Syria Sanctions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am updating the House on the steps to update and adapt the UK’s Syria sanctions regime following the fall of Assad’s dictatorship in December last year and given the ongoing political transition.

On 12 February the UK issued a humanitarian general licence to provide essential sanctions relief to Syria, a country facing staggering humanitarian needs and a broken economy, and which is in the first stages of recovery after almost 14 years of conflict.

My statement to the House on 13 February indicated the direction of travel for our Syria sanctions regulations. On 6 March we announced the de-listing of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines and a number of energy companies.

On 24 April we took further steps towards helping the Syrian people rebuild their country and economy. We have amended our Syria sanctions regulations to bring them up to date and have revoked specific sanctions measures on energy, transport (aircraft), financial transactions and trade. We have also de-listed a further 12 governmental and media entities given that they are no longer associated with the Assad regime and their designations were defunct. Our revised Syria sanctions regulations, however, give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions in the Syria context, should that become necessary.

In taking these steps, our intention is to help open up the Syrian financial system and support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure, above all in the electricity generation sector, essential for Syria’s reconstruction. This is vital for ensuring stability in Syria and the wider region—recognising that wider international steps will be necessary to support these objectives.

The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. As such, we will ensure that asset freezes and travel bans imposed on members of the former regime remain in force. We also continue to keep the ongoing developments in Syria under close review.

As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said to the House in his statement on 10 March:

“Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 664.]

We will continue to engage with the Syrian Government at all levels to support an inclusive political transition, and to encourage commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid, safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combating terrorism and extremism. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[HCWS612]

Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a genuine pleasure to sit under your chairpersonship today, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this debate and highlighting the grave threats facing aid and humanitarian workers around the world. I say that with genuine sincerity, having spent many years working for humanitarian non-governmental organisations and the former Department for International Development, and as a former member of the International Development Committee, along with a number of hon. Members in this room. I have witnessed the courageous work of humanitarian workers, as well as that of staff from the FCDO—formerly the FCO—and DFID, in extremely challenging situations around the world. They have always operated in dangerous environments, but the threats they face today, as has been highlighted so powerfully, are escalating to intolerable levels, with many paying the ultimate price. Their protection is essential for agencies to operate, for our obligations under international law, and for our shared humanity. I welcome the International Development Committee’s ongoing inquiry on this topic. Its focus on the safety and protection of those courageous individuals is timely and vital. We will engage with the Committee fully on that and consider its findings.

As I said, these issues are deeply personal to me. Along with the late and missed colleague of ours, Jo Cox, I have worked with many people, and I still have friends who are working in some of these environments and agencies, including in some of the circumstances that have been described. This is deeply personal for me. As colleagues will understand I obviously will not go into the details, but having worked with Oxfam, World Vision and many other organisations, I have seen this for myself.

It is absolutely right that Members highlighted that last year was the deadliest year for humanitarian personnel, with the situation in Gaza providing the most dangerous context. More than 400 air workers have been killed there since October 2023, including three British citizens serving with World Central Kitchen. In March, attacks on a UN facility and a Palestinian Red Crescent Society convoy showed that Israel must do much more to prevent further tragedies, and I will come on to some of the specific comments on that in due course. Reports from Sudan highlight the tragic deaths of aid workers in the Zamzam camp. As has been highlighted, those losses are part of a global trend driven by the scale, complexity and urbanisation of armed conflicts, but behind every incident is a family shattered, a team destabilised, and often a community and extremely vulnerable individuals left without assistance.

Fatalities are, of course, only part of the tragic picture. Aid workers face rising levels of injury, abduction and detention, with an immense psychological toll. They sometimes question whether their humanitarian logos and emblems help to distinguish them from parties to conflict, or increase their risks. Those workers must have basic assurances of protection, and they must not be targeted. The UK is committed to promoting compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law, and supporting mechanisms that protect those working in the world’s most dangerous environments.

The hon. Member for Cheadle gave a powerful testimony as context for the debate and the wider risks, and he highlighted many of the contexts. I assure him that those workers are absolutely not forgotten. Importantly, he highlighted the volunteers, often locals, who are involved in these contexts, and raised a number of important questions. He specifically asked about mental health, and I assure him that the FCDO has funded additional mental health support for partners where there is an identified gap in available service provision.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, spoke powerfully and passionately, and I commend, as he did, the work of church groups in his constituency, and indeed all faith groups. We know that many faith groups in our constituencies, including my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, have partnerships with NGOs, and faith groups and others are crucial in responding in these circumstances. They are often the first responders and the first on the ground. The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about Afghanistan. He will know that humanitarian operations in Afghanistan face serious access challenges, particularly for women, due to the Taliban ban on female aid workers. Despite those challenges, we have supported partners to negotiate local and case-by-case exemptions to continue the work and respond to the needs of women and girls.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) spoke about the convictions and values that drive humanitarian aid workers. I have seen that myself repeatedly, and we hugely value their personal duty and service. He asked some specific questions about the humanitarian medal. That has been awarded to those who responded to the Moroccan earthquake, the Libyan floods and the Gaza crisis, and we are still working through the consideration of other humanitarian emergencies. I appreciate his raising the point about eligibility. I will endeavour to come back to him on that, and I or one of my ministerial colleagues will write back to him in due course.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) raised the important issue of kidnappings and other incidents. The issue is not just those who die in attacks but those who are kidnapped and detained, and the psychological, and often physical, toll that that takes on them. He rightly highlighted a number of contexts, from Gaza to Lebanon. I do not accept his comparison with Ukraine, not least because I was in Ukraine a few weeks ago, under bombardment, and saw what was happening to civilians there. The actions of my ministerial colleagues in relation to Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and many other crises are substantial and sincere.

I certainly will not apologise for the difficult decisions we have had to take about ODA to keep the people of this country safe from the many threats that we face, and I will come on to that point in due course. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley asked me specifically about Lebanon, and we use our diplomatic levers to press all parties to honour and respect the humanitarian notification system, which is a deconfliction mechanism to ensure that the location of humanitarian facilities and movements is entitled to protection under international humanitarian law. We are working to make sure that humanitarians are protected in that conflict and many others.

There were many other important contributions, including that made by the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). I will highlight a few points in response to some of those comments. It is important to note that we have seen not only state-on-state violence and other conflicts but non-state armed groups growing in number. That has increased the risk and complexity of many humanitarian environments, including across the Sahel. In 2023, according to the Aid Worker Security Database, non-state groups remained the most frequent perpetrators of incidents globally, but the proportion of incidents involving state actors increased. There are a whole series of factors at play here. We watch all of them closely and try to respond in the best way that we can.

On Gaza specifically, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, on 14 March. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), spoke with him on 17 March. The Foreign Secretary spoke directly to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 15 April and directly raised concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the urgent need to restore the flow of aid. We are obviously appalled by recent attacks on aid workers, including that on the UNOPS guesthouse on 19 March, and the killing of rescue workers and paramedics, including at least eight Palestine Red Crescent medics, on 23 March. Our thoughts are very much with the victims and their families.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am going to try to respond to all the comments; I will then, perhaps, take some interventions.

We expect those responsible for the killing to be held to account, and we expect that to be done transparently. The Foreign Secretary has pressed Foreign Minister Sa’ar to conclude the Military Advocate General’s consideration of the World Central Kitchen incident, including determining whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east have met the families of those killed in the attacks and assured them that the Government will continue to support their calls for justice. On 28 March, the UK and France called an urgent UN Security Council meeting to discuss the risks facing humanitarian aid workers in Gaza. That work is substantial and it is going on at many levels. We have also called for the Palestine Red Crescent Society incident to be investigated fully at the Security Council on 5 April. On 21 March, an E3 Foreign Ministers’ statement made clear that the UN and its premises should be protected, and should never be a target.

Hon. Members asked about arms exports. We have been clear; Members will have heard the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the middle east speak about this on many occasions. We suspended certain licences to export to Israel for use in military operations in Gaza following a review that concluded that there is a clear risk that items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. On the wider situation, over the past few days the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the middle east met Prime Minister Mustafa and discussed the humanitarian situation in the west bank and in Gaza. We announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and that will be dedicated to humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian authority, governance and reform.

I was asked, on many occasions, about the support that we give specifically for the protection of aid workers. That includes support to the Aid Worker Security Database, core funding to UNOCHA and the International NGO Safety Organisation, and funding at the country level in many contexts. For example, in Ukraine we support the Humanitarian Action through Volunteers, Enablers and Networks consortium to provide a duty of care package. We also provide funding to the ICRC and UN-managed country-based pooled funds, and we are keeping all our ODA priorities under review. I can assure hon. Members that humanitarian response remains absolutely crucial to what we are doing, particularly in the contexts that have been mentioned most today: Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. There are many other contexts but those three in particular have been highlighted by the Prime Minister.

The shadow Minister asked about disinformation. We are absolutely aware of that challenge. We worked at the UN on resolution 2730, which condemns disinformation targeting aid workers, and we are working on a number of programmes in that regard. She asked about the aid workers in Ukraine and I have mentioned the HAVEN programme. We are also providing personal protective equipment, individual first aid kits and so on through that scheme. That is crucial.

We constantly take work through the UN. We called for a series of measures in the circumstances that I identified and we also co-chaired a UN event demanding the release of aid workers detained by the Houthis in Yemen. We support a new political declaration by Australia to strengthen global commitments to protect aid workers, which will complement UN Security Council resolution 2730. We respond to direct incidents at the highest levels—I have identified some of those in relation to Sudan—and, of course, we condemned the reported attacks on aid workers and pressed for investigations. We recently hosted the London Sudan conference alongside the African Union, the EU, Germany and France to galvanise co-ordinated action. We must use our momentum to keep applying pressure to all the parties there to comply with their obligations.

We are also working very closely with organisations working to support female aid workers who face particular issues with restrictions, threats and sexual violence. The UK invests in safeguarding and directly supports women’s rights organisations to help mitigate those risks. My ministerial colleagues and I try to take account of all of the specific and granular risks that workers face, but it is about more than just those specific circumstances. It is about a wider commitment by the United Kingdom to the protection of aid workers and to humanitarian principles. I can assure Members that we will continue to uphold those principles and stand up for them in the work that we do.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions today, which have been passionate and sincere. I have heard what has been said and I will certainly communicate that to ministerial colleagues. I once again thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for sponsoring the debate in the first place.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the talks held yesterday in London on the war in Ukraine.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and for the Opposition’s continued support for the united position that we take in our iron-clad support for Ukraine. We remain fully committed to working with Ukraine and our international partners to secure a just and lasting peace.

Our support for Ukraine is iron-clad. Representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States convened in London yesterday, with Ukraine, for another round of intensive talks, following up on the meeting in Paris last week. All parties reiterated their strong support for President Trump’s commitment to stopping the killing and achieving a just and lasting peace. The talks were productive and successful, and significant progress was made on reaching a common position on next steps. All agreed to continue their close co-ordination and look forward to further talks soon. There was an E3 statement on this just last night. The Foreign Secretary had bilateral discussions with Foreign Minister Sybiha, and he remains in close contact with his ministerial counterparts. To give further details of the discussions would only benefit Putin, as I hope the right hon. Lady understands.

We condemn Russia’s brutal missile and drone attacks on civilians, including overnight. Our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones at this tragic time. They were absolutely horrific scenes, and they came on the back of shocking scenes not only in Kyiv but in Kryvyi Rih, Sumy, Marhanets and many other locations across Ukraine in recent days. I remind the House that, while Ukraine has been in peace talks, Russia has continued these severe attacks, including last night. That is a stark reminder of the continued bloodshed and aggression perpetrated by Putin. I witnessed myself the terrible situation in Kyiv when I visited just weeks ago; there were attacks on Bucha of all places just hours before I arrived. Indeed, this is about not just the killings but the continued shocking abductions of children and attempts to wipe out Ukrainian culture. Putin’s demands remain undiminished. We are very clear about that.

President Zelensky has shown his commitment to peace. President Putin must now agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions, as Ukraine has done. We will not stop in our efforts to work with all parties to that end.

[Priti Patel]

For all the talks taking place, it is concerning that a clear and unified front in support of Ukraine, to support a peace on its terms, has yet to emerge. The Minister mentioned the E3 statement on yesterday’s talks, but it consisted of three sentences stating that the talks were productive and successful, and that significant progress was made in reaching a common position on the next steps. Will he tell us exactly what was productive and successful about the talks, what those next steps are, and whether Ukraine is in agreement? Were security guarantees for Ukraine discussed, and was progress made on agreeing what they will be? Was the UK’s long-standing position of supporting Ukraine’s accession to NATO discussed?

Following the abhorrent missile strike in Kyiv last night, which killed more innocent civilians, does the Minister believe that Putin is committed to a just and fair end to this conflict? Can the Minister confirm whether the status of Crimea and other Ukrainian territories invaded and occupied unlawfully by Russia was discussed and what the UK Government’s position is? The UK was the strongest advocate for Ukraine regaining all the territory taken by force by Putin and for Putin to lose this war. Is that still the case?

There is much debate about the initiatives to end the war by negotiations, but we cannot forget that this war was started by Putin—a murderous, vile autocrat who is being propped up by an axis of authoritarian states trying to extinguish democracy on our continent, and by those who are opposed to our values, including China, North Korea and Iran. We need the Government to leverage British influence in every way possible for Ukraine. Our Ukrainian friends are on the frontline, battling an attempt to reshape the whole international order by force.

I condemn the sanctioning of 15 Members yesterday by Russia. To those colleagues, I say this: it shows that you are on the right side of history and that we must always stand up to tyranny. UK sanctions on Russia must stay in place. What is the Government’s position on applying secondary sanctions, and when will the billions of pounds of proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC be made available for Ukraine?

Can the Minister explain why the Government’s £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned assets, is being paid over three years rather than in full now? Finally, what more can the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office do to mobilise British technology, which could be cheaply and quickly applied to adapt Ukraine’s military efforts?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and for her continued support and unity on these issues. It is crucial that we send a signal not only to our friends in Ukraine but to Putin—that this House will not be divided on these issues. We are united in our support for Ukraine, and I can reassure her of our absolute commitment to Ukraine. Indeed, there has been extensive ministerial contact over recent weeks. I met Minister Sybiha in Turkey a week or so ago, and the Foreign Secretary was with him yesterday. Contact remains at every level.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of specific questions. I am afraid that I cannot go into the detail of yesterday’s discussions, for reasons that she will understand. I know she has a job to do in holding us to account on that, but it is really important that we allow those technical talks to go on at that level between the principals, and she will understand why that is necessary.

I agree completely with the right hon. Lady’s point about the sanctions against Members of this House, which I utterly condemn. This is par for the course when it comes to Putin and his regime. She asked what we are doing on sanctions. Our commitment to sanctions remains undiminished. We will maintain the pressure at every level. In fact, we are ramping up the pressure, and today we have announced new sanctions, including on the shocking repurposing of games console controllers to kill Ukrainians by Russia. We are taking robust action at every step we can, not only directly, to choke off the Russian war machine, but in relation to second and third-country circumvention of those sanctions. She can be assured that I have spent a lot of time on this issue in recent weeks.

The right hon. Lady asks about the situation with Chelsea FC, and I refer her to my previous comments on that. We are working at pace to meet the agreements that were made on that. She points out the importance of the extraordinary revenue accelerator loan. The first tranche of that has been disbursed. In fact, I discussed this with the deputy Finance Minister of Ukraine just a few weeks ago, to ensure that they had access to those resources. They do have access, and I am happy to write to her separately about the details of the further tranches that will be paid.

There is absolutely no softening of our commitment to the coalition of the willing. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary met French, US, German and Ukrainian counterparts last week, underlining our shared commitments, and we are leading a coalition of willing nations to defend Ukraine’s security. We will not get into the operational details, for obvious reasons, as the Defence Secretary made clear earlier this week.

The right hon. Lady asks about Crimea. The UK’s position regarding Ukrainian sovereignty is well known and has not changed: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As one of the individuals who was sanctioned yesterday by the Kremlin, I ask the Minister whether he agrees that if Putin is serious about securing any sort of lasting peace in Ukraine, he should stop the performative sanctioning of democratically elected Members of this House and focus on stopping the murderous, barbaric killing of civilians in Ukraine and the invasion of that nation, which we stand with in full support.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I utterly condemn the sanctioning of Members of this House, including my hon. Friend. I am on that list too, as are many other Members, and it is completely unacceptable; we are clear on that. My hon. Friend rightly points out examples of Russia’s actions in recent days—the horrific attacks, the deaths, the killing, the continued aggression—and of course Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Overnight, Russia launched 11 ballistic missiles and nearly 200 cruise missiles and drones at civilian targets in Kyiv. Yesterday’s talks in London should have been an opportunity to strengthen the western coalition’s support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s barbarism. Instead, they were derailed by President Trump, who, in a petulant response to President Zelensky’s refusal to countenance the recognition of Crimea as Russian, withdrew his Secretary of State and special adviser from the meeting. President Trump demonstrated that he is not interested in securing a just peace that can deter future Russian aggression and protect Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Instead, he is intent on securing a carve-up of Ukraine with Putin, as long as it is agreed before the 100th day of his presidency. Will the Minister make clear to his US counterpart that the apparent ultimatum shared with President Zelensky last week, which would deliver to Putin most of the goals of his illegal invasion, is utterly wrong and would only embolden future Russian aggression? I too yesterday found myself on a list of MPs from across the House who are being sanctioned by the Kremlin. Will the Government outline how they plan to support Members who are being targeted for speaking out?

[Stephen Doughty]

While I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s party’s continued support for a united front on Ukraine, I do not recognise his characterisation of the talks yesterday, which were productive and constructive, and involved the United States. The Foreign Secretary also spoke to Secretary of State Rubio just the night before, and we are in regular contact with our US counterparts. Secretary of State Rubio welcomed the fact that we were hosting special envoy Kellogg alongside others. Of course, the Prime Minister has been in contact with President Trump in recent days, and the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with his counterpart.

We share the President’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Of course Russia could do that tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion. We are working with all our allies, including the United States, on a plan to stop the fighting. We obviously need agreement among all of us on that—European allies, the United States and others—and we are working closely with President Trump on that, but we are also clear that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any talks. We warmly welcome the agreements and discussions between the United States and Ukraine, but ultimately the ball is in President Putin’s court. He continues instead to fire missiles and cause the destruction and killing that the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted. It is utterly horrific. The responsibility lies with one person, and that is Vladimir Putin.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the appalling attacks on Ukraine last night, and I thank him for his statement today. Will he update the House on the support the Government are offering to Ukrainian communities across the UK at this very difficult time, such as the large Ukrainian community in Reading?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support, and he rightly references Ukrainian communities across the United Kingdom. I have met the Ukrainian community in my constituency, and just this week I met Ukrainian community members to discuss a range of issues, including the horrific abduction of children, which Russia has continued to perpetrate, one of the most shocking and heinous aspects of this conflict. I am really proud of what British communities have done across the country to support Ukrainians, and the strong ties that have been built. It is fantastic that we have signed a 100-year partnership, so that for 100 years into the future, we have that relationship and give that iron-clad support on every level—economically, diplomatically, militarily, and of course through crucial people-to-people links.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Our international relationships the world over are dependent on partner countries’ confidence that we will stick by our word, and that our allies will do likewise. Will the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), convey that message to the United States of America? The world—friends and foes alike—is looking at our willingness to stick by the commitments that we have made to Ukraine. If we renege on those commitments, every single relationship around the world will be undermined.

[Stephen Doughty]

Well, I am not my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—I represent Cardiff South and Penarth—but I thank the former Foreign Secretary for his comments, his continued support, and his engagement with me on these important issues when I was in opposition. The Government and I have been absolutely clear: our support is iron-clad, not only now, but for 100 years into the future. I was able to convey our support and our unity on this issue to a bipartisan delegation from the US House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. It was an excellent and productive discussion. There is strong unity on these issues. We need to continue to work together, across Europe and in our transatlantic and global alliances, to deter and defend against the threat from Russia, as well as other threats that we face together.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I was also one of the Members on the list of people sanctioned by the Kremlin yesterday. I want to make it clear in this House that if Vladimir Putin thinks that sanctioning me will silence me, he is very, very wrong. It is no coincidence that the sanction came on the day when I launched a report that I co-authored with UK Friends of Ukraine on the issue of the stolen children. The report outlines in detail the systemic capture, re-education and conscription of Ukrainian children by Russia. Will my hon. Friend outline whether the issue of the stolen children was discussed yesterday? Does he support the campaign to return the stolen children? Will he join me in calling for a UK national day of action to recognise the issue of the stolen children of Ukraine on 17 July, the Day of International Criminal Justice?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful points, and I condemn the sanction against her. She is right to raise the issue of the stolen children. I discussed the matter a short while ago with the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister and representatives of the different campaigns on the issue. This is a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary and me. It is one of the most heinous and horrific aspects of the conflict, not only for those children and their families, but because it speaks to a wider attempt by Putin to subjugate the people, identity, culture, language and future of Ukraine. That should be clear for all to see. One of the most powerful reminders of that is a picture that I have in my office painted by one of the children, who was thankfully returned, but sadly there are still far too many children who have been taken by Russia. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on this important issue, and I am very happy to discuss the event that she suggested.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If the Government could persuade the Nobel peace prize committee to give the award to Donald Trump on condition that he stops siding with the aggressor against the victim, does the Minister think that American policy might revert to one of NATO deterrence, which prevented world war three for half a century after the end of world war two?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman, who I know well, will know that that is a matter for the Nobel committee, and not for me. I do not recognise his characterisation. We are working closely with the United States, Ukraine and all of our European partners to secure a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We are very clear about who is on the side of peace—us—and who is on the side of war: Vladimir Putin.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Members across this House who have been sanctioned by Putin and his flunkies should wear that as a badge of honour. It indicates just how Putin and his flunkies feel about the prospect of Russian assets being seized. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets to strengthen the hand of our brave Ukrainian allies?

[Stephen Doughty]

I condemn the sanction against the hon. Lady, and against other colleagues in the House. We have been very clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing in Ukraine and the destruction that it has wrought on the Ukrainian people and industries. I saw some terrible examples of that when I visited just a few weeks ago. I have spoken about the importance of the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme and the moneys that are now available to Ukraine. The Government continue to work closely with allies on the issue that the hon. Lady references. I had extensive discussions with my G7 counterparts and others about considering all possible lawful avenues for making Russia pay for the damage it is causing, and we will update the House in due course.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for her statement, because it is important that this House speaks with one voice on this really important issue. On Tuesday, I asked a question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the changing nature of warfare. The Minister raised the terrible image of controllers for computer game systems being used as weapons. Has he had conversations with NATO partners and allies about the changing nature of warfare, and will that be fed into the strategic defence review?

[Stephen Doughty]

We certainly have had those conversations, and we have them regularly. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The Minister for the Armed Forces is here with me; we regularly discuss these issues. I am sure all that will be considered as part of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend rightly points out the efforts we are making to deny Russia any of the nefarious means it uses to prosecute its horrendous war in Ukraine. We have taken very specific action on some of those matters today, and we will continue to consider further measures.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I welcome the words of the Minister, and the UK Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine, and for further promoting European security. Will he say a little more about how he is working across Government Departments to support the efforts of civil society and businesses in the UK to ensure that, at every level, we offer the greatest support possible to Ukrainians?

[Stephen Doughty]

I point my hon. Friend to the important 100-year partnership that we signed. Engagement at every level between civil society and people in every community is crucial. I know that there are very important twinning arrangements between cities and communities across the UK, and we look forward to strengthening those, and working with those communities. I met Ukrainian civil society organisations in Kyiv just a few weeks ago, and I regularly meet organisations here in the UK. If all of us across this House can create more links, that will give true strength for the future to the foundation on which that partnership is built.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The Minister’s confirmation that the coalition of the willing will not permit the concession of any Ukrainian sovereign territory to Russia is most welcome, but I am not sure that I understand how that squares with Mr Trump’s current negotiating position, which seems to be based entirely on that. Some 20,000 Ukrainian children have been stolen by the neo-Soviet Union and sovietised. That is a war crime. Did the meeting yesterday make it absolutely plain that no recognition of any concession based on war crimes will be admitted at any time?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. He has heard what I had to say about the abducted children, and I completely share his passion, and his horror at what has happened. I will not go into the details of what was discussed yesterday, but as I said, I spoke about this issue very recently with our Ukrainian counterparts, and I know that the Foreign Secretary takes a very keen interest in it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about territory. I will repeat what I said: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I was also one of the Members sanctioned by Putin yesterday for calling for this House to do everything we can to stop him. The lesson of a century ago is that dictators like Putin cannot and will not stop unless we stop them, and the only way to stop him is through strength—through strong armed forces, a strong NATO and a strong nation. How will we invest in our strength to stop Putin and keep ourselves safe?

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I condemn the sanction against my hon. Friend. He asks what we are doing to keep our citizens and all our allies safe, and to keep our shared security in place. Again, I am pleased to be joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces. This Government have stepped up resources for defence and security and UK support to Ukraine. We are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and have an ambition to reach 3%, and the UK is committed to providing Ukraine with £3 billion in military assistance this year and every year for as long as it takes. I mentioned the ERA loan, and we also have export finance support, £1.6 billion of which is going on supplying Ukraine with more than 5,000 air defence missiles. That is utterly crucial and makes a tangible difference, not least in the face of the barbaric attacks that we saw overnight.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I welcome fresh members to the list of those of us who have been sanctioned. Why is President Trump treating Ukraine as the aggressor? Will the Minister remind US negotiators that—together with the United Kingdom—the USA signed the Budapest memorandum, assuring Ukraine of its territorial integrity and independence, when that country sacrificed unilaterally its position as the world’s third largest nuclear-armed power?

[Stephen Doughty]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support on Ukraine, but again, I do not share his characterisation of the United States’ position. We share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end, and we are working closely with the US and other international partners to secure a just and lasting peace. As I have said, it is very clear to us that President Zelensky and Ukraine are demonstrating and have demonstrated a clear commitment to peace, including through their participation yesterday alongside the US and our European partners. We know who the real obstacle to peace is: Vladimir Putin.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, as other hon. Members have alluded to, last night’s brutal attack on Kyiv is a timely reminder to Governments and leaders around the world that Russia is and always has been the aggressor in this conflict? Does he agree that that perspective must be central to any talks, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said, we are absolutely unequivocal that Russia and Vladimir Putin are responsible for this war, and we are absolutely clear that they are responsible for the ongoing killing and aggression. That is why we stand four-square and iron-clad behind Ukraine, and we are working with the United States and our European allies to achieve a peace that is just and—most importantly—lasting. We know that Putin’s demands and intentions remain undiminished, and we need to ensure that Ukraine has the ability not only to defend itself, but to deter future aggression by Putin.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

This weekend, I will join with the Ukrainian community in Torbay to mourn the sad loss of a Ukrainian national who has died far from home. Almost 20,000 children have been stolen by the barbaric Putin regime; can the Minister advise the Chamber on what practical steps the Government are taking to get those children home?

[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.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The assistance that we have provided to our friends in Ukraine has included firefighting equipment, along with training on the use of that equipment. The devastation that took place overnight demonstrates that that assistance is still inadequate, so will the Minister undertake to review with the fire service Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), what extra provision we can provide? If we cannot provide anything, will he reach out to our international partners to encourage them to supply equipment, so that the fires can be brought under control and people’s lives saved?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises an important issue, and I know the huge support that has gone in. Indeed, I worked with colleagues on some of that in the previous Parliament. One of my friends in Ukraine was called up as a military firefighter in responding to some of those attacks on the cities. The need is huge, and we have been giving a huge amount of support on reconstruction, energy infrastructure and other issues. I am happy to look at the issues he raises and to see whether there is more we can do in that regard.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Pope Francis described pride as the most devious of sins, but I wonder if we can be granted a little bit of indulgence and the Minister can take some pride in colleagues from across the House joining the fine group of those who have been sanctioned by Russia. However, those who are doing the hard yards are in Ukraine. Can the Minister assure us that he believes that the United States still believes in Ukraine’s territorial integrity, for which those brave Ukrainians are fighting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been clear that we are working closely with President Trump and the United States, our European partners and others. I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made just a short while ago in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary. We are clear that Ukraine must be at the heart of these negotiations. That is why we are working closely with the United States, with our European partners and, crucially, with Ukraine. That was exactly what was happening in the technical talks yesterday here in London.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On Tuesday, I asked the Defence Secretary what our red lines would be at yesterday’s peace talks regarding any peace proposal from the US that required Ukraine to cede any of its sovereign territory to Russia. I did not receive an answer. Yesterday, US Vice-President J.D. Vance told reporters:

“Now, of course, that means the Ukrainians and the Russians are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own.”

Can the Minister now state that the Government will not support any US proposal that sees Russia make territorial gains at the expense of Ukraine upon any permanent cessation of hostilities?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will understand that, like the Defence Secretary, I will not be drawn on the detail of the discussions yesterday. The only person that that would benefit is Vladimir Putin. We have been clear that we share the United States’ desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Ultimately, though, it is for Ukraine to decide its future. Our position on that has not changed, and that is why we are working closely with Ukraine, our international partners and others to end the bloodshed and suffering caused by Russia. We are clear on who the aggressor is in this situation. We will continue to stand iron-clad with Ukraine.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I have nothing new to say about this, but since I was one of those included yesterday in the list of those who were no longer welcome in the Kremlin—not that I had thought I ever would be—I feel compelled to place on record that my determination to oppose and expose the brutality and illegality of Vladimir Putin and his Government is greater today than it was yesterday. Can the Minister do what he can to make sure that our resolve in this House is heard in the Kremlin and also, if necessary, in the White House?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am absolutely sure that the voices in this House are heard across the world. I have no doubt that the Kremlin is watching what is being said. Again, I condemn the sanction against the right hon. Member and other Members across the House. This terrible aggression by Russia and by Putin has often had the exact opposite effect of what he intended; it has strengthened NATO unity, and we have new members of NATO, increased defence spending, increased resolve, increased unity, and increased willingness to stand with Ukraine not just now but 100 years into the future. That is the message that we continue to send from this House and that we continue to send from our allies. It is the message that we must continue to send.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

At the London talks, did the Government have the opportunity to discuss with allies the deployment of 155 members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in support of Russia against Ukraine?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not going to get into the detail of the talks yesterday, but I will make it clear to the hon. Member that we are acting robustly against third-country support for Russia’s illegal war, including through our sanctions. We did so in relation to a series of matters, including the support of military industrial companies and others. The Foreign Secretary raised concerns with his Chinese counterpart on China’s supply of equipment to Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s relationship with Russia. We engage very closely on third-country support, in whatever form that takes, and we are not afraid to take action where that is necessary.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

I welcome the UK Government’s recent commitment to strengthening their energy partnership with Ukraine, which is crucial for Europe’s energy independence. I recently visited Urenco’s Capenhurst site, where an advanced nuclear fuels facility is being developed—a market that is currently dominated by Russia. Could the Minister outline how the UK Government are advancing this technology and what it means for the UK’s energy partnership with Ukraine?

[Stephen Doughty]

Diolch yn fawr; I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in these issues and her support. We have been doing a huge amount with Ukraine to support its energy sector against the terrible attacks that have been taking place, but we have also been working on how we might co-operate together on energy in the future. That is a crucial question for all of us across Europe. I continually raise with European and other counterparts the issue of removing the dependency on supplies from Russia and elsewhere. We need to look at new partnerships and ways forward in which we can support all our energy needs—whether that is through renewables, through nuclear or in other ways. This is an important issue, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Can the Minister update the House on whether yesterday’s meeting involved discussion of any potential future co-operation between the US and Russia on energy? If it did, did he impart to his US counterparts that such an arrangement would be a folly?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said before, I will not get into the detail of talks and discussions. We are very clear on our position, which is that we need to support and stand with Ukraine. We are having productive and constructive talks. Those continued yesterday with the United States, European allies and others, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) a moment ago.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

How can the Minister describe yesterday’s talks as productive if the United States continues to make unreasonable demands of Ukraine that the United Kingdom does not support?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can describe those talks as productive and constructive because they were.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is being reported today that the White House is considering lifting its sanctions on the Russian Nord Stream natural gas pipeline —more evidence, in case it was needed, that this US Administration are increasingly siding with Russia. This is hugely concerning, as I am sure the whole Chamber agrees. May I please urge the Minister and the Department to use whatever leverage they have with the US Administration to prevent that from happening? If it does go ahead, what will the Government’s next steps be?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady asks an important question about sanctions. The Prime Minister has been very clear that sanctions against Russia are a vital part of our armoury, and the UK is committed to maintaining our Russia sanctions—we are not considering lifting them. As the PM said in Paris, in order to get Russia to the table, we need to keep up the economic pressure to hinder its ability to wage war, and we need to deal with all the ways in which the war is being fuelled and supplied. The purposes of our sanctions are very clear: to stop Russia threatening and undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence; to help ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused; and to make sure that Ukraine is placed in the best possible position to secure a just and lasting peace. We will continue to work with the United States and all our allies on those important issues.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Further to the last question, there is rightly concern that Russia continues to bypass sanctions through its shadow fleet. What measures are the Government taking alongside our allies to prevent that?

[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.

Persecution of Christians

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Butler, for your first time in the role. I am particularly grateful to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), for securing this debate and for highlighting many shocking examples of the persecution of Christians around the world.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), our new UK special envoy for freedom of religion and belief. I welcome his appointment and commend his efforts. I look forward to engaging with him over the coming months to discuss his work so far and what the Government can do to support it.

As Proverbs 31:8-9 reminds us, we must

“speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves”.

That has been the tone of many of the contributions today, with Members representing the stories and the lived reality for many persecuted Christians around the world in diverse, difficult and extremely dangerous—often life-threatening—contexts. I am glad that we have heard such passionate contributions, despite the fact that they represent some extremely horrific situations.

I declare an interest as a Christian, who has also worked with Open Doors and other related organisations in the past to highlight these cases. I am conscious of the example of my namesake, Stephen, which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) reflected on. Indeed, the name of this place in Welsh is San Steffan, not Westminster, which is a reminder to me when I walk in through the entrance to this place. I remember asking my mum as a young child why I was called Stephen and what was the story, and reading about the horrific persecution and death that St Stephen endured.

I am also privileged to represent Cardiff South and Penarth, a constituency rich in religious diversity and tolerance. Its Christian communities encompass Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Nigerian Pentecostal—every kind of church and chapel—which represents its diversity and wonder. Those churches also sit alongside mosques, temples, gurdwaras and synagogues, and those who have no belief. That makes my community beautiful and rich, but sadly that is not the experience in many parts of the world, as we have heard.

The statistics bear repeating: 380 million Christians face high levels of persecution and discrimination, which is one in seven believers. Nearly 4,500 were murdered for their faith last year, and over 200,000 were forced into hiding or exile, each with their own terrible story to tell. For many in parts of Africa, the middle east and south and east Asia, persecution, harassment and discrimination is part of daily life. Of course, that is the reality for many people of many different beliefs and in minority communities, but we have heard about Christians specifically today.

Through the course of my own duties and my personal life, I have met many courageous Christians who have suffered for their faith. Indeed, I reflect on the visit that I undertook just a few weeks ago to Ukraine, where I met a priest in Bucha who had worn civilian clothes during the Russian invasion after a fellow priest was killed. He showed me some absolutely brutal and shocking atrocities that had been carried out by the Russians. He had to bury members of his congregation. Indeed, he helped to dig their graves.

On a personal trip to Jerusalem a few years ago, I visited St George’s cathedral, where I heard of the abuse that Christians face from extremists, even in that holy city, including being spat on and persecuted. Many other examples of suffering have been raised today, and while I will not be able to cover all of them I will attempt to address some of the key points.

First, let me say that the UK remains strongly committed to freedom of religion or belief. No one should live in fear because of what they do or do not believe in. That is why we are championing freedom, tolerance and mutual respect through our work on the international stage, our bilateral work, and our programme funding. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland has been busy with international engagements and outreach since his appointment. Alongside his efforts, we are using our extensive diplomatic network across the world, and dedicated FCDO staff, to champion freedom of religion or belief and to challenge the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities.

I pay tribute to the work of organisations like Open Doors; its crucial world watchlist shines a light on Christian suffering around the world. To the many brave human rights defenders drawing Government attention to these vital issues at huge personal risk, I say that we stand with you. Members have referred to many of the recommendations in the Truro report. We welcome the report and its recommendations, which we are considering carefully.

A number of Members have raised the very difficult decision taken by the Prime Minister, with conflicts overseas undermining our security and prosperity at home, to cut our ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3%. The Prime Minister and myself have been clear on many occasions that this was not an announcement that we were happy to make. We will of course do everything we can to move towards rebuilding our capacity. Our commitment to freedom of religion or belief and to tackling the persecution of Christians and other minorities will not waiver. I have noted the various points that have been made about specific countries and programmes —the envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, will have heard those too.

I highlight the important work that we do in our programme funding, including through the John Bunyan fund, which enables us to target funding through our posts and centrally to support our objectives on freedom of religion or belief. We also build awareness of relevant issues among our staff and our platforms through seminars and training. We hosted a seminar last summer for religious engagement on foreign policy. We mark and use the important international dates and campaigns, such as Red Wednesday, to reinforce our commitment to promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief.

We also continue to work at the international and multilateral level. That includes our work through the United Nations, where we regularly engage and participate in interactive dialogues with the special rapporteur. Last month our special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, was in Geneva to do that in a session on the intersection between freedom of religion or belief and torture. We have participated in different dialogues in New York, and we also co-sponsor side events at the Human Rights Council.

We regularly raise freedom of religion or belief during the universal periodic review process, which has been mentioned a number of times. In November, we specifically made statements on Bhutan, Nicaragua and Qatar. In the case of Nicaragua, we noted our increasing alarm at the deteriorating human rights situation, including the closure of Church-affiliated organisations, and the harassment and arbitrary detention of members of the Church.

I will give some other examples of the work that we have been doing, because this is very much at the heart of the efforts that the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have been engaged in. Last December, the Foreign Secretary wrote to Pastor Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo, imprisoned in Cuba, to express his solidarity and calling for his release. We were delighted when he was released in January. Freedom of religion or belief is also crucial to our work in Pakistan. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), visited in November to promote that work during meetings with Government Ministers, business and religious leaders.

Members have raised a number of countries. Many right hon. and hon. Members raised the situation in Nigeria. I reassure colleagues that we regularly raise freedom of religion or belief with the Nigerian Government. Of course, the drivers of intercommunal violence are complex, and through our security and defence partnership we engage with our key stakeholders to address that. We regularly raise freedom of religion or belief with the Nigerian Government, including during their periodic review in January 2024. We condemn all instances of intercommunal violence. We raise concerns at the United Nations Security Council. Through our £38 million Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria programme, we are attempting to address the root causes of conflict in the middle belt of the country and beyond. That partnership builds the capacity of Nigeria’s security forces to tackle violence against civilian communities, including those of different religious backgrounds and beliefs.

Many colleagues mentioned Syria. We have made it absolutely clear that the Government who are forming there must ensure the protection of all civilians, set out a clear path to transitional justice and make progress towards an inclusive society, which must include the protection of diverse religious minorities and communities in the country. Let me also be clear that we will judge them by their actions. I am the Minister with responsibility for sanctions and we are closely monitoring the situation there.

China, of course, was mentioned by many. Let me be clear that the United Kingdom Government stand firm on human rights in China, including on the repression of minorities. We raise our concerns at the highest levels. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary have all raised human rights recently with their counterparts in China.

In Iraq, our specific freedom of religion and belief objectives are absolutely threaded through the programme work of the British embassy in Baghdad and the British consulate-general in Erbil. In Algeria, the British embassy in Algiers has raised freedom of religious belief with the Algerian authorities on a number of occasions, and did so again recently. On 10 February, our ambassador met the Minister of religious affairs and we will continue to raise concerns, including in relation to Kabyle and the operation of the Protestant Church of Algeria.

On Libya, last year we co-sponsored a human rights resolution at the Human Rights Council relating to these issues. Of course, the Holy Land itself was regularly referred to in the debate; I referred to it myself in my own opening remarks. Respect for freedom of religion and belief, and the promotion of inter-religious dialogue, play an absolutely important role in securing a sustainable peace. Our consulate-general in Jerusalem regularly meets and discusses issues with the Christian community in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including with the patriarchs and the heads of churches in Jerusalem.

We continue to press for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to collaborate with the international community and to take steps towards implementing its human rights obligations. Obviously, the situation there is hugely concerning, not only for Christians but for so many other people. Christians are categorised there as a “hostile” class, according to the special rapporteur on the DPRK.

We continually raise human rights concerns with the Eritrean Government. Indeed, the UK special envoy for the horn of Africa and the Red sea raised human rights during her visit to Eritrea in June last year, and we continue to work on that issue closely.

Obviously, the situation in Sudan is absolutely horrific. That is why it has been so key in the Foreign Secretary’s efforts, and indeed in our commitments on ODA and in our work at the United Nations Security Council.

Of course, Iran was also mentioned, and we are absolutely committed to holding it to account for its restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, including at the UN’s third committee in October.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s absolute commitment on these issues, and the importance of them to me personally as a Minister, and indeed to the Foreign Secretary. I will continue to do important work with our special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland, and with organisations such as Open Doors. I very much welcome the different examples that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members today. It is very important that these voices are heard, and that the situations are exposed. Members can be absolutely assured of our commitment to work with them in tackling persecution against Christians, and indeed in tackling persecution against anyone on the basis of their religion or their non-belief around the world. That is the right thing for this country to do and we will continue to do it.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the negotiations surrounding the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. As we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. We are now working with Mauritius to finalise the agreement, and although it is in everybody’s interest to progress the deal quickly, we have never put an exact date on it, and we do not intend to do so now. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable the implementation of the treaty, and Parliament will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in the usual way before ratification.

I repeat that the Government inherited a situation in which the long-term future of the military base was under threat. This deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. It will protect the base on Diego Garcia, and cement the UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly disappointing that, only a day after Foreign Office oral questions, Ministers have had to be hauled back to the House to explain what is going on. Yesterday at lunch time, Downing Street briefed that the agreement between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK would give away the Chagos islands and pay for the privilege, has been finalised. That was not said in this House yesterday. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has also issued a public statement confirming that. Despite being interrogated on this botched deal in the Chamber yesterday, Ministers gave no indication of this very significant development.

We are still completely in the dark about fundamental questions of enormous importance. How many billions of pounds of hard-pressed British taxpayers’ money will we be expected to fork out to lease back territory that we already own? This comes as vulnerable pensioners are having their winter fuel payments ripped away, and family farms and businesses are being punished with new taxes by this Labour Government. What safeguards will be in place to protect the military base on Diego Garcia from other states that may try to establish a foothold on the archipelago? Ministers have so far refused to publish even a map of the buffer zone. What happens to the vital military base on Diego Garcia at the end of the treaty, and what kind of sovereign rights, if any, will we be able to exercise over Diego Garcia in the meantime?

The Prime Minister of Mauritius says that he forced changes to the arrangements on the exercise of sovereign rights and the lease extension. Will the Minister finally confirm that the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct? He cannot simply stand here and avoid these questions. The House does deserve answers; so do the British public—the taxpayers. Put simply, the British Indian Ocean Territory should remain British, but Labour has prioritised appeasing the whims of left-wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interests. It is high time this deal was ditched.

Finally, there have been reports of implied military threats to the Chagos islands, a British sovereign territory—Labour Members may laugh, but this issue is fundamental to the security of our country—from the regime in Tehran. The Iranian regime has threatened this space. These purported military threats are important. We understand that, in response to such reports, there has been an unusual build-up of American bomber aircraft and equipment-carrying aircraft at the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This is very serious, and we clearly need to take these threats seriously. We would welcome clarity about the Foreign Office’s diplomatic response on this issue.

[Stephen Doughty]

On parliamentary accountability for this issue, I have answered no fewer than five urgent questions on the subject in the last six months, and I have answered 130 written questions from her and her colleagues. We discussed this twice at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions yesterday. As I have repeatedly said, when the details of the treaty are finalised, it will be presented to this House, and there will be full scrutiny in the usual way. I have explained that a Bill will be brought in to put into force the important aspects of the treaty that require legislative change, and there will of course be full debates, as there should be, in this House.

I simply reject the basis of much of the right hon. Lady’s question. As I have said repeatedly, if there was not a problem, why did the Government of whom she was a part start negotiations, and go through 11 rounds of them? There is a significant challenge, and this deal is paramount for our national security. We will not scrimp on our security, and it is important that the deal is put in place, as has been recognised by all the parties.

We will only agree a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security. Importantly, the right hon. Lady asked about the security provisions to protect the base. These will include full UK control over Diego Garcia, including control of the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and use of the base, as well as a buffer zone around Diego Garcia in which nothing can be built or put in place without our consent. There will be a robust mechanism and review process to ensure that no activity on the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Indeed, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces, either civilian or military, on the outer islands. As the Prime Minister has said, the full details will of course be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament, and that will include costs. We will not scrimp on security.

The right hon. Lady asked an important question in relation to Iran. She will understand that for operational reasons and as a matter of policy, we do not offer comment or information relating to foreign nations’ military aircraft movements or operations. The UK, in close co-operation with our allies in the United States, closely monitors the security environment in the Indian ocean region to identify and mitigate any potential threats to the base on Diego Garcia.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I share the Minister’s bafflement at the Opposition’s utter obsession with this issue. Can he confirm that under the agreement, the vital US-UK military base and its operations will be completely unaltered?

[Stephen Doughty]

I share my hon. Friend’s bafflement. With so many issues going on in the world, I do question the number of times this one has been raised. We have answered all the questions before. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal. It is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. Once signed, it will protect the base on Diego Garcia, which was under threat, and cement the presence of the UK and the US in the Indo-Pacific.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Following yesterday’s intervention by President Trump, it appears that the White House has the final say on the future of sovereign British territory. Meanwhile, the Chagossians continue to be ignored. The process of securing the deal has been shambolic. Chagossians have been denied their right to a say, and it is shameful how they have been treated. Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to ensure that the Chagossians are finally included in discussions at this eleventh hour of the negotiations?

Hard-working families around the country will rightly be questioning why the Government seem to be willing, reportedly, to negotiate such significant payments to Mauritius at a time when winter fuel payments have been scrapped.

The confected consternation of the Conservatives is also bemusing, given that it was their Foreign Secretary who first signalled the UK’s intention to secure an agreement. As the Minister confirmed, the treaty must come before the House for scrutiny, especially given its importance to our national security. Can he confirm when that will happen and that this House will have a vote on any final deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

It was absolutely right, as I have said on many occasions, that the new United States Administration had a chance to consider the agreement. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal—we heard the comments that have been made—and that is because it will fundamentally protect UK and US security interests. I remind the hon. Lady that we have legal obligations with the United States in relation to the operation of the base and it was only right that it was consulted, with full engagement in the process.

The hon. Lady asks about the Chagossians. We deeply regret, as I have said many times, the way Chagossians were removed from the islands, but the negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. However, we have worked hard to ensure that the agreement reflects the importance of the islands to Chagossians. I have set out to the House a number of times the mechanisms and systems that will be in place to do that. It is really important to respect the many different views within the Chagossian community. There is not one settled view. For example, the Chagos Refugees Group, one of the largest Chagossian groups, has in fact welcomed the agreement.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the confirmation of the legal status of the base on Diego Garcia will strengthen our influence in the Asia-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter the influence of China?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely can. Our national security, and that of our allies, has been at the heart of the agreement. There was a significant problem. The former Government knew that, which is why they started negotiating. We have completed the deal, with the full involvement of the United States and with consideration of all the important measures, which I have set out on many occasions, to keep the base safe.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The Minister knows the regard I have for him, but when he says he has appeared at the Dispatch Box many times with this information, he knows that it has had nothing to do with giving us information—it means he was dragged here. The question I want to ask—the No. 1 question, which was not covered in the detail he set out today—is how much will taxpayers pay for this settlement, and out of which budget will it come? Can he guarantee that at no stage will it come from the defence budget increase?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said yesterday, a financial element over 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base—we will not scrimp on our security. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include the costs. The right hon. Gentleman asks where the budgets are coming from. The terms of the treaty and the associated funding arrangements are still being finalised. Financial obligations, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will, of course, be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it is vital the UK Government fulfil their obligations under international law? Does he recognise that the January 2021 binding judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—[Interruption]—which was handed down under the Conservative Government, found that the UK’s current administration of the archipelago

“constitutes a wrongful act…and…must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible”?

[Stephen Doughty]

There does appear to be some confusion about the different legal judgments among the Opposition, as I can hear from the chuntering. There are a number of ways in which the operation of the base was not sustainable. We are very clear that without a deal—as the previous Government recognised—we would face serious, real-world operational impacts on the base that would erode our ability to operate key frequencies vital for our own communications and to counter hostile states, affecting everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors, with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility. We were not willing to take that risk, and have therefore secured this base for our security and that of our allies.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The United States is busy increasing its presence on Diego Garcia, most recently with its B-2 Spirit aircraft, probably facing towards Iran. Given that, how much will the Trump White House be contributing to the endowment that the Minister proposes we hand to Mauritius?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have set out on a number of occasions, and again today, when we present the treaty, we will present the costs and the arrangements, and the House will have the chance to scrutinise them. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of this deal, which is because it is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect our security and that of the United States, and our presence in the Indo-Pacific. As I said before, I am not going to get into operational discussions about matters at the base in relation to the presence of aircraft.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister and his team for their tireless efforts to secure the future of this vital base, which is exactly the right thing to do. Will he assure me that no less than the most robust of security provisions will be in place?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that fact; it has been at the core of the detail of this arrangement. We will retain full control over Diego Garcia and have robust provisions to keep adversaries out, including unrestricted access to and use of the base for the United Kingdom and the United States, the buffer zone I mentioned, the comprehensive mechanism to prevent activity on the other islands threatening the base operations, and a ban on the presence of foreign security forces.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

In all inhabited British overseas territories, British sovereignty flows, in my opinion, from the self-determination of the islanders and residents, and that is exactly the same with the British Indian Ocean Territory. Even though the population is displaced, British sovereignty flows from Chagossians and their right to self-determination. I ask the Minister again what efforts he has made to engage with the widest possible constituency of Chagossians, and whether he will give them a veto over this deal if it is not acceptable to them.

[Stephen Doughty]

The islands are not permanently inhabited, and that is one of the fundamental issues in this situation. As I have said repeatedly, we are doing many things that will be supportive of the Chagossian community, including engaging with a number of different groups. There are a range of opinions, and I think it is important that we recognise that—there are, of course, some who support this deal. We continue to put the interests of the Chagossians at the heart of this agreement. Again, full details of that will be available in due course.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Yet again, the Opposition are attempting to sow division between the UK and its allies, and indeed to share our allies’ sensitive operational information. If they succeed, it will have impacts on our strategically vital relationships with the US and India. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should consider waiting until the treaty is ready for scrutiny, rather than damaging our vital national interests in this way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree—I think some of the speculation has been hugely unhelpful. We have been hugely grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States throughout the negotiations, and to the Administration for their extensive and detailed engagement, which has helped us to make progress on this deal. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this agreement has been welcomed by other important partners, including India. China has not welcomed it, of course, because it knows that the agreement will strengthen the presence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the region.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Today marks the 43rd anniversary of the start of the war in the Falklands—another key overseas territory. Government Members keep referring to the non-binding advisory judgment as the basis of the Chagos deal. If the Argentinians were to seek a similar judgment against the Falklands, would the Minister cede control?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to say, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, that such attempts to make a false comparison are extremely unhelpful, and would not be welcomed by the residents of the Falkland Islands. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that our support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands is absolute and iron-clad. I have made that clear on many occasions, as have the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Government as a whole.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm once again that any agreement that is made will return to this House for scrutiny?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend asks a very important question. As I have set out, there will be multiple opportunities for this House and the other place to consider this matter, not only through the normal Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process, but through the Bill that will be brought forward to make the necessary provisions under the treaty, which will go through the normal process. Full scrutiny will be afforded to Members of this House.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The President and Vice-President of the United States have made clear their detestation of countries freeloading on defence and security matters. We are not asking for the detail, we are not even asking for the quantum, but we do deserve to know in this House today whether the Government have asked the US to contribute to the base on Diego Garcia that is so vital to it—yes or no?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said on a number of occasions, we welcome the US endorsement of the deal and of its strength, and we are grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States. The full details will be provided when the treaty is presented to the House.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for their questions. Can the Minister confirm that this agreement will close potentially dangerous routes for irregular migration? Is that possibly one of the reasons the Conservatives opened and presided over 10 rounds of negotiations on it?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely confirm that. That is also why we agreed an important arrangement as an interim with St Helena, which I have spoken to the House about. That has absolutely been at the heart of it, but our primary objective has been to protect the national security of the United Kingdom, our ally the United States and our partners.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I want to go back to the questions from the right hon. Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and indeed the question I asked the Minister the last time this issue was raised in the House. The Minister is well aware that what we are talking about is primarily a US base. Surely he can at least tell the House today that conversations have been held with the US, and that it fully understands that a compensatory package will be made and that there is a question over who will primarily contribute to that package. Can he make that clear to the House today?

[Stephen Doughty]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago. We are absolutely clear that the United States recognises the strength of this deal. We have had excellent co-operation with the US throughout. The full details will be provided in due course.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Not only are the Government preparing to give away sovereign British territory, but they are preparing to pay for the privilege of doing so by handing over billions to Mauritius. The Minister cannot say where the money is coming from, but can he at least agree that that money would be better spent restoring the winter fuel payment to pensioners in need and relieving social care providers, hospices and charities from their national insurance increases here in the UK, rather than being handed over to Mauritius?

[Stephen Doughty]

Quite frankly, the hon. Member neglects to mention the shocking mess that his former Government left us to inherit. I have been clear in this House on many occasions that we will not scrimp when it comes to the national security of this country, whether that is in relation to Diego Garcia or investment in defence and our armed forces. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Defence Secretary have been setting out on our wider defence spending. What we are doing in this deal is protecting our national security and defence and that of our ally the United States.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The Minister will have heard the feelings of the House, so can he provide us with the specific guarantees that the Foreign Secretary has secured in relation to preventing hostile states such as China from increasing their influence in the Chagos islands while we as a nation are still paying for them?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member has asked an important question, and I have answered it a number of times. To reiterate, there will be robust security provisions in that regard. That is why China has not welcomed this deal. We will have full UK control with the United States over Diego Garcia. We will have a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, and we will have a robust mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Crucially, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, either civilian or military.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

What a disgrace this shabby Chagos deal is turning out to be. Labour are not just giving away our national security; they are going to pay billions to Mauritius for the pleasure. Instead of raising taxes on people and businesses in this country, why does the Minister not stand up for Britain and stop this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are standing up for Britain, by defending our security and that of our allies, and we will not scrimp on that. It is critical to secure the operation of this base. It is crucial to our interest and that of our allies. As I have asked many times, if there was no problem, why did the hon. Member’s former Government start negotiating over this?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

This is perhaps a question for the Minister for the Armed Forces, who I notice is also on the Front Bench. On the buffer zone, can the Minister state categorically that it will be sufficiently wide to protect all the capabilities on the base?

[Stephen Doughty]

Yes.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Surrendering sovereign territory based on a non-binding legal judgment and forking out taxpayer money for the privilege—what kind of deal is that? It is one done behind closed doors, evading the scrutiny of this House. Does the Minister agree that this deal is a prime example of what happens when we have a Government of lawyers, for lawyers, rather than a Government for the British people?

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply reject the premise of the hon. Member’s question. The Government inherited a situation where the effective operation of the base was under threat. Claims that we negotiated this deal simply because of the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion are wrong. That is not the only challenge that we faced, as the previous Government knew. Without a deal, Mauritius would have inevitably pursued a legally binding judgment, and there would be huge implications from that. Not having a deal would affect the real-world operational functionality of the base, which is so crucial to our national security and that of our allies.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Minister made reference to the UK having full control over Diego Garcia, but earlier this month I received this response from him:

“The right to operate and maintain the naval support facility Diego Garcia is held by the Government of the United States. This includes functions as are necessary for the development, use, maintenance, operation and security of the facility.”

Will he explain what control we would have over Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia in the event that US and UK defence priorities do not align, and at what level the control over the base lies?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member asks an important question. The US operates its naval support facility, and although I will not get into the operational details of that for obvious reasons, the full details will be provided. I can absolutely assure him that we will have control over Diego Garcia and will be working closely with the United States over it.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

As we come to the end of this urgent question, I am still no clearer on the substance of this disastrous deal, so the House must now make assumptions. Given that the Minister is sat next to the Minister for the Armed Forces, can we assume that this deal will be coming out from the Ministry of Defence?

[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.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

2. Whether any costs arising from the proposed treaty with Mauritius on the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands will be met by his Department.

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

The UK-Mauritius treaty, which enables the continued operation of the base on Diego Garcia, is still subject to finalisation and signature. Financial obligations arising from the agreement, including departmental budgetary responsibilities, will be managed responsibly within the Government’s fiscal framework, including through the upcoming spending review.

[Joe Robertson]

Oh dear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not the answer to the question that I asked. Perhaps the Minister has brought the wrong file with him. My question was very simple and it is one to which the British people deserve an answer. The Government are planning to give away sovereign British territory along with billions of pounds to Mauritius. The money was not referred to in the spring statement or in the Budget. Where is it coming from?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered questions on that matter a number of times in this House. This Government will not scrimp on security. The base on Diego Garcia will be secured for ourselves and our allies. Protecting the British people and our allies is our No. 1 priority, and full details will be provided in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Government have finally admitted to front-loading payments to Mauritius for their surrender deal, caving in to Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s demands since he took office in November. Yet they still refuse to disclose the amount or clarify which budgets will cover the lease, economic partnership and Chagossian trust fund. Why the secrecy? Will the Minister disclose the details now? Will he also confirm whether the statement from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct in saying that concessions have been made, including the loss of sovereign rights on Diego Garcia and of unilateral lease renewal provisions? When will this horrific deal finally come to Parliament, and what time will be provided to debate it? Or, better still, why does the Minister not dump the deal completely and keep Chagos British?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member neglects to remind the House that it was his Government who started negotiations on this matter, because they recognised that our national security interests and those of our allies were under threat. A financial element was crucial to protecting the operation of that crucial base. Once the treaty is signed, and after ratification in the usual way, it will be put before both Houses for scrutiny, and it will of course include costs. The Government will not scrimp on our security. Protecting the British people is our No. 1 priority.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

3. What steps he is taking with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide funding for urgent repairs to his Department’s overseas estates.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the UK’s contribution to the European Union Force Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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

The European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina is key to maintaining peace and security there. Although the UK does not contribute to the mission, we are committed to supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina through NATO and our bilateral defence co-operation, and we are open to exploring enhanced co-operation with the EU, including through operations and missions as we strengthen the UK-EU security and defence relationship, including in the western Balkans.

[James MacCleary]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that the Conservative Government previously withdrew from the EUFOR peacekeeping force—Operation Althea—in 2020, following their botched Brexit deal, letting our allies down. Will the Minister consider recommitting British troops to Operation Althea, as other third countries have, such as Turkey, to show our European allies that we want to work together and to demonstrate our continued focus on the region?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think the hon. Member heard what I said a moment ago. We regularly engage with EUFOR and the EU delegation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, I co-convened a call with Quint members and EU institutions on Friday with my French counterpart, and we are working closely on these very serious matters. We are also supporting security in Bosnia through our bilateral contributions, including our staff officers in the NATO HQ in Sarajevo.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of Israeli settlements in the west bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the value for money of official development assistance spending on in-donor refugee costs.

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

The Government are tackling the asylum backlog at record pace so that we can work towards ending the use of hotels and ensure that more of our ODA budget is spent on our development priorities globally. Detailed decisions on how the ODA budget will be allocated are being worked through as part of the ongoing spending review.

[Noah Law]

The British public increasingly feel that development aid has sadly lost its clarity of purpose. While I accept that there are multiple objectives behind aid, and that of course lifting the world’s poorest out of poverty has long been at the heart of the FCDO’s mission, a reset in the social contract around development aid is clearly needed. What consideration has the Minister given to shaping development policy that explicitly addresses the upstream determinants of mass migration?

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. Our development efforts, as the Foreign Secretary has said, have never just been about the aid budget. Peace and security, effective governance, access to private investment, remittance flows, efficient tax systems and access to trade opportunities are all essential foundations for development. That requires us to mobilise the full force of different resources and expertise across Government, our businesses and in universities, science and beyond.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that rather than being used to meet in-donor refugee costs, the official development assistance budget should prioritise tackling extreme poverty? It is now a year since the OECD development assistance committee’s mid-term review, which showed that the UK had only made good progress on two of the 10 recommendations since the 2020 peer review. What progress has the FCDO made over the last 12 months in better meeting the committee’s guidance?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady asks about important matters around spending on in-donor refugee costs. Thanks to the measures taken by the Home Secretary to reduce the asylum backlog and work towards exiting costly asylum hotels, we expect overall ODA spending on asylum to have been lower in 2024 than in 2023. There will always be some unpredictability, but we expect the actions to continue reducing in-donor refugee costs in this Parliament.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of planned reductions to the official development assistance budget on efforts to tackle infectious diseases.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Decisions on how ODA will be used will be considered as part of the ongoing spending review. Reducing the overall size of the budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of our work. I can say, however, that our important work and support for Gavi is immunising 300 million children and saving up to 8 million lives, and our £1 billion pledge to the Global Fund for 2023-25 is supporting prevention and treatment for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and will help to save over 1 million lives.

[David Davis]

I agree with the Minister on what he just said, but Gavi says that the changing policy will mean that 37.9 million fewer children will be immunised, which means that over five years, 600,000 will die. How on earth does he live with himself with that policy?

[Stephen Doughty]

With the greatest of respect, the right hon. Gentleman will know my record on these important issues, having advocated for them over many years in this place and outside. I do not accept his characterisation. Decisions have not yet been taken; they are being taken as part of the spending review. He will know that the UK is one of the largest donors to Gavi. We have committed £1.65 billion in the current strategic period up to 2025 and that will make an important impact on children’s lives around the world.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Gavi was created very much with the UK as a driving force. It is one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It has immunised almost 2 billion people in the world, and not only is it saving lives but it is important for jobs and work here in the UK in our fantastic life sciences sector. Will the Minister give a commitment that we will continue to be a leading force in Gavi at the replenishment in June?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Foreign Secretary has been discussing these important issues with the Health and Social Care Secretary. My hon. Friend is right to point out the important role of Gavi, as well as our role in that. The decisions will be set out in due course, but I hear what she and, indeed, other hon. and right hon. Members are saying on this important issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is very clear from Ministers’ answers that we still have no indication about which programmes and where will be affected by the planned reductions to ODA and from when exactly the cuts will be effective. We are told to wait for the spending review, but many organisations, including those tackling infectious diseases, are left to face uncertainty and to work at risk. Will the Minister tell us what instructions have been issued to his Department’s humanitarian aid programmes about what they are expected to do between now and the spending review in June?

[Stephen Doughty]

We clearly have difficult decisions to make, but the FCDO is not pausing all ODA programming and not creating a cliff edge in this year. We are focusing on ensuring that every pound will be spent in the most impactful way in the new context. That is a very difficult decision, as the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have set out. We will set out the details in due course, but we are listening closely to Members in this House and, indeed, to the many partners and stakeholders we work with on these important issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to increase the understanding of and respect for the right to self-determination globally.

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

The United Kingdom is committed to promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law, and the right to self-determination is set out in the international covenant on civil and political rights.

[Alex Mayer]

Some 700,000 people in Washington DC are currently disenfranchised because their representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives do not have voting rights or full control of local government affairs. It is the equivalent of everyone in Bedfordshire voting for MPs who have no chance of going through the voting Lobby. Does the Minister agree that that is a particularly strange anomaly?

[Stephen Doughty]

This is not a matter for us. The United States is a sovereign, democratic nation, and the issue of voting rights in the District of Columbia is a matter for the United States.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In the interests of self-determination, will the Foreign Secretary take the earliest opportunity to remind his opposite number in the United States that Canada has chosen to be a member state of the Commonwealth, that the Head of the Commonwealth and the Head of State of Canada is His Majesty King Charles, and that there is no prospect whatsoever of Canada being annexed by the United States?

[Stephen Doughty]

Canada is a strong friend and Commonwealth ally. It is a NATO ally and a fellow G7 member. I have strong ties with Canada myself, as the right hon. Gentleman might know. I was delighted to reiterate our friendship when I met my ministerial counterpart the other week; Prime Minister Carney, the new Canadian Prime Minister, was welcomed by the Prime Minister; and in recent weeks, the Foreign Secretary has been meeting with his counterpart. We continue to work strongly with Canada on many global issues.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

13. What discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on that country's military presence in the west bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts on peace negotiations between those two countries.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Foreign Secretary spoke with his Azerbaijani and Armenian counterparts on 19 and 21 March respectively, and I have also been in contact with representatives of both countries. We warmly welcome the progress made by both sides on concluding negotiations on the text of a peace agreement, and we urge them both to sign that agreement as soon as possible. We encourage all sides to refrain from rhetoric or actions that undermine the prospects for peace.

[Jessica Morden]

This is clearly a critical time for peace in the region. The offensive by Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh resulted in the forced displacement of up to 120,000 Armenians and the continued detention of 23 officials and civilians. There is much concern about the conduct of the trials, their welfare and their access to legal support, so what more can the Minister do to put pressure on the Government of Azerbaijan to look for their release and to get access to the prisoners?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important work on these issues. The UK has consistently called for the release of all the remaining prisoners of war. We continue to urge the Azerbaijani authorities to ensure that those detained during the long-standing conflict with Armenia are afforded a fair trial and provided safe conditions. I raised that specifically with the Azerbaijani President’s special representative in October, and we continue to engage with them on this issue.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Yesterday was the anniversary of the attempted genocide of the Azerbaijani people by the Armenians, and I am sure the whole House will issue its condolences for that purpose. In the newly liberated territories of Nagorno-Karabakh, hundreds of mines are still being cleared by hand. What action will the Government offer to support Azerbaijan in removing those mines so that the land can be used for beneficial purposes?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the issue of mines. He will know the important role that this country has played in de-mining efforts around the world. I am very happy to write to him with the details of where we are on that in relation to Azerbaijan, and we have discussed that with them on a number of occasions. The most important thing is that we continue to work towards the signing of that peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia so that the people of those two countries, with which we have strong relationships, can live in peace and harmony alongside one another.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

15. When he plans to present to Parliament the proposed treaty with Mauritius on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

19. When he plans to present to Parliament the proposed treaty with Mauritius on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands.

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

As we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put to Parliament for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way.

[Mr Bedford]

Given that there is no binding legal basis for the ceding of the Chagos islands and that the deal will cost the hard-pressed British taxpayer north of £9 billion, £18 billion or possibly £50 billion a year, will the Secretary of State confirm what total financial liabilities will be brought to the UK and whether they will be funded from the uplift in the defence budget announced in the spring statement?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered those questions on a number of occasions, including earlier. I have been very clear that a financial element is crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base for our security and for the security of our allies. Once the treaty is signed, it will be put before the Houses for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way, and that will include costs. We will not scrimp on security: protecting our interests and those of our allies is the most important thing.

[Dr Spencer]

Politics is about choices, and the speculation about how much the Government want to hand over to Mauritius starts at £9 billion. That money would go a long way as official development assistance, so does the Minister regret that choice?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said, a financial element—let us remember that this is over 99 years—was crucial to protect the operation of the base. If we do not pay for our security, somebody else might attempt to get in there. That is one crucial reason we have worked closely with Mauritius, the United States and other allies and partners, including India, to protect our base on Diego Garcia.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a sell-out.

[Stephen Doughty]

I can hear the chuntering from the shadow Minister, but it is simply not correct—we are protecting Diego Garcia, our interests there and our national security. I am afraid that I simply do not accept what he is saying, and of course, if there was not a problem, why did his Government start the negotiations in the first place?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

T3.   The co-operative movement has a long and proud history of helping to rebuild local economies post-conflict. In this UN International Year of Co-Operatives, will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of the co-operative movement to discuss the ways in which Governments can promote co-operation as a solution on the global stage?

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

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues, not least as a Co-operative MP. I have seen the important work that co-operatives do around the world, and we continue to support them, including by funding the global agriculture and food security programme, which has a dedicated support facility for smallholder producer organisations. We regularly meet those who are involved in co-operative solutions on a range of matters, so I would be delighted to discuss those matters with my hon. Friend and other colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

HIV/AIDS has killed 40 million people across the world and remains a major threat to public health, but over the weekend the House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority account posted a gloating, sickening tweet including an image of the coffin representing the closure of USAID, which, according to experts, will lead to a tenfold increase in the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS. Will the Minister reaffirm that notwithstanding the recklessness of the Trump Administration, this Government remain committed to working to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030?

[Stephen Doughty]

Obviously, USAID is a matter for the US Government. However, I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to the 2030 target. He will know, from my long time campaigning on these issues, of the importance that I, and indeed the Foreign Secretary, place on this issue.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

T10. When it comes to global public health, we know that nobody wins unless everybody wins, and that an infectious disease elsewhere on the planet can affect us here as well. What steps is the Department taking to secure funding for overseas development projects involving diseases that will specifically be a risk to the UK, including in relation to antimicrobial resistance?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes important points. He will know that we make important contributions to the Global Fund and other bodies on global health. We remain committed to global health as part of our development spending, even despite the difficult decisions we are having to make, and I hear what he has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

In the light of the Prime Minister’s announcement of the impending official development assistance cuts, how will the UK Government be a global leader on water security and climate-affected communities, to adapt and build WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—systems that are resilient to climate change?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the importance of those issues; he knows the UK has a strong record on them. Obviously, all decisions on future ODA spending will be discussed as part of the ongoing resource allocations in the spending review, but I note what he says.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on HM Government’s response to the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question about an issue that is very important to the Government and to many Members across the whole House.

We strongly condemn the secessionist moves by Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik, which seriously threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such actions are unconstitutional and dangerous, including to those living in Republika Srpska, whom he claims to protect. The UK, as one of the signatories, remains fully committed to the Dayton peace agreement, which protects the authorities of both entities, and supports Bosnia as a sovereign and politically independent state.

On Wednesday 26 February, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Republika Srpska President Dodik guilty, in a first-instance ruling, of refusing to implement decisions of the High Representative. The UK is clear that the High Representative’s jurisdiction is indisputable, and that disregarding the independent decisions of the judiciary of Bosnia and Herzegovina undermines the rule of law.

In response to the verdict, the National Assembly of Republika Srpska adopted a number of unconstitutional laws, and proposed a new constitution in clear violation of the Dayton peace agreement. These moves represent a significant escalation in Dodik’s secessionist path, and threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. As he accelerates those attacks on the state, he increases the threat to international peace and security.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has the institutions and mechanisms to respond to this crisis, and we support all efforts by domestic actors to de-escalate the situation and take appropriate action. Last week, I convened a call with my French counterpart and the other Quint partners—the United States, Germany and Italy—plus European Union institutions, in which we discussed our joint efforts to bolster security and stability. I also spoke to the High Representative last week.

In the last few weeks, I have spoken to the Bosnian Foreign Minister, Elmedin Konaković, reaffirming the UK Government’s full support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UK special envoy to the western Balkans, Dame Karen Pierce, reiterated that message during her visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina on 27 and 28 March, at our direction.

We welcome the decision by Operation Althea, under the EU peacekeeping mission EUFOR—the European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina—to activate its reserve forces to provide reassurance to the communities most affected by the rising tensions.

In conclusion, Dodik’s actions do not serve the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those residing in Republika Srpska. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need their political leaders to focus on passing reforms and building an inclusive future, rather than exacerbating tensions and amplifying secessionist rhetoric.

[Priti Patel]

I thank the Minister for his remarks. Attempts to undermine Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and by extension the Dayton peace agreements, are deeply troubling. Over many years, the UK has been a reliable supporter of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s democratic and pluralistic journey, and a trusted promoter when it comes to the security of the western Balkans.

We were proud, when in government, to have appointed Lord Peach as the special envoy to the western Balkans—his work was incredibly solid and robust—and we welcome the fact that the Government have maintained that position with the appointment of Dame Karen Pierce. We, too, look forward to engaging with her.

I know that the Minister has spoken with Foreign Minister Konaković, but what is the UK doing in practical terms both to support Bosnia and Herzegovina to stay the course and maintain stability, and to defend and promote freedom and democracy in the region? For the reasons that the Minister outlined, the issue is pivotable to the security and integrity of the region. How does he envisage that the situation could be de-escalated, and can he update the House on the Government’s position on strengthening ties between NATO and Bosnia and Herzegovina? What is his position on EUFOR and its response in recent days?

What direct discussions has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had with leaders from across the western Balkans, including about the very concerning actions by the leadership of Republika Srpska? Specifically on the protests in Serbia, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact on regional stability and security, and what assessment has he made of any Russian involvement in response to the protests there?

Finally, can the Minister share what plans he has to work with Kosovo to shore up and build on its sovereignty and independence? The western Balkans matters to the United Kingdom for so many reasons, and now more than ever given the war in Ukraine, so we must be an active player in promoting and supporting stability in the region.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her points. I am glad she raised Lord Peach because that allows me to put on the record again my tribute to him for all his excellent work as the High Representative; it was a genuine pleasure to work alongside him. I am also delighted that we now have Dame Karen Pierce, one of our most experienced diplomats, in the role. She is already playing a crucial role across the region. As I said, one of her very first visits was to Bosnia, because of the very issues that the shadow Foreign Secretary has outlined.

The right hon. Lady asks what we are doing. I have been very clear about the diplomatic efforts that we are taking across the region, working with partners and allies including the United States, the European Union and members of the Quint. We continue to work with partners and engage with regional partners, who are absolutely crucial to that stability. The Foreign Secretary met Croatian Foreign Minister Radman on 24 March, and I spoke to Serbian Foreign Minister Marko Djuric on 27 March, as part of a regular series of engagements that we have been having, including through the Berlin process. The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we will now be hosting the Berlin process and that preparations for the summit are being led by Dame Karen Pierce. I assure her that the Foreign Secretary and I have had extensive engagements with regional partners. I was out in Serbia and Montenegro just a few weeks ago, and I intend to visit the region again soon.

The right hon. Lady asked about the important role of NATO, alongside EUFOR. I have referred to EUFOR already. We continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. Through joint training of UK and Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces and our support for reforms, we are helping it strengthen capabilities and enable alignment with NATO standards. We are working to invest in and strengthen the capabilities of the Bosnia and Herzegovinian armed forces for peacekeeping operations. Countries that export security are also more secure themselves. We maintain offices at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

What we have seen from Russia—in Georgia, Moldova, Romania, the Baltic states and now playing out in the western Balkans—is nothing less than hybrid warfare. Democracies are working hard together to stand strong and support Ukraine, but does the Minister agree that we need to put more effort into working with our allies in support of eastern Europe and the western Balkans, which are very much on the frontline?

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, rightly raises Russia’s malign actions not only in relation to its illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine, but across the whole of Europe and globally. We continue to see a pattern of behaviour intended to hamper Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and exploit instability and division.

Recent attempts by Russia to divide the international community at the United Nations Security Council and in the OSCE have only further demonstrated the resoluteness of partners to work together to protect the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My right hon. Friend’s work in the Committee on these issues is crucial. We are also working closely with our allies and the European Union on these matters, in relation to not just the Balkans but locations such as Moldova.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

My former party leader, the late Lord Ashdown, regularly expressed his grave concerns about the fragility of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, drawing on his own experience as the country’s former High Representative. Despite repeated warnings, the UK ignored the threat posed to peace in Bosnia by Milorad Dodik, his entourage and his supporters in the Kremlin. Dodik’s latest defiance of international authority, rejecting the legal orders of the international peace envoy, is only the latest act in his concerted work to undermine the Dayton agreement and regional stability in the Balkans.

It is clear that the UK has taken its eye off the ball in Bosnia. The Conservatives’ short-sighted decision in 2020 to withdraw our troops from the EUFOR Althea peacekeeping operation sent entirely the wrong signal about our commitment to the region. Does the Minister agree that the UK should recommit to the EUFOR mission, so we can work in lockstep with our international partners to prevent a further deterioration of the situation in the Balkans?

[Stephen Doughty]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand that I cannot comment on the previous Government, but I know there is strong support across the House for peace and stability across the Balkans, and that we are all engaged in that effort.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we absolutely have not taken our eye off the ball. This region is one of the most important to the Foreign Secretary and myself, not least because of our long history of engagement in the region. It is why we have now put in place one of our most senior diplomats to act as special envoy, and why we have been engaged in the diplomatic conversations I mentioned.

On the role of the High Representative, we are clear that the political crisis was caused by Republika Srpska, President Dodik and his supporters. We support the High Representative’s role and we support the use of his powers, if necessary. His role remains vital for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future prosperity and stability, and we continue to work alongside EUFOR and indeed with the NATO presence we have there, too.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all know that Dodik has continually denied that a genocide occurred at Srebrenica. I was absolutely appalled to see that after his conviction, he was invited by the Israeli Minister for antisemitism to go to Jerusalem to address an antisemitism conference. I hope that the Minister can restate the UK’s strong belief that a genocide occurred at Srebrenica and that other countries should not be inviting Dodik to address conferences, particularly on the subject of genocide.

[Stephen Doughty]

I obviously cannot comment on Mr Dodik’s travel, but I can say that we are absolutely clear on what happened at Srebrenica. My hon. Friend will know that I have visited Srebrenica and that we have done important work with Remembering Srebrenica. Again, there is a cross-party attitude on this issue across the House. We are in a year of very important and solemn anniversaries and it is crucial that leaders refrain from inflammatory rhetoric and actions, and instead focus on building trust between communities across the western Balkans, and particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

President Dodik’s language and actions are both reckless and dangerous. Given that the Minister has just admitted to there being Russian meddling in the region—as we know, it has been going on for many years—can I ask what conversations he has had with the Americans to ensure that they continue to have command of the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo? To the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), can the Minister say whether the UK could play a bit more of a role in EUFOR, and, from his discussions with the French Minister, whether there is likely to be an extension of that mandate?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, I met one of the American representatives on Friday, with other Quint members, and there is unity across the Quint on these issues. We will continue to work closely with the United States and other partners on this matter. EUFOR is vital for maintaining peace and security in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for upholding the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement, and we regularly engage with both EUFOR directly and the EU delegation.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we do not currently participate in EU common security and defence policy missions. Of course, we are open to future opportunities for co-operation, and we have identified the western Balkans, and, indeed, hybrid activities, as one of the areas where we need to see closer co-operation. The subject was discussed by the Foreign Secretary and the EU at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg a few months ago.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that we need leaders in the west Balkans region who are focused on building a stable and inclusive future for all the peoples of the region, instead of escalating tensions with reckless rhetoric?

[Stephen Doughty]

I could not agree more. I sincerely hope that all, including leaders in Republika Srpska, will focus on delivering the reforms and progress necessary for their citizens, instead of using inflammatory rhetoric and divisive language, which seeks only to break down communities and unity, rather than building up the trust between communities that is so needed.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

In the 1960s, Germany took the very important step of showing programmes about what had happened in the second world war with the Holocaust; the exact opposite has been happening in Republika Srpska and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where textbooks are being rewritten to actually increase that hatred. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have and what interventions they can make to try to get the truth of what happened during that war out to people, so that those countries do not just generate another generation of hatred?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with the broad thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Ensuring that we understand what happened in the past and do not attempt to deny what happened is, obviously, crucial for all communities; building trust between communities is also crucial. He will understand that we have funded a number of programmes—as did the previous Government —including to support those who suffered sexual violence in the conflicts in the 1990s, as well as providing extensive support to the International Commission on Missing Persons, which has helped to account for more than 70% of the 40,000 people missing from the conflicts of the 1990s. Those sorts of actions are crucial to rebuilding trust and dealing with the legacies of the past.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I volunteered with the OSCE to ensure free and fair elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996, following the Dayton peace agreement. I therefore have huge concerns about the escalating tensions. I welcome the diplomatic efforts we are undertaking to support stability, on which the Minister has updated us, but can he confirm that he is working closely with European civil society partners such as the OSCE to secure peace and stable democracy in the region?

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to work with all organisations that seek to promote peace and stability in the region. My hon. Friend rightly mentions the OSCE, which is crucial. I know that the issue is of keen interest to members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in this place. We will continue to work with them, with the Council of Europe and with others, including our partners in the EU, the US and beyond. Civil society organisations are crucial to that work. Many examples of the work that we have done in the past to build trust between communities and on peacebuilding have been achieved through civil society organisations.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of reports that Russia Today and Sputnik are increasing their dissemination of disinformation in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the same time as the widely respected Bosnian service of Voice of America faces closure? Will he see what more we can do to counter Russian disinformation in the region, perhaps by increasing broadcasting by the BBC World Service?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the destabilising hybrid activities of Russia, not just in Bosnia but across the region. He knows the steps that have been taken in this country against RT and other Russian outlets; indeed, we have called them out across Europe and have worked with partners on that. He is absolutely right that free, fair, truthful and legitimate media are needed to ensure that citizens have the truth about what is happening, not the kind of lies that are peddled from the Kremlin. I cannot make specific promises, but he knows that we treat the BBC World Service very seriously. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), is here with me and will have heard his comments closely.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

As has been noted, the actions of Milorad Dodik over the past few weeks and months have seriously undermined the stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina and have undermined the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the country’s 1992-to-1995 war in the aftermath of the horrific genocide that took place in Srebrenica. What steps are the Government taking to work with partners such as the US, the EU and other western Balkan countries to ensure that the territorial integrity of Bosnia is upheld during this fragile period?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need to work with our partners. My French counterpart Minister Haddad and I convened our Quint partners and the EU institutions on Friday for a joint meeting; Minister Haddad was visiting London and we took the initiative to meet our partners, because we were deeply concerned about the situation in Bosnia. We have also been engaging with those in the region, including Serbia and Croatia. I, along with the special representative, the Foreign Secretary and others, will continue to do so.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

One detects the hand of Russia here, much as one does across the entire periphery of Europe, from the High North, Ukraine, the Balkans and the Caucasus, which the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee mentioned, to the Sahel, the Maghreb and Libya, right over to the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Will the Minister describe the British strategy for rolling back Russian destabilisation across the entire periphery of Europe?

[Mark Pritchard]

In 30 seconds!

[Stephen Doughty]

To do so in a few seconds would be a challenge, but I assure the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) that in all those regions we are not only conscious of what Russia is doing, but actively working with partners to push back. That is why it has been identified as an area for close co-operation with the EU; it is why we work closely with the United States and others; and it is why we work closely with individual partners in specific contexts, including in Moldova in response to Russian attempts there. The Balkans, Moldova, the Caucasus and elsewhere are all areas in which we see Russia spreading misinformation, lies and worse.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Dodik’s reckless rhetoric has been noted many times in the House this afternoon. Can the Minister assure me that work is being done with partners in the region to ensure that there is no contagion? I am thinking in particular of Kosovo.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend rightly raises Kosovo, a country that I have visited on several occasions and which we continue to support. We also continue to support the important dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina and to work with EU and other counterparts on this crucial issue. We play a crucial role in KFOR in Kosovo in promoting peace and stability. It is important, as my hon. Friend says, to understand the wider regional implications and to continue to work with all partners to promote peace and stability, whether that is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Kosovo or in responding to Russian hybrid activity.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given the recent love-in between Washington and Moscow, it is hardly surprising that the killer in the Kremlin is encouraging all his sidekicks to stir up trouble in areas such as Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are the Government aware of and keeping under very close scrutiny other potential areas where allies of Mr Putin can be expected to start to stir up trouble and destabilise things as part of his move, now that he is on the front foot in Ukraine?

[Stephen Doughty]

I would not agree entirely with the right hon. Member’s characterisation. One only has to look at what President Trump has said in the last 24 hours on these matters to see that we are united in trying to not only find a sustainable peace in Ukraine but call out Russia on its actions and take the necessary actions. When it comes to Russia’s activities elsewhere, as I said there is very strong Quint unity on this issue, and it was a real pleasure to be alongside American and European counterparts with a strong, united approach. It is crucial that there is strong transatlantic unity on these issues, and we will continue to work for that with European and American partners.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

The Sarajevo security conference is in a couple of months, and there will be a session on defence technology. I have been asked along to speak about it. NATO countries in Europe are rearming and spending increased defence budgets on investing in and developing defence technology. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our friends in Bosnia and Herzegovina are also updating their capabilities? What message can I take to that conference?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend has been invited to that conference. It is important that we have links at a parliamentary level with countries in the western Balkans, particularly on these important matters. I mentioned earlier that we are working, including through our presence at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo, on investing in and strengthening the capabilities of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s armed forces, and considering how they might be deployed internationally too. That is very important. We will continue to work with European partners, both inside and outside NATO, to ensure that we can all collectively contribute to European defence, particularly in response to the hybrid activities and new advances in warfare we see, whether it be cyber or drone technology.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last November, I visited the Srebrenica memorial centre, and I am sure the Minister will share my revulsion at the fact that it had to close its doors for a short period just a few weeks ago due to the political situation there. Before he does so, can he elaborate on the position that the United States of America has adopted in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether he views the US as a stable ally that recognises that the western Balkans are crucial to the security of Europe as a whole?

[Stephen Doughty]

We and the United States played a crucial role in the western Balkans, particularly in achieving the Dayton peace agreement itself. We continue to be committed to that. As I said, there has been strong unity among the Quint, and it is important that the United States and Europe work together on these issues. There has been a legacy of 30 years of relative stability—I say “relative” because there have been deep threats to it at different points—and we need that to continue for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am sure we are all committed to that.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), and knowing how much the Minister values soft power, can he reassure the House that there will be no further cuts to the British Council or the World Service in the Balkans on his watch?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will come back to the hon. Lady on her specific points about British Council and the BBC World Service funding, but I have mentioned our wider development spending in the region. While we are having to make very difficult decisions at the moment, it is worth reflecting on the fact that through around £50 million this year from the integrated security fund and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office official development assistance, we have continued to empower women and girls, strengthen democracy, build resilience to domestic and state threats, and promote peacebuilding and transitional justice. We have been engaged across a range of different areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina specifically.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I associate myself with the comments made about the British Council and the BBC World Service. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting 77th Brigade, the anti-Russian-disinformation brigade based at Newbury. Has an assessment been made of the rise of Russian misinformation and disinformation in the Republika Srpska theatre in recent months? We heard during that meeting that Russia is increasingly using misinformation and disinformation across Ukraine, eastern Europe, and indeed the Balkans.

[Stephen Doughty]

We are clear that Russia continues to spread lies and disinformation and misinformation not only in the western Balkans but in many other locations across Europe. We continue to work with allies and partners—the EU and others—to challenge that. There is a particular challenge in the western Balkans, which is why we also support efforts there to strengthen free media, journalism and civil society organisations.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

In my previous role as trade envoy to the western Balkans, I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina on a number of occasions, and it was evident that though the entrepreneurial spirit was alive and well, business leaders were frustrated by the deadlocked structures that they must work in. Our embassy is doing what it can, but can the Government take any further initiatives that could increase economic activity and trade between our two nations?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises an important point, and I pay tribute to him for his work. He and I travelled together on a number of visits to the region—including to Bosnia and Kosovo—so I am well aware of his interest and engagement there. There are many opportunities for increased economic linkage and trade with all the countries in the region, and we continue to promote those. Indeed, I discussed them on my recent visits to Serbia and Montenegro.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that this is fundamentally about leadership in the region. As I said, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need political leaders to focus on passing reforms and building inclusive futures, rather than exacerbating tensions as we are seeing with President Dodik in Republika Srpska, because that does not serve the people of Republika Srpska.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Minister has acknowledged that the secessionist moves in Republika Srpska could have ramifications for the western Balkans more broadly. One part of that is the north of Kosovo, where there is a Kosovo Serb minority. While the UK does not contribute to EUFOR and Operation Althea, we do contribute to KFOR in Kosovo. What contingency plans exist for British troops to reinforce KFOR through a strategic reserve, as happened in 2023?

[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.

Nutrition for Growth Summit

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine. It has been a genuine pleasure to listen to and take part in this debate between hon. Members on both sides of the House, who share a deep passion for these issues. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing the debate, and to the APPG and the IDC for their crucial and important work.

The debate is timely, as I can confirm that my colleague Baroness Chapman will lead the UK delegation at the Nutrition for Growth summit in Paris. That shows our continued commitment to this issue. The ambassador looks forward to welcoming the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Steve Race) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) to the event she will host tomorrow at her residence to discuss these issues.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale gave a typically powerful and informed speech. He rightly noted the UK’s leadership on this issue. I have clearly heard his recommendations about the UK’s contribution to Nutrition for Growth, and the points he has raised in this debate and over the past months. I cannot provide him with all the assurances he requested on specific financial and related targets, but I will respond to the substance of many of the points raised by him and other hon. Members. I thank him for his kind words about our FCDO staff, with which I heartily concur.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter for his work as the co-chair of the APPG and for his kind comments about my ministerial colleague Lord Collins, who we all know has a strong passion for this issue, particularly in his role as Minister for Africa. We heard many powerful personal examples today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. I had the honour to see similar work on hunger and nutrition in my past career in the humanitarian sector, including when I worked for World Vision, which was mentioned a number of times in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter raised a number of important points. I agree with him about the links between nutrition and health, which other hon. Members also noted. He mentioned illicit finance, and he will know of the Foreign Secretary’s important work in that area and on getting resources back into countries that need them.

It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his consistent and principled pressure on these issues. He rightly highlighted the important role of churches, and faith communities more broadly, on these issues, which reflects my own experience of working with such organisations. In response to him and other Members who asked about this, I can confirm that we are currently on track to meet the 2022 to 2030 commitment of £1.5 billion. To give the latest figure, we spent £366 million in 2022. I do not have more recent numbers, but I am happy to keep the House updated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West made important links between public health and nutrition—we know how crucial that is—and spoke passionately from her own experience. We heard excellent speeches from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). She highlighted issues of conflict and food insecurity, and it was particularly important that she raised the situation in a number of places. On Sudan, our emergency assistance is helping over 1 million people, including Sudanese refugees who have fled the conflict and are seeking safety in Chad. On Gaza, UK support means that over 500,000 people have received essential healthcare and 647,000 have received food. Those are important issues, which my hon. Friend raised.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked about Ethiopia—[Interruption.] I am glad to have some inspiration on that issue. We are supporting Ethiopia through the child nutrition fund, which is helping the Government there to deliver lifesaving nutrition services through the health sector. She also made some very important points about Ukraine, and I can again confirm that we are providing over £240 million for humanitarian support. We are also providing support on issues such as energy and reconstruction, which are crucial to dealing with food and nutrition needs.

I understand the concerns that Members around the Chamber have raised about the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on the necessary cuts to our aid budget. We all know the challenges we face today—the challenges to our national security and to the security of Europe and our world order are truly unprecedented—and the choice made about ODA and defence spending was extremely difficult. It is one that the Prime Minister did not take lightly, as he shares our collective pride in the difference that UK support is making in saving and improving lives all around the world.

The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the entire ministerial team strongly believe in the importance of our international development agenda for the national interest and our standing in the world, and in terms of our moral obligations to serve the most vulnerable. I have been privileged to see at first hand the impact of that work on many occasions. We have a proud record, and as the Prime Minister has said, we are committed to spending 0.7% of GNI as soon as conditions allow. Until then, we will use every pound we have to focus more than ever on maximising impact and value for money. However, for many of the challenges we face—including in this area—we require more than money, and the partnerships we will be creating in this important work on nutrition are part of that work.

The UK’s contribution to this year’s summit squarely reflects that approach. We have worked tirelessly with the Government of France to prepare for a successful summit in Paris, and we have mobilised commitments from a wide range of stakeholders. Central to that is an initiative we are launching tomorrow, which is the global compact on nutrition integration, which came up in many of the speeches. It is designed to ensure that policies and investments in key sectors such as health, food and climate place nutrition at their heart. It will help us to make the biggest impact while making the most of limited resources, including through more joined-up service delivery and targeting root causes more effectively. It will have an important impact on our wider work on climate resilience and economic growth, which of course depend on a well-nourished population, and the wider work we are doing on health has been made very clear.

The compact will improve our chance of making progress at the scale and speed we need. Many good examples have been reflected on today, but the compact will support mothers and children to access supplements and therapeutic foods as part of routine visits to primary healthcare, and make sure that the poorest can easily purchase from local markets all the foods they need for a healthy diet. We have already taken that approach with many of our partners, and I have given some examples already. We also support farmers and businesses to produce the most nutritious foods—for example, lentils in Nepal and vegetables in Ethiopia.

We cannot do this alone; we need others to join us if we are to succeed. We need to continue our work on integrating nutrition with our wider development work. One of the areas I would highlight is that only a tiny percentage of climate finance is allocated to nutrition, which is an unacceptable missed opportunity. We need to work with our partners to give more attention to the nutrition impact of their policies and investments in food systems more broadly. That is why we are calling on all those with a stake in Nutrition for Growth—countries in the global north and south, multilaterals, private investors and civil society organisations—to back the new global compact. That more integrated, coherent approach will ensure that the sum of everyone’s commitments is greater than the parts. This is a challenging time for the summit, given the global economic climate, but we think it will set out a good way forward and bring people together.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and others have lobbied for new financial pledges and specific targets. The spending review and the need to look afresh at the specifics of our portfolio mean that we cannot announce a financial commitment this week—I want to be honest with the House about that—but we will submit the specifics of our commitment in due course through the official Nutrition for Growth channels, noting that France has set a deadline of the end of June. We will of course keep the House updated on that and on the work of the compact as we develop it.

Before I end, I want to say a few words about our continued commitment to tackle child wasting—the deadliest form of malnutrition. Only two weeks ago, Lord Collins reiterated his commitment at the launch of the joint UN initiative for the prevention of wasting—a new partnership with UNICEF, the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme. That important part of our work complements our work on scaling up treatment through the child nutrition fund, which my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter asked about. Since the FCDO’s initial investment of £8 million, the CNF has attracted more than $29 million from 16 partner Governments and $300 million from philanthropists, including a recent pledge from the Bezos family to match further contributions with up to $250 million. Our contributions to the child nutrition fund were £15.74 million as of the end of 2024 through the child wasting innovation programme. Again, we are working in partnership with a range of sources and making important contributions.

This has been a hugely helpful debate. It is hugely informative to hear the strength of feeling in the House on these issues. I hope that my words today, and the important words of Baroness Chapman tomorrow in Paris, will reassure the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, members of the APPG and the Opposition spokespeople that we are not turning our back on the world and that nutrition will remain a key part of our development agenda.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I start by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their passionate and sincere contributions to today’s debate. We have an incredible wealth of experience here, not least among the former Ministers and former and current Committee members. I am a former member of the International Development Committee. I also want to thank the many people who work in the international development sector and on wider foreign affairs and security issues, notably those who have served in our armed forces. We thank them, and all those who have served our country in humanitarian, security and defence roles, for their service.

I particularly want to thank the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for opening the debate. She made her points strongly and forcefully. She has played an important role as Chair of that Committee, and we take very sincerely the points that she made and hear them all. I will make sure that they are communicated to the new Minister of State in the other place. These are challenging times, and they demand tough choices and clear leadership. I would also like to pay my own tribute to the work of my former ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I have known her for nearly 30 years, and she is a person of absolute integrity and sincerity. I am sure she will continue to contribute in the House on many matters of importance. I thank her for her work.

I also want to thank all the staff in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in our arm’s length bodies and in other organisations including the BBC World Service and the British Council for the incredible work they do. Ministers and Conservative former Ministers will know the incredible work that our teams of staff have done on these matters, both for the previous Government and for this Government, and it is absolutely right at times of uncertainty such as these that we recognise their contribution and their work. I thank all the hon. Members who made that point in the debate.

I want to be as transparent and as open as I can. I have noted all the many different points made today, including those about specific geographic locations and programmes. I am going to be completely honest: I am not in a position today to answer some of the questions about specific funding for specific programmes, but I will ensure that those points are heard loud and clear by the new Minister of State. I take those points with sincerity, and this debate has been helpful in allowing me to understand the priorities of the House.

[Emily Darlington]

I know my hon. Friend’s absolute passion and the experience in this area, particularly on international development, that he gained under the last Labour Government. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on aid match, can I ask whether he sees a role for the generosity of the UK public in ensuring that they can match and supplement our efforts in rebuilding countries, but also in furthering our aims right across the world?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her experience and work on these issues over many years. She is right to say that aid match is crucially important, and we very much hope to continue that work. The generosity of the British public is remarkable, whether in relation to Gaza, to Ukraine or to the many other crises around the world. I pay tribute to all the communities and individuals up and down this country for their brilliant generosity and fundraising.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Would it be fair to say that the step that has been taken to use development money for the immediate or relatively prompt increase in defence spending is essentially a short-term measure that will have to be substituted with long-term measures, given that the increase in defence spending, if it is to fund a security contribution to a divided Ukraine, will be an indefinite commitment?

[Stephen Doughty]

I obviously cannot speak for what will happen many years into the future, but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: our intent is to get back to 0.7% of GNI as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. The Prime Minister has been very clear about that.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not take any more interventions, because of the time; I need to respond to the points that have been made.

It was clear that all of us across the House agree—with a couple of exceptions—that our defence spending needs to go up. There is absolutely clear unity on Ukraine. We will obviously be setting out the further work following the summit at the weekend and how we will go forward. There have been important conversations on that over recent days involving myself, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others.

At this time of profound change, with conflicts overseas undermining security and prosperity at home, the Prime Minister rightly took the decision to increase spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP from 2027. That will be funded by cutting our spending on overseas development from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear that this was not an announcement that he was happy to make—I know that a couple of Members suggested the opposite. The Prime Minister is a man of integrity and sincerity on this issue, and I urge colleagues to look carefully at what he said about it.

For me, this was a sincere but difficult decision, not least given my experience working for humanitarian and international development NGOs and, indeed, at the former Department for International Development. I too have seen the positive impacts of Britain’s proud record on overseas development on lives around the world, as hon. Members reflected on. As the Prime Minister said, we will continue to play a key role in doing everything we can to move towards rebuilding our capacity, and we remain committed to working in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza and on tackling climate change, on supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges such as vaccination, and on our commitments to the overseas territories.

I have to level with the House, and I hope that people can see and feel this: in this dangerous new era, the defence and national security of this country must come first. This is not the 1990s. This is not even 2005, and I cannot look at what I, or indeed other Ministers, do every day and not recognise that we have to respond differently to the very serious threats facing this country, our continent and the world. I say that in deep candour.

This difficult choice reflects the evolving nature of the threats we face and the strategic shifts required to meet them, while maintaining economic stability—the foundation of this Government’s plan for change. We will ensure that every pound of development assistance is spent in the most impactful way, equipping the FCDO to deliver the plan for change internationally. The changes in this estimate reflect that approach, and the FCDO will continue overall, not just through ODA, to focus on growth, security, Europe, migration, climate and nature, and development.

Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work we do. We will consider how to maximise the value of our budget throughout the ongoing spending review, but ODA alone is not, and has never been, the single answer to the many challenges of international development. We have to use all the levers at our disposal to support our development aims and make use of all forms of development finance to maximise the impact of our ODA. We have set out the detail of the changes being made.

Many Members have raised concerns about asylum spending. The Home Office introduced policy and operational changes within the asylum system to reduce the impact on UK ODA spend. The Home Secretary is committed to ensuring that asylum costs fall, and indeed there has already been an impact. The Government have taken measures to reduce the asylum backlog and the use of expensive asylum accommodation in the next spending review period, and to increase detention capacity to facilitate more removals.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury considered the impact of the rise in GNI and the reduction in asylum costs, among other changes to ODA forecasts, in the round and agreed that the FCDO would receive an uplift to its 2024-25 ODA settlement in the region of £540 million. Many colleagues have raised questions about 2025-26. We will be setting initial budgets for 2025-26 to minimise disruption to key programmes as we transition financial years. The details of that will be set out in due course. The ODA budgets for future years are under review by the Government, and we will confirm details to the House in due course. I want to be honest that we cannot provide categorical assurances at this stage, but I assure Members that their points have been heard clearly.

Many Members raised debt relief. Supporting developing countries to tackle unsustainable debt is a key development priority of this Government. We need to take the twin-track approach of tackling the immediate challenges and the underlying drivers of unsustainable debt.

BII was mentioned, and it is a crucial part of our development architecture. We have provided additional support to BII, and we will work closely with it on its role. Indeed, in 2023, BII-backed businesses provided more than 1 million jobs, paid $2.5 billion in taxes and generated huge amounts of electricity, and we need a clearer role for it. I have taken on board the important points about the British Council and the funding that we give it, and about the BBC World Service, which we hugely support—our part of the funding for it has gone up by £32.6 million in the 2025-26 fiscal year. The role of SDRs has been pointed to.

I want to highlight that we will continue to centre absolutely everything that we do internationally on women and girls. Impact assessments have been mentioned many times. Of course, impact assessments, including of impacts on women and girls, will play a crucial role. I have mentioned UK Aid Match and many other things.

These are incredibly difficult choices, but they are the right choices for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They are not choices that we make lightly. I say sincerely that I have heard all the contributions that Members have made. We will come back to the House in due course with further information. I commend the estimates to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

13. What his planned timetable is for the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius.

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

We remain committed to concluding a deal that protects the base on Diego Garcia. Without a deal, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should in its important role protecting the security of this country, the United States and our allies. We are currently discussing the agreement with the US and Mauritius. We will not put a deadline on its finalisation, and will come to the House in due course.

[Mr Mohindra]

The Labour party’s determination to give away vital strategic territory in the Chagos islands, seemingly to satisfy one of the Prime Minister’s lawyer friends over our American allies, is baffling to my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Does the Minister agree that it is far more important to maintain our special relationship with the US and the new Trump Administration than to pay billions of pounds in the face of the self-inflicted, worsening domestic economic situation, in order to give the Chinese Government access to that vital region?

[Stephen Doughty]

There are so many things in the hon. Gentleman’s question that I disagree with that I do not know quite where to start. We are not giving away the base on Diego Garcia—the deal secures that base. If there was not a problem with its operation and its future, why did his Government start negotiations on it?

[Lee Anderson]

The Minister will be aware that the Chinese have a smart city situated in Mauritius, so what safeguards are in the deal to prevent Chinese installations on Diego Garcia that could compromise our western naval security?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are absolutely clear that we will retain full control over Diego Garcia, and will have robust provisions to keep adversaries out. There will be unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and the US, a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, a comprehensive mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands threatens base operations and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces. I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions are in place to defend the security of that critical base.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has proudly said that his Chagos surrender plan was a good deal. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November that it was “a very good deal”, and that he was

“confident that the Mauritians are still sure about that”.

Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his National Assembly that since his election, he had concluded the deal

“was so bad that we said, no way!”

and that he had extracted more concessions from the UK on the length of the lease, the extension on sovereignty and the cost. Can the Minister confirm that changes have been made since the announcement of the deal on 3 October last year, and does he disagree with the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius?

[Stephen Doughty]

The fundamentals of the deal remain the same, and the overall quantum remains unchanged.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to support women and girls’ rights in Afghanistan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

8. What steps he is taking to increase diplomatic co-operation with his European counterparts.

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

The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are engaging extensively with European counterparts, including through the Prime Minister’s attendance of a European Council meeting for the first time since Brexit. We are working closely with European allies, and are calling for increased defence spending and support for Ukraine. This deeper engagement has already delivered results on growth and security, including a landmark defence and migration agreement with Germany.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Thames valley is one of the most important economic zones in this country. At a recent meeting that I held with the business leaders of the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, the overwhelming message was that Brexit has been a disaster for business, and that Boris Johnson and the Tories did them dirty. Will the Minister commit to correcting that wrong, and start negotiations to join a European Union customs union?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been very clear that we do not seek to rejoin the customs union, but our co-operation is already delivering results, particularly in relation to growth and business. We recently secured a £250 million Czech investment in Rolls-Royce small modular nuclear reactors, and a further £600 million investment by Polish firm InPost in its UK operations, and as I have said, we have also signed deals on migration with Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia and Slovakia.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine are under way, whatever our opinion of them, but the eager eye of Putin may now look to other former Soviet countries, such as the Baltic states. I was in Estonia a couple of weeks ago, and the distance between the Russian border and the Russian-held Kaliningrad territory is just 300 miles. For context, that is roughly what I travel every week to Plymouth from London. What steps are the Government taking to deter the Russians from looking at possible future military action there?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said, security is at the heart of our engagement with European counterparts, and the UK’s commitment to the security of the Baltic states is iron-clad. We are helping to uphold that region’s security through our NATO forward land forces deployment in Estonia—the Prime Minister met joint expeditionary force leaders in Tallinn in December to discuss closer co-operation, in response to both conventional threats from Russian aggression and hybrid threats—and, of course, our work together on Ukraine. I have visited that border and met our enhanced forward presence troops there; they are doing an excellent job, and it is crucial that we stand with our Baltic neighbours and all of Europe when it comes to our collective security.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The UK can be proud of the leadership it has shown in supporting Ukraine and rallying our international partners around this cause. What work is the Minister leading, with European allies, on unfreezing sanctioned assets, so that they can be used to equip Ukraine, and what is his timeframe for releasing critical sanctioned funds, so that they can be used to strengthen Europe’s defence of our values, security and defence?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the right hon. Lady knows, we have already done important work with European partners to secure the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan, which will make a tangible difference to Ukraine. We continue to work with European partners on sanctions, and of course, we are considering all lawful options going forward. We have had important discussions in the Weimar group and through the G7, and will continue to look, with European counterparts, at all options for supporting Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

It was shocking yesterday to see the United States vote with the despots of North Korea, Belarus and Russia against a UN resolution proposed by the UK and other European democracies. Liberal Democrats want to see the UK lead in Europe against Putin’s war on Ukraine, so we were pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that he was taking forward our Liberal Democrat proposal that the £40 billion of frozen Russian assets held in European central banks be seized and given to Ukraine. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary will push the US Administration to join in that initiative when he visits Washington later this week?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am genuinely glad of the continued cross-party co-operation on Ukraine, which we saw during the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday. Of course, that includes getting important resources. I am not quite sure that the proposal was a Liberal Democrat proposal, but I think there is a united front across this House on getting Ukraine the resources that it needs. We will continue to work with European counterparts in support of Ukraine at the United Nations, across Europe and through NATO, using all the means that we can to support Ukraine militarily, economically and diplomatically.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to support civil liberties in Georgia.

[Mr Speaker]

Who wants it?

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, well done.

[Stephen Doughty]

Apologies, Mr Speaker. I am answering a lot of questions today.

I have significant concerns about the Georgian authorities’ violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and journalists, which is completely unacceptable. In response, we have suspended programme support to the Georgian Government, restricted defence co-operation, and limited engagement with Georgian Dream. We have imposed visa bans and sanctions on some of those responsible for the violence, and we continue to work with international partners to support a free and open civil society and media in Georgia.

[Perran Moon]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Last month at the Council of Europe, I met several Georgian opposition members, who showed me graphic evidence of the brutal physical abuse meted out by the Georgian regime before, during and since the recent parliamentary elections. Bidzina Ivanishvili, the Putin-backed oligarch and de facto ruler of Georgia, continues to suppress peaceful protest, using an identical modus operandi to that used in Russia. Violence and intimidation are distorting the political process. The United States has imposed sanctions on Ivanishvili, but much of his wealth is based in the UK or in British overseas territories. Will the Minister commit to the UK joining our allies and freezing the assets of such a despicable tyrant?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend and his fellow members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe delegation for the important work that they are doing, including on the issue of Georgia. It is hugely important that we stand together with fellow Europeans in the Council of Europe on these matters. In co-ordination with the US, the United Kingdom has imposed sanctions on the Minister and deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and three police chiefs responsible for violent attacks against journalists and peaceful protesters in Georgia. My hon. Friend will understand that while we continue to closely monitor the evolving situation in Georgia, we do not comment on potential sanctions designations, as to do so would lessen their impact.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The European Parliament recently recognised Salome Zourabichvili as the rightful President of Georgia. Protesters who are on the streets of Tbilisi day in, day out, agree with that view. She has met the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, and she attended the recent inauguration of the US President. Will the Minister commit to meeting with Madame Zourabichvili the next time she visits the UK?

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to engage with a range of figures in Georgia. We continue to engage with all those who seek a Euro-Atlantic path for Georgia, which is defined in its constitution and is the wish of its people. We will continue to work closely with European counterparts on the issue.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

10. Whether he has had recent discussions with his international counterparts on the payment of reparations to people impacted by historic slavery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

T4. On a recent visit to Camp Viking, I witnessed the vital role that this hub for UK commando forces in the high north plays in our strategic defence efforts. What engagement has the Minister had with our Norwegian counterparts to counter Russian aggression and strengthen our collective security in the region?

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

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has visited those incredible commandos during their training. I, too, have visited our Royal Marines and Army commandos in the high north in Norway and witnessed the vital role that they play in our strategic defence efforts. The UK and Norway work closely together as NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. Our Prime Minister signed a strategic partnership agreement in December, and, last week, the Defence Secretary visited Norway to launch a new agreement on deeper defence co-operation. I and the Foreign Secretary have also visited our counterparts, and I can tell my hon. Friend that security and defence co-operation were absolutely at the heart of our efforts and discussions with our Norwegian friends.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

T6. President Trump and Elon Musk slashing US aid was a great day for Russia and China. Will the Foreign Secretary avoid giving them another great day by committing to protect the UK’s development budget, even as we raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP? As he knows, preventing wars is cheaper than fighting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T7. I warmly welcome the massive sanctions package announced yesterday by the Government, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that China should be taking a significantly more proactive role in preventing its companies from supplying Russia’s military?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his praise and support for the action that the Foreign Secretary has just mentioned. This was our largest ever sanctions package since the start of Russia’s illegal and barbarous invasion. We and our G7 allies are absolutely clear on the principle that Russia must pay for the damage that it is causing to Ukraine, and we of course look at third country routes by which support is being given to Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. As part of the package announced yesterday we are taking a number of steps in that regard, including with companies in China.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), left open the possibility that the FCDO might revisit the issue of explicit carbon monoxide warnings on FCDO travel advisory pages—a change that we contend would have a cascading effect on the UK travel industry, drive up the use of carbon monoxide alarms and save lives of British travellers overseas. May I encourage the Front-Bench team to pick up this issue in the name of my constituent, Hudson Foley, to ensure that the lives of British travellers overseas are kept safe?