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I am very aware of the human rights concerns that exist, including on the repression of personal expression, and reports of concerns for the rights of children and minorities. This leads me to again ask the Government to reconsider their strategy, not simply because our national security is at risk, the partnership with our closest allies is being strained and Chagossian citizens are expressing their opposition, but owing to the fact that we are handing over these people to be ruled under a cloud. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have fully considered the human rights concerns involving the Mauritian Government and are content to continue despite those worrying reports?

[Stephen Doughty]

As always, I have deep respect for the issues the hon. Gentleman raises in this place, particularly when it comes to individuals’ human rights and liberties. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities and have heard a range of views. There are a number of groups that are very strongly in favour of this deal and some that are opposed to it. I respect that; there will always be disagreements on this issue. We have worked very closely to ensure that their needs are at the heart of this deal, whether that is through the trust fund or the clarificatory statements we have been able to secure from the Mauritian Government on the way the trust fund will operate to support Chagossian communities here. The hon. Gentleman can absolutely be assured that I remain seized of these issues, as do other Ministers, and they will continue to form a part of our engagement as the deal goes forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Indeed, they echo what we heard this morning from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives about working together as close allies and across NATO. It is good to welcome guests in Parliament today from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, too.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As is evidenced by the 2024 Lockbit and 2025 Media Land sanctions packages, the UK works closely with key partners, and remains committed to using all available tools to defend against cyber-threats. Our co-ordination with Australia, the United States and other allies demonstrates to adversaries that we will not tolerate assaults on our public and private institutions and our democracies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive responses. On ransomware and what we are trying to do with technology, Northern Ireland leads the way on cyber-security, as does south-east England, but the technology is always advancing. The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that we are protected, but at the same time, we need to ensure that our technology moves forward, so that we can equal or outdo our enemies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, and that Northern Ireland will be part of it?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member rightly extols the virtues and skills of the excellent workforce in Northern Ireland and across the UK on these issues. I have had the pleasure of meeting people from a number of cyber-security companies. We are doing all that we can to increase the skills chain, and to ensure that we stay steps ahead of our adversaries. We will not tolerate activity that hits consumers and individuals in the UK and risks our national security. We will work with others to defend this country.

Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Sudan: Protection of Civilians

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments and expectations. I assure her that this issue remains at the heart not only of our work on holding individuals responsible and on bringing this conflict to an end, but also of the specific support we are providing through our programming for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Some of the reports we have been receiving in recent days are horrific. These incidents must end.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his well-chosen words. I thank the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for securing this urgent question. Other MPs and I have long been highlighting the atrocities taking place in Sudan, including stomach-churning terrorist attacks, and rapes and murders taking place daily. It grieves me greatly, and I know it grieves this House greatly. I underline the issue for Christians in particular, who are particularly targeted in Sudan. The latest attack is yet another where the detail makes me feel sick to my stomach, yet it is simply an extension of the evil that the world has turned a blind eye to thus far. I know the Minister is honest, so what more will the Government do to deliver the right help and to step up and step in for the people facing that devastation in Sudan?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member rightly raises the many atrocities that have taken place in Sudan on the basis of people’s religion, ethnic grouping and other minority status. I share his absolute revulsion at some of the recent allegations. He can be assured that, whether it is through our work at the United Nations later today, our work in the programming that we provide or our support for holding the perpetrators to account, this issue will remain at the top of our agenda.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been having regular conversations, as have the Foreign Secretary and colleagues across the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office. I was in Poland just last week discussing with our Polish allies our important collaboration. The week before that, I was in Rome with the Weimar+ group. These are all active and ongoing conversations and, as the hon. Member said, they are absolutely crucial at a time of such geopolitical uncertainty.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

3. How much funding his Department plans to provide to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance for the 2026 to 2030 period.

Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and for returning to the Chamber within 24 hours of his comments about Russian sanctions yesterday. I read an interesting article on financial sanctions that highlighted the alleged loopholes that are enabling sales and transfers of funds through estate agents, property management and so on. Can the Minister outline whether the Department’s approach will also deal with those UK citizens who may be enabling Russian assets to be diverted and therefore the circumvention of sanctions, which are right and proper?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are significant civil and criminal penalties for the evasion of sanctions. If he or any other Member of the House has any evidence of that, I hope that they would share that with us and the relevant authorities, and we are looking at a single reporting point for people to do that. He can be assured that we look at every way in which people are trying to circumvent the sanctions regimes. We cannot have London, the UK or our British family being a place for those who enable this type of activity. We are resolute and committed to cracking down on it.

Sanctions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 504), dated 22 April 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

This instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It was laid before Parliament on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures in the regulations, which subject to the affirmative procedure, entered into force on 24 April. Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international norms and rules, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming into power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners, and that includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support for Russia.

Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. It is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships, almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet. The Government’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid and our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the Minister on bringing the measure forward. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not be encouraged by what the Minister and Government are doing in bringing in the sanctions. The one thing that always concerns everybody—the Minister knows this—is the £22.7 billion of frozen Russian assets. We all wish to know whether the Government can pursue those assets with a vengeance and an evangelical zest. That would be a better zest than any other. If we put a squeeze on the frozen Russian assets, we can use them for the benefit of Ukraine, and strengthen everyone who supports Ukraine.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his steadfast support for Ukraine, and for raising this important issue. As I said, we have already ensured that important resources get to Ukraine. Thanks to the speedy passage of measures through this House, and support from all parts of the House, we made sure that happened, and it is making a tangible difference. Two thirds of the ERA loan scheme funding that I mentioned has been disbursed and is immediately supporting Ukraine in obtaining vital military equipment. He rightly asks about frozen Russian sovereign assets more widely. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are working apace with international partners to look at all lawful means of ensuring that Russia pays for the horrific damage and destruction that it has done in Ukraine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will of course come back to the House in due course to update Members.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Since this Government came into office, we have ramped up our efforts, particularly on the issue of the shadow fleet, on which we first sought sanctions at the European Political Community summit, just days after coming into office. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the impact of those sanctions has been substantial in constraining and taking down Russia’s ability to wage this war. Collectively, the sanctions by the previous Government and this Government have prevented $450 billion-worth of support to fuel Russia’s war. That could have paid for another three or four years of military aggression against Ukraine. We will not hesitate to consider further actions in this area; indeed, we have announced some of the biggest packages in recent weeks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I was one of those to be sanctioned, but what does that sanction mean? It means that my superyacht—I do not have one—cannot be taken to Vladivostok for the summer or for the winter, so I will have to take it to Ballywalter, the village where I was born and brought up, and put it alongside the rented rowing boat that I use now and again. The sanction will not stop me speaking up to tell it straight on Russia’s crimes, and let us remember what those are. There are the stolen children, whom the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked about. There are the thousands of men, women and children who have been murdered, and the church pastors who have disappeared. There was the massacre in Bucha. All those crimes anger us. This is about accountability: it is about making sure that the Russians who carried out those crimes will be held to account some day. By the way, I hope they are watching, because a sanction does not stop me, and it will not stop anyone else in this Chamber speaking up either.

I apologise for that introduction, but as I said earlier this week, peace is the goal, but not at any price. What discussions has the Minister had with the Ukrainians to ensure they understand that our support is there until the right deal is in place? What discussions have taken place with our American allies to ensure that we are still on the same page when it comes to making sure that Russian aggression is not rewarded and that Ukraine’s sacrifice is always remembered?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think the hon. Gentleman’s comments, like those of my hon. Friends, accurately capture the sentiments of this House. I condemn the sanction against him, but the reaction of him and other Members of this House should show everybody in the world—including Vladimir Putin, but also our allies and, most importantly, Ukraine—that our support remains ironclad and undiminished: it will strengthen rather than diminish.

I visited Bucha just a few weeks ago, and as with colleagues who have visited it, those scenes will never leave my mind. Let alone the horrific scenes we have seen over the last few weeks, the fact that that place has suffered so much—it is where priests were murdered and children were abducted, and just hours before I was there, further missiles came in and killed civilians—should leave nobody in any doubt whatsoever about who is the aggressor. It is Vladimir Putin and his regime. It is his war of aggression. Ukraine is the party that is serious about peace. We will work with Ukraine, the United States and our European allies in the endeavour to find that peace, but the ball is now very much in Vladimir Putin’s court.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Naturally, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence work closely together on this matter, as indeed Departments do across all Government. I have been very clear that the terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. The responsibilities will be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework. As for understanding the reasons for this deal and why it is necessary, I suggest that the hon. Member asks some of his formerly ministerial colleagues on the Conservative Benches.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an incredibly honourable man, and he is much liked in this House, so I say this with all gentleness. My constituents are telling me that the deal with the Indian ocean territory is overwhelming and that the cost factor is something that they cannot quite understand—and neither can I. Does the Minister understand why pensioners in my constituency and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are wondering why, at a time of reduced help and aid, the Government are handing over sovereignty of land and then renting it back at a cost to the public purse? Will the Minister outline where the money will come from, when it has been decided that pensioners and ill people on personal independence payments cannot have the support they deserve due to the lack of money within Government?

[Stephen Doughty]

I know that the hon. Gentleman asks his question with sincerity, and he is much liked in this place too. I suggest that he makes it clear to his constituents that a financial element to this deal was crucial to protect operations. It is crucial for the security of his citizens in Strangford and the citizens of the United Kingdom and of the United States, and our interests overseas. Some of the figures that have been quoted in the media are simply inaccurate, and of course, this will happen over a 99-year period. We will not scrimp when it comes to our security. It is important that we invest in it, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I am sure the hon. Member will understand that I am not going to get into operational details, but he can be sure that we prepare for all scenarios across the region. That is why we have welcomed the steps that EUFOR has taken in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The hon. Member is right to highlight the role that we play in KFOR. Indeed, I also visited KFOR with the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and saw the important work that it does in line with its mandate. It is important that everybody takes steps to de-escalate tensions and deal with issues that have not been dealt with. I have raised the Banjska incident a number of times, including with Serbia, and it is important that those responsible are held accountable.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers; he understands the issue incredibly well. He will be aware of the recent judgments made in respect of human rights, in particular those involving discrimination against the Jewish community. Will he outline whether the deputations included discussions of faith and freedom and people’s ability to practise their faith, and what the outcomes are envisaged to be to secure the right for people to hold and live their faith, no matter what that faith is, in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Member for that important question. He will be pleased to know that interfaith engagement was part of the special envoy’s recent visit. I can write to him with a little more detail about that.

Of course, this is a country that has a strong tradition for a number of different faiths. At the moment, we are celebrating Eid and the end of the holy month of Ramadan, but alongside Muslim communities, Christian and Jewish communities have a long heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina—I have witnessed that with my own eyes. We remain a staunch defender of freedom of religion or belief, and we will continue to work with organisations that promote an inclusive and diverse society where everybody is respected and not discriminated against on the basis of their religion or belief.

Chagos Islands

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will not scrimp on national security. We will invest in our national security, we will secure our bases and we will invest in our armed forces. We will invest in our defence and we will protect the British people. We will invest in it, not scrimp on it as the previous Government did.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Although I might have a different opinion, I always try to be respectful, and I hope that the Minister will receive my question as such. He will be aware of my opposition, and indeed the opposition on this side of the House, to the Chagos deal in terms of the citizenship and the identity of those islanders, as well as the security our base. To this, I have to add a word of caution on funding, as I see farms being attacked by the farming inheritance tax on the one hand and an open-ended cheque being given to Mauritius on the other. Will the Minister not rethink this terrible decision, or better still, given the clear division between this side of the House and his side, let us make that decision?

[Stephen Doughty]

Of course the House will have the right to make its decision in due course when legislation is put forward. That is only right and there will be ample scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman has always had a keen interest in the interests of the Chagossians, which I deeply respect. As I have said, there is a range of different views within the community, but their interests are very much at the heart of this. He referred citizenship, and of course they will retain their right to British citizenship, which has been in place since 2022. Many Chagossians have chosen to make their home here and to take British citizenship. That is right, and we all agree that what happened historically was wrong.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends a bit more time reflecting on the failures of his Administration on this and a series of other issues, from the public finances to our national security. This Government are clearing up the mess that his party left behind on not only this issue but so many others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers; however, I am a sponsor of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill, which calls for descendants born to individuals within the British Indian Ocean Territory to be able to register as BIOT. There is now an even greater imperative because of the Chagos decision, which was made with no input from local people. What discussions will take place with those who consider themselves British? The Chagossians seem not to be assured, so what will be done to ensure that they receive all the necessary information in a timely manner, and will not get answers to their questions through news media outlets?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have a deep respect for the hon. Gentleman. As I have said a number of times, the Government deeply regret the way that Chagossians were removed from the islands and treated thereafter. We have always been clear on respecting the interests of Chagossian communities. I have engaged, and will continue to engage, with Chagossian communities. Their interests are at the heart of the deal, from the trust fund to the ability to resettle on and visit the islands, and a series of other measures that we have taken here in the United Kingdom. I am confident that their interests are being respected.

Chagos Islands

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely reject those comments. Given that the previous Government spent over two years engaging in multiple rounds of negotiations in preparing the basis on which we got a deal done, the idea that we rushed into something is simply not true. It was not done in a rush. We are getting the job done, and keeping our national security and our interests secure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister’s answers have not been what we have sought from him, so I will ask my question in a different way. Does he acknowledge the feelings of the Chagossians, who have peacefully protested about having their sovereignty stripped from them behind their backs? Does he recognise that the deal struck with China over Hong Kong has not been respected, and that our withdrawal has left the people of Hong Kong saying that they have been abandoned? That should serve as a warning. Will the Minister rethink the decision and respect the wishes of the Chagossians?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for him on these matters, and for his care for people and human rights around the world. I am very clear that the treaty and the deal respect the rights and interests of the Chagossians, and we have sought to put them at the heart of the arrangements. I have engaged with many Chagossians, who have a range of views, as we have heard today. It is absolutely clear to me that we need to put their interests at the heart of the deal, and we have done that. I am confident that when they look at the detail, they will see very positive outcomes for them and their communities, and we will provide that detail to the House in due course.

Sanctions: Iran

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

Again, I apologise for not being here earlier to ask the Minister a question directly. The IRGC is quite clearly the leader of Iran’s private army. It is involved in some of the worst repression, murders and despicable acts across all of Iran. Is it not time to collate all this information and put it together to hold those people accountable for what they are doing, and for human rights abuses in Iran?

[Stephen Doughty]

I made clear our position on the IRGC earlier, but as I pointed out, we have sanctioned directly a number of individuals involved with that organisation. We recognise the threat that it poses and will take the necessary measures to counter it at home and around the world, but obviously we do not comment on future designations.

The safety and security of the United Kingdom from Iran’s malign actions has been raised on a number of occasions. It was rightly pointed out that the UK has identified at least 15 threats towards UK-based individuals. Our police, intelligence and security agencies have been confronting these threats for many years, but their seriousness has increased in recent months. Let me be clear: we will always stand up to threats from foreign nations, and we will continue to work closely with our international partners to identify, deter, and respond to those threats.

Lastly, on Lebanon, we have been very clear that a political solution consistent with resolution 1701 is the only way to restore its sovereignty, territorial integrity and stability. We have been calling for an immediate ceasefire between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, and a political plan that will enable civilians on both sides to return to their homes. Nobody wants further escalation, and we will continue to work with partners across the region on that.

These new regulations will increase the pressure on Iran’s defence industry. They will disrupt Iran’s production of UAVs and missiles that could be supplied to proxies in the middle east or Russia. We will continue to work with likeminded partners. The regulations send a clear message to the Government of Iran and those seeking to harm the UK’s security and that of our partners: we will not stand idle in the face of this aggression. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 944), dated 11 September 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Debate between Jim Shannon and Stephen Doughty

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The facts relating to the agreement with Mauritius will be set out in due course, following proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is very specifically about the agreement with St Helena, and I have set out the amount of money and what it will be used for.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister outline how the airbase’s security will be best served within this new management, considering the importance of vetting anyone seeking to enter a military base under regular circumstances, never mind in this situation? What assurance do military personnel have that their safety is important to this Government?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think the hon. Gentleman may be referring to Diego Garcia, which is obviously not a suitable place for migrants, for the reasons he sets out. We have ensured that we put the base on a secure, long-term footing, in the interests of the national security of the UK and our allies.