Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Stephen Doughty

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for his continued engagement in good faith throughout the process. I can absolutely assure him that in due course we will return to the issues that he and his colleagues discussed with us and the concerns that they expressed in amendments in this place and the other House, but I have to reject his assumption that the process has somehow met its demise. It has not been abandoned. We have always been clear about the need for agreement on the US-UK exchange of notes. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Chapman in the other place on 18 November:

“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 713.]

We have always been clear about the processes that need to be followed in parallel. It is regrettable that there has been a delay and that we have run out of time in this parliamentary Session, but the facts have not changed as to the need for the treaty or the need for the processes and legal provisions to be put in place.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises concerns about the Chagossians. He and I have discussed those concerns on a number of occasions. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities. There are a range of views in the community; there will be many Chagossians who will be deeply disappointed by the delay with the treaty, not least for the very reason to which he refers, which is that we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement. I re-emphasise our commitment to restarting, at an appropriate time, the heritage visits, which are so important. The hon. Gentleman will understand why the current situation does not allow that, but we will seek to do so at the earliest opportunity. We know how important it is, particularly for heritage reasons.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Stephen Doughty

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 4.

[Stephen Doughty]

National security must always be the first priority of any Government, and that is all the more important during these uncertain times. This Government have always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal and why we need to pass the Bill, so the treaty can come into effect. The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability, and that of our allies.

As part of this agreement, the Government have negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection the base gives to both the United Kingdom and the United States.

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Debate between Judith Cummins and Stephen Doughty

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

UK-EU Summit

Debate between Judith Cummins and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Conservative Ministers ask questions, but they may not want to hear the answers. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Stephen Doughty]

We are absolutely clear: we are taking serious action to reduce net migration, but we support controlled schemes that create opportunities for young people to experience different cultures, travel and work. Important questions were asked about issues such as the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. It is of course right and responsible that we look at it, ensuring that any final decisions are made in the national interest.

However, I want to address a very fundamental point, which is this absolutely absurd and nonsensical suggestion of surrender. What an absolute disgrace to be talking Britain down—talking Britain down! In fact, what we see is strength. We see strength from this Prime Minister and strength from this Government. In a world of turmoil—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered that question already. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister will be heard.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been absolutely clear: surrender—what nonsense! Instead, we see strength in standing up for our steel and our car manufacturers, delivering trade deals with the US and India, investing in green energy, leading Europe with our key allies in the defence of Ukraine, tackling illegal migration and serious and organised crime, and boosting funding and support for our national defence after shameful disinvestment by the previous Government. That is talking down Britain; we are standing up for Britain.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

National Living Wage

Debate between Judith Cummins and Stephen Doughty

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. In opening, may I place on the record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her efforts in securing this Back-Bench business debate? She is a fearless campaigner and a credit to this place. I wish her a speedy recovery, which I know she will achieve through sheer force of willpower. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for stepping in.

When I sat in this Chamber alongside many other hon. Members not so many months ago and heard the Chancellor say that he was going to increase the pay of the lowest paid, I was speechless. The glib tagline was, “A pay rise for Britain”. Throughout my political life, I have fought for improved pay and conditions for the working people of this country, especially the lowest paid. One of the proudest moments in my political life was seeing a Labour Government, in this very place, introduce the national minimum wage as one of their first acts—a move that was strongly opposed by the Conservatives.

Despite my understandable cynicism, I was delighted that the Chancellor had undergone his own damascene conversion and had finally seen the light by belatedly understanding that every worker in this great and prosperous country, not just those at the top of the ladder, deserved to be paid fairly. But—and there is always a “but” with this Government—my initial delight soon dissolved as I rapidly discovered that my cynicism was not misplaced but very much spot on. As the now former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), recognised, the Chancellor’s glib tagline about giving Britain a pay rise was devoid of substance and nothing more than hot air and bluff. His Budget announcement was the stuff of fairy tales. When we scratch beneath the thin veneer of the so-called national living wage, it swiftly becomes clear that the low-paid workers of this country are being hammered, just as they always are by this Tory Government.

Despite the Chancellor’s embarrassing U-turn on tax credits, he has ploughed ahead with cuts to the successor scheme, universal credit. Cuts introduced this very month mean that tens of thousands of low-paid working families who are in receipt of universal credit are expected to lose up to £200 a month from their pay packets. That is the first attack by this Tory Government. The second attack, and the topic of today’s debate, is the Chancellor’s spectacular failure to ensure that big business funds his so-called national living wage off its own back and through its profits, rather than off the backs of workers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Daily Mirror newspaper, through its coverage in recent weeks, have shown that, when given the choice, big business has seized on the cheapest method to fund a pay rise for its workers by heartlessly cutting their overall pay and benefits package. That is simply shameful.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech. Many businesses, particularly in the care sector, have got away with not paying the minimum wage and used all sorts of tactics such as clipping and not paying for travel time. An even greater number of them now use tactics such as cutting tea breaks and lunch breaks, in order to get away with it on an even greater scale. The Government failed to enforce the original minimum wage, and the situation is now being compounded further.

[Judith Cummins]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving that very good example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North mentioned the glaring example of B&Q, which has asked its workers to sign a contract that reduces a number of their benefits. It is believed that the overall result will be that many will lose thousands of pounds. The company’s response has been to introduce a temporary scheme, for just two years, to protect the value of its workers’ overall packages. That is simply not good enough, particularly as it has been reported that the parent company of B&Q, Kingfisher, may pay its chief executive officer a total package of up to £3.6 million. The numbers are jaw-dropping, as is the hypocrisy. Once again, this Tory Government are presiding over the shameful exploitation of those who are least able to make ends meet, least able to make their voices heard and least able to stand up and tell the Government that what they are doing is simply unfair and unacceptable, and that it cannot go on.

The Chancellor cannot even plead ignorance and suggest that this shameful episode is an unexpected by-product of his noble and good deeds. A ministerial answer to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) on 21 March revealed that the Government were aware of the possibility that big business would choose to fund their so-called national living wage through cuts to wider remuneration packages. The Government’s view was:

“It is for individual businesses to decide exactly how to respond to the introduction of the National Living Wage, appropriate to their circumstances. But any changes to contractual pay should be discussed and agreed with workers in advance.”

The Government simply do not get it. If the choice for workers is between unemployment and agreeing to changes designed to reduce their overall contractual benefits, most, if not all, workers—especially the lowest paid in society—will sign up.