UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.

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

Before I respond to the question, it is important that as a House we all recognise that today is the anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Many of us will attend commemorations later, and our thoughts are with all the thousands of people who lost their lives in that despicable terrorist attack, including many British and American citizens, as well as those from many other countries.

The whole House’s condolences and thoughts will also be with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk— it was an absolutely appalling attack and murder yesterday. In this House, as we sit under the two shields commemorating our dear colleagues from across the political spectrum, we know too well the terrible consequences of political violence. I know that the whole House will be thinking of Charlie’s family, friends and others, and urging an end to that sort of political violence, which is absolutely appalling.

In light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In the light of that and mindful, as we all are, of the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.

[Neil O’Brien]

Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question, and I agree with the words of the Minister about 11 September and Charlie Kirk.

This is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelson was Epstein’s “best pal” and said that he loved him, or that he brokered a deal for him while he was Business Secretary, but that, as we now know, he was working for Epstein’s early release after Epstein was convicted.

The simple question is this: is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed? The Minister should not say that the boxes were ticked and the process followed—what did the Prime Minister know at the point of Lord Mandelson’s appointment? The Minister said this morning that his understanding was that all the information was present—is that correct? Did the Prime Minister know? Will the Government now publish all the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s vetting? If the Minister says that the Prime Minister did not know at the time, when did he become aware of the revelations?

Peter Mandelson quietly stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison. Mandelson now says that he was wrong to think that Epstein was innocent. That is his defence—but Epstein had pleaded guilty. There are huge questions here. Did the US State Department give any warnings to our Government ahead of this appointment? Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of Global Counsel visited our Washington embassy since Peter Mandelson’s appointment?

Next week will be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of that, and I cannot believe that the Government have put our monarch in this terrible position. I am glad that Peter Mandelson has now gone. The Foreign Secretary has said that protecting women, girls and victims is her priority; how on earth does that square with the behaviour of the Government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try to protect Peter Mandelson, rather than the victims?

To be clear, this is a Government in which we had a corruption Minister having to resign over links to corruption; a former police officer having to resign over having not been clear with the police; a housing Minister having to resign over not paying tax on a house; and now we have our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak Prime Minister, with error after error of judgment.

[Stephen Doughty]

The first thing that we all need to be clear on across this House is that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of all our minds—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with that. Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls.

Obviously the hon. Gentleman wrote his remarks before the events in the last few hours, but I reiterate what I said to him. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment; in particular, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. Lord Mandelson has resigned and that decision has been taken. That is a very clear answer to the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff.

May I thank the Minister for his statement? The Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision, and I think that has to be acknowledged. He has moved at pace to put it right—[Interruption.] Don’t be ridiculous. Treat this seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Clearly the appointment process did not pick up these issues; that is self-evident. Can we have an assurance that there will be an inquiry into why that was not the case and that this House will be kept informed?

[Stephen Doughty]

First, I was not aware of the terrible incident that my hon. Friend refers to; I have just been informed of that this morning. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I know how seriously you take the safety and security of Members of this House, Mr Speaker, particularly in the light of international events and the tragic loss of colleagues. That underlines all the more why we must be able to go about democratic debate in this country, whatever our views, in a safe and secure way.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his comments on the decision. As I said, the decision has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Mandelson has resigned. My hon. Friend asked about the process. Any candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course; I point him to the formal processes outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Our thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims of 9/11. I also express my regret and sadness at the murder of Charlie Kirk, and I hope that the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and her staff are all okay following the incident at her office. Political violence should have absolutely no place in society.

Lord Mandelson was tasked with overseeing the UK’s relationship with Trump, and the accusations surrounding him cast a damning shadow, so it is right that the Prime Minister has withdrawn his support for Lord Mandelson. Yesterday the Prime Minister stood by Lord Mandelson’s appointment and confirmed that rigorous background checks had taken place. What has changed since then? Questions remain over what the Government knew and when about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with the sex offender, whom he had previously described as his “best pal”. Did he resign, or was he sacked?

It is vital that the Civil Service Commission now investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner. Was the vetting process pushed through too fast? Will the Minister confirm that an investigation will take place so that no such incidents can happen again? Reports have surfaced that the Cabinet Office suppressed the release of a memo about Mandelson’s relationship because it could compromise relations with the US. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Member for her remarks regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. Again, I underline the importance of us all being able to go about our roles in a safe and secure way, whatever our political views and beliefs. In the light of international events, particularly in the United States, that should be at the forefront of our minds today.

In the light of the additional information in the emails written by Lord Mandelson, I have been very clear that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. That is very clear; the decision was taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Those emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I associate myself with hon. Members’ condolences and concerns about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).

I thank the Minister for his statement. I too am disgusted and appalled by Epstein’s actions, and my thoughts are with the victims of his crimes. Will the Minister confirm that we have an excellent deputy ambassador in Washington, who will ensure that our mission continues and that next week’s visit will go ahead?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have an excellent team overall in British embassy Washington. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of all our diplomatic service colleagues across the world, who do an excellent job in representing this country and ensure that our security and prosperity is at the forefront of their work. Of course, our special relationship and unique security partnership with the United Staes is crucially important. I will be at the United States embassy later today. It is our closest and most important relationship. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an excellent team in British embassy Washington.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously this is a very sad day for the United States, with 9/11 and the assassination last night. Our relationship with the United States is crucial, and there is a dark cloud over the upcoming state visit, so will the Minister forgive me if I give him some gentle advice? In my experience of such scandals, the cover-up, the lack of due process and allegations of cronyism are much more serious than any original offence, or alleged offence. Will he ensure that every single document about the process is released post haste, including about the meeting that Mandelson requested with Prime Minister Blair over Epstein? We need everything released straightaway, and we need to move on and get a new ambassador.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of our relationship with the United States. The upcoming state visit is very important, and we have an extensive team working on it. His Majesty the King is obviously very much looking forward to welcoming President Trump, and many, many officials are working diligently day and night to ensure the visit is a success. I will not get into the individual issues and claims that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but what I will say is that this is a decisive action. In the light of the additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I would also like to offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). That incident follows a number of others that she has experienced this week. It is out of order.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I am really pleased that Lord Mandelson has been sacked, but I would like to know what due diligence was undertaken prior to his appointment. Everybody knew about his relationship with Epstein before it.

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have made very clear, it was in the light of additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. I know my hon. Friend well, and I know that her thoughts and the thoughts of us all will be with the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes.

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

The House needs to understand the sheer size of the failure of the vetting process here. It is in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had to resign for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and that he had to resign on a second occasion because he had helped a business friend to get a passport. Beyond that, there are still unresolved doubts about his behaviour as the European Trade Commissioner, when he gave concessions to the Russians, which helped his other dubious close friend, Mr Deripaska.

On the positive vetting process for when Peter Mandelson came to be a Minister again in 2010, section 3.1 of the ministerial code says:

“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”

Secretaries of State do not have private diaries. He spent time in Mr Epstein flat, it seems quietly meeting other people involved in the Sempra deal. That cannot be seen as following his proper duties as Secretary of State. It was in the Government documents—it does not have to be a private email. Was that investigated, and was a judgment made on it?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically about vetting. As I have said, all candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. I point him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo. Again, I point out that, in the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I agree with the Minister’s utter condemnation of all the horrendous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Does he agree that as soon as this new information came to light, the Government took decisive action very swiftly, which is different from the Conservatives? When they were in government and there were serious misgivings, it was actually the independent ethics adviser who ended up resigning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree that this is decisive action. The Prime Minister has acted in the light of that additional information, the Foreign Secretary has acted, and Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador to Washington.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I am sure that the Minister is delighted that he has not had to shred his own reputation like his ministerial and Cabinet colleagues have had to do on the broadcast rounds over the course of recent days, including this morning, in trying to defend Lord Mandelson and the lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister. I do not know what it is about the decades of scandals and being best friends with a notorious child trafficker and paedophile, which should have rung some alarm bells in No. 10 before this decision was taken. If I listened correctly, the Minister did not confirm to the Father of the House that all relevant materials will be published. Did the Prime Minister know about these emails prior to standing up at the Dispatch Box just yesterday to say he had confidence in Mr Mandelson, and does he retain the Labour Whip in the House of Lords?

[Stephen Doughty]

What I can commit to is that we will keep the House updated on these matters. A decisive decision has been made. As I have made very clear, all candidates are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. The Prime Minister, in the light of the additional information, has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. In particular, the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. But I agree, of course, with the right hon. Gentleman on the appalling crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, and the thoughts of all of us are with his victims, as they are every day.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the comments that others have made about the disgusting crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Twenty-four years ago today, on 9/11, I was sat in the TUC Congress as a delegate when we were made aware of what had happened. May I put on the record my tribute to the first responders and public service workers in New York who came to the aid of people? Many of them are still paying the price today.

A lot has changed in politics in the past 24 years. One of the motivations that got me into public life was about the lack of accountability that we saw from senior Ministers when the Conservative party was in government, their failure to resign when scandals came up and the failure of Front Benchers to take action, so I welcome the swift action that this Government have taken now that new information has come to light. Can the Minister assure us that lessons will be learned and that, if these things arise again, this Government will uphold the highest standards and take the action needed to protect public life?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that, and this is decisive action. He refers to the 11 September attacks, and I think we all remember where we were on that fateful and tragic day. That is why we remember the victims, particularly on the anniversary today.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman, who I am sure has visited our embassy in Washington on many occasions, will know that we have an excellent and dedicated team there, as well of course in the Foreign Office in King Charles Street in London. They are working on many aspects of that crucial security, defence and economic relationship. We are working diligently in preparation for the state visit, and I commend them for that work.

The hon. Gentleman asked about new information. I have been very clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. I have gone into the particular items, and in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.

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

The Prime Minister has acted swiftly and decisively. What a contrast with the Conservative party. I note that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not in her place today. What happened when she broke the ministerial code? The Conservatives promoted her. Does the Minister agree that we will not take lectures on ethics from them?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear that the Prime Minister has acted decisively on this matter and, in the light of that additional information, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. That is decisive action and that is responding to that information, and I have explained the reasons for it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have seen the high calibre of career diplomats who usually take up the most senior ambassadorial appointments, so it is not obvious to me why the British ambassador to the United States was a former MP. In the emails that have leaked overnight, it appears that Lord Mandelson thinks that to govern is to schmooze. He famously declared in an election victory speech that he was a fighter, not a quitter, yet he urged the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, that to fight for early release was the right thing. And Lord Mandelson did not do the decent thing and quit. Does the Minister regret the original appointment?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks about precedent. He will know that there is precedent, and we do have excellent ambassadors and high commissioners around the world—he and I have met many of them directly as they represent this country diligently. I have been clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.

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

The Minister is a decent man, and the House knows that the business of the House was delayed while he hurriedly had to rewrite the statement that he was expected to make, but he is stretching the bounds of credibility too far. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that he had full confidence in a man who befriended the vilest of convicted paedophiles. He should not have been appointed in the first place—that was a gross error of judgment and everybody in this House knows it—and the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. Now that Lord Mandelson has gone, will there be a Cabinet Office inquiry into the manner in which Mandelson was negotiating with a convicted paedophile while he was a Minister?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on his last remarks. What I will say is that the Prime Minister has acted decisively in the light of the new information, and he has taken the decision to ask the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. Again, for the House’s information, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The emails show the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. Again, in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The idea that our country should be represented in America or on the world stage by somebody who tried to get a paedophile out of prison early will fill us all with revulsion. Can the Minister be clearer? He has said that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. He said the Prime Minister made the decision, but he also said in his statement that Mandelson resigned. Did he resign or was he sacked?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear: the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. That is the process, and he is no longer in his position. I agree with the hon. Member about our absolute revulsion across this House at Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

I concur with the comments about Charlie Kirk that the Minister made at the beginning. It shows that anybody who is brave enough to put themselves up for public service and try to change the world for the better faces such dangers and risks.

May I ask the Minister, first, to reassure us that we will have total transparency about the process that was followed in this ambassadorial appointment? Secondly, assuming we get over that hurdle, can he please explain to the House why the appointment of a man who described President Trump as a “danger to the world”, whom the Americans described as an “absolute moron”, who has close links with China and who has a history of misfeasance in public office was the right appointment for the relationship with the most important and powerful country in the world, and one that is essential to this country?

[Stephen Doughty]

On the hon. Member’s first comments, he and I fundamentally disagree on many issues, but we know that we conduct our robust debate in this House, in our media and in our political society, and we do not engage in any form of political violence. What has happened in the United States over the past 24 hours is simply appalling, and our thoughts are with all of Charlie Kirk’s family and friends. As somebody who worked very closely with our late colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, it has shocked me to the core. I think it has shocked all of us to the core, and it can never be acceptable.

The hon. Member asked about the processes, and I have been very clear. All candidates for ambassador positions are subject to extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course, and I refer him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code. I assure him that we will keep the House updated on these matters.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

While the whole House welcomes the withdrawal of Lord Mandelson as head of mission, can the Minister confirm whether he is still being paid as a civil servant?

[Stephen Doughty]

My understanding is that Lord Mandelson is still an employee, and proper employment processes will take place, but I will write to the hon. Member to confirm my answer to that question. Lord Mandelson has recently been asked to withdraw as ambassador, and I will come back to the hon. Member with a detailed answer, but I do not want in any way to inadvertently mislead the House on an important matter.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It seems that there is a broad consensus across the whole House that this felt as though it was a question of when, not if. So during the extended vetting procedure, was there ever any interference or pressure from either No. 10 or the Prime Minister?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the hon. Member will know, I simply am not going to go into the vetting procedures, which are conducted independently. He can certainly look at the detail of how vetting processes are under- taken in the diplomatic service code, which outlines the processes.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

The diplomatic service code states that diplomats’

“behaviour, action or inaction must not significantly disrupt or damage the performance or reputation of the Diplomatic Service.”

It also states that diplomats

“must…set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible”.

In the light of that, did Lord Mandelson set out how many payments he had received from the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to accounts in this country, Switzerland or other areas, and has there been one set of rules for civil servants and another set of rules for friends of the Prime Minister and Jeffrey Epstein?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the essence of the decision that has been taken. In the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein are materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the procedures, and he knows that I do not have the documents relating to the vetting process in front of me.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On behalf of my party, may I convey my support to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? I was in her company yesterday and she is very much in our thoughts. I also, on behalf of my party, express deep sadness at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative influencer who engaged with young people across the United States of America. I know he is in heaven. I pray for his wife and children; I think we should all do that.

At times like this, it is essential that we have an ambassador in place to convey our sincere sympathy with our allies. The removal of Peter Mandelson is to be welcomed. In my humble opinion, he should never have been in the post in the first place. Does the Minister believe that it is imperative that we have an ambassador in place, and that they must have adequate history and qualifications, rather than our having a jobs-for-the-boys mentality? What changes will the Minister make to the appointment process to restore confidence in the role?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member is rightly known as one of the kindest and most generous Members of this House. I thank him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and the attack that she endured this morning. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on Charlie Kirk. He can be assured that we are already conveying our condolences to the United States. I expect to be with the United States ambassador in London later today, where I will be able to do that in person.

From a practical point of view, as the hon. Member will know, many ambassadors or high commissioner posts are vacant for a time. We have excellent teams who then do that job. Of course, when ambassadors or high commissioners are travelling, there is a team in post who are able to represent this country and ensure our that interests are pursued. That is exactly what will happen in this case.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

This is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. By Mandelson’s own admission, there is more very embarrassing information coming, so the Prime Minister could have said to the House yesterday, “I will suspend him, pending further investigation,” but he did not; he backed him. Can the Prime Minister be 100% sure that, in making any trade deals, or in any negotiations, Mr Mandelson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward, and will he commit to investigating that?

[Stephen Doughty]

I bring the hon. Member back to the fundamental point, which is that in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s words about 9/11 and the untimely and tragic death of Charlie Kirk.

Yesterday, it was reported that in 2008 Lord Mandelson emailed Epstein and said that his conviction in the United States

“could not happen in Britain”,

and encouraged him to go for early release. The whole House can see that the Prime Minister has an issue when it comes to judgment, acting only when he is pushed to by events in this House. Will there be an investigation of Lord Mandelson’s meetings while he was ambassador, to see if there was any conflict with his current business interests? Will the Government remove the Whip from him in the House of Lords, yes or no? And will Lord Mandelson be entitled to severance pay after this sacking?

[Stephen Doughty]

On the question about the Whip, as an employee of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Lord Mandelson was on a leave of absence from the other place, so that is very clear. As I said, the emails show that the depth and the extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known about it at the time he was employed. In particular, his suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and that is why the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to Washington.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister was hiding behind process yesterday, and is doing the same today. Did the Prime Minister know about these messages before Prime Minister’s questions yesterday?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am updating the House in real time on actions and decisions that have been taken. I have been very clear about the new information that has come to light, and the decision that the Prime Minister has taken as a result.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Minister claims that new information has come to light, which has resulted in the ambassador being sacked. Can he confirm that this is the only new information, and that all the other information was in the Prime Minister’s knowledge?

[Stephen Doughty]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I have already made.

[Neil O’Brien]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that the only reason why Peter Mandelson had to resign was the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of Epstein. The Government are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. The only way for this House to know exactly what they knew is for the Government to publish the documents relating to his vetting. If the Government will not publish those documents, as the Minister says they will not, would it be possible for this House to attain those documents using the Humble Address mechanism?

BBC Monitoring Service

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this important debate and sharing his remarks with me in advance. I can assure him that things have changed a lot since Michael Foot. This Labour Government are proud to support our nuclear deterrent and invest in our defence. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s extensive and long-standing expertise on this issue and many other related issues, and I am grateful for all the contributions.

I can confirm that the Government share the right hon. Member’s view that BBC Monitoring is a vital national asset, as many colleagues across the House have expressed. Indeed, I declare an interest personally because I have been a substantial user of its services in the past and am an avid listener of the BBC World Service, so I can truly attest to its incredible services and the work of its staff. For over 80 years, it has provided indispensable insight into world events, shaping our understanding of the global landscape, and high-quality and independent analysis, supporting that integrity of information worldwide, which lots of Members touched upon. Of course, those contribute to the Government’s wider efforts to combat misinformation, disinformation and harmful narratives produced by malign actors, hostile states and others around the world. It also provides a crucial insight into the international media landscape, and that informs our national security work, our foreign policy and our ability to take action on the world stage.

We must be clear about BBC Monitoring’s present value. As has been referred to, it has unique linguistic skills and deep regional expertise to fulfil the task of analysing media from across the globe. Whether that is state broadcast, social media, local news sites or official statements, it provides that texture, nuance and ground truth that enrich the quality of the evidence underpinning policy making for us and many others. It also helps us understand the deeper messages that Governments and others, but also their own people and audiences, are saying around the world. The value of that work should not be underestimated and, indeed, it is valued by colleagues in not only the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, as well as many others.

Of course, BBC Monitoring’s value is not confined to Whitehall; it is also an internal radar for the BBC itself. It identifies emerging narratives, spots developing stories, provides BBC News and the World Service with early warning, and helps them get ahead of the curve with their reporting and deeper conceptual analysis, so this is a symbiotic relationship. Of course, it also supports commercial partners and others with their insight and analysis. We fully endorse that service.

Although the BBC is responsible for the staffing, administration and editorial direction of the service, it is provided under a specific agreement—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—between the BBC and the Government, enabling collaborative discussions about the Government’s priorities for BBC Monitoring to consider in its wider prioritisation. That provides us with the assurance that the service continues to evolve in line with the changing media environment and the need to understand it, and ensures that it continues to provide value for the licence fee payer and the nation.

The Cabinet Office is the lead Department, managing the relationship, while the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides ministerial oversight. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman noted, the service is funded through the licence fee as part of the BBC’s public service remit. I am happy to write to him further on some of the details of the current funding arrangements. As I have mentioned, it derives some revenue from commercial customers and partnerships as well. It has many customers, including non-governmental organisations, intergovernmental and research bodies, media organisations, think-tanks and businesses. He asked how much the monitoring service costs the BBC. It has a range of funding streams, as I have set out, and ultimately it is for the BBC to approve the budget.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship with Open Source Enterprise. I can confirm that the service maintains a strong and highly effective information-sharing partnership with OSE under an annually reviewed memorandum. The two organisations continue to work together to cover the globe and fill in their respective gaps. They share expertise and collaborate on technological innovation.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the future. We want to see BBC Monitoring thrive. A key part of that is ensuring that the organisation is not standing still. It is embracing new technology to enhance its capabilities, including by integrating AI into its workflows, in accordance of course with BBC permitted usage and protocols. That will see staff using cutting-edge tools to sift through vast quantities of data at speed, allowing analysts to focus on providing the high-level insight and nuanced judgment that human expertise alone can supply. That will mean a combination of human insight and AI. This is a rapidly changing field, and BBC Monitoring is testing AI tools to help journalists keep track of what is being said in different outlets—that follows BBC rules and is designed to give a broad overview of the landscape that they are reporting on—but I should reiterate that decisions will still be made by people, not by machines. Indeed, BBC staff undertake mandatory AI training courses.

At the same time, BBC Monitoring has chosen to focus on providing deeper insights and context in its work. It now produces fewer reports but each carries greater analytical value. In 2024, it produced 78,832 reports; that is a reduction on the original target but reflects a deliberate and sensible shift away from basic translation and summarising, and towards analysis that delivers real impact. Having used that service before, I can say that it really does provide critical insight. Reports do not always draw a clear line between monitoring and analysis, recognising that both are part of the same effort to understand narratives. I am pleased to see those advancements and I am sure that they will continue in the years ahead.

The existing charter is due to expire at the end of 2027, and that will be an opportunity, as has been discussed elsewhere, to consider a wide range of issues. That will ensure that the BBC has a sustainable funding model for all its important work, including BBC Monitoring. My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have made it clear that they are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will think creatively about all the options to future-proof our national broadcaster.

[Adam Jogee]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way briefly before I conclude.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and congratulate him and his husband on their recent marriage.

I am just reading “The UK’s new approach to Africa: summary of consultation”. Point 47 states:

“We also heard that parts of the UK’s soft power appeal can be intangible.”

May I invite the Minister to confirm that both the World Service and the Monitoring service are, in his view, key parts of UK soft power?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree that they are. As I said, I am an admirer of them, and they are admired around the globe—I hear that repeatedly on my travels, as do ministerial colleagues. And I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks on my marriage.

I want to be clear. Of course I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the licence fee process—that is for other colleagues—or make specific comments about future funding arrangements today, but I can give the House and the right hon. Member for New Forest East this assurance: he should be in no doubt about our high regard for BBC Monitoring. Its value and readiness for the future is understood at the highest levels, and we will continue to work with the BBC, DCMS and others across Government to ensure that its work continues and that we are all able to benefit from its unique expertise and analysis.

Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Written Statements

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

The right hon. Lord Jones of Penybont has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards).

The right hon. Baroness Coffey has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of Baroness Helic.

[HCWS910]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

1. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of reductions to the official development assistance budget on UK-supported humanitarian and development programmes overseas.

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

Welcome back after the recess, Mr Speaker. We remain committed to international development, but we must modernise our approach. In a changing world, we are not just donors; we are partners, investors and reformers. We must ensure that every pound delivers for the UK taxpayer, as well as the people we support. Sharpening our priorities on humanitarian health, climate and nature, and ensuring that they are underpinned by economic development; prioritising our work with multilaterals; and shifting how we work will help us maximise our impact.

[Edward Morello]

Natural disasters like the earthquake in Jalalabad, recent wildfires and floods are becoming more and more frequent as a result of climate change. Support for Ukraine and for Gaza have survived the disastrous cuts to ODA, but what assessments has the Department made of the impact of ODA reductions on countries facing humanitarian and natural disasters, and can the UK still provide the amount of aid needed to prevent displacement and migration as a result of those crises?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises important issues. We have seen horrific scenes in Afghanistan, and he will know that we gave £1 million yesterday. We have also seen terrible scenes in Sudan this morning. He will know that tackling the climate and nature emergency around the world is a priority for us, and we continue to support humanitarian work around the world. Of course, responding to disasters remains a key part of that, and we have demonstrated that repeatedly in a number of contexts, through the support that we have given.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

Could the Minister update the House on the reduction in assistance to places including Myanmar, and on democracy there, and the imprisonment of Daw Suu?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have to make very difficult choices as a result of the decision we made. We remain absolutely committed to international development. The detailed allocations will be set out in due course, and they will of course be informed by impact assessments before we publish multi-year allocations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

At a time when we face global development spending reductions across critical areas such as global health, women, peace and security, girls’ education, water, sanitation and hygiene, and nutrition, Ministers have chosen to increase energy and climate spending by £244 million—an increase of 59%. Could the Minister explain the rationale for that significant increase and outline how those funds will be allocated, particularly as, unlike in 2024-25, no breakdown of political priorities is available for scrutiny?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have just said, we will set out the detailed allocations in due course; they will be informed by impact assessments. The right hon. Member rightly raises the issue of women and girls. Of course, less money does not mean less action, and we see our work on women and girls as essential for development and our UK missions overseas. We have appointed Baroness Harman as a UK special envoy for women and girls. We are amplifying the voices of women’s organisations and movements, including in climate-affected contexts, and embedding gender equality across our international action. That is absolutely a priority for us, and we will set out the details of individual programmes, informed by those impact assessments, in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

With congratulations on her marriage over the summer recess, I call Louise Sandher-Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

4. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the Chagos Islands.

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

The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, and to keeping the British people safe. The treaty was tested at the highest level of the United States’ security establishment, which supported the deal. The agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and all our Five Eyes partners. India, Japan and South Korea have made clear their support for the deal.

[Dr Evans]

By not even trying to go to court or argue the case, the Government have cost the taxpayer £30 billion. Does the Minister agree with the Defence Minister who said that the deal represents “good value” for UK taxpayers?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have explained many times in the House, those figures are completely misleading. The net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. The average cost of the deal in today’s money is £101 million per year. That is just a fraction of our Defence budget, and represents a few hours of spending on our NHS. This Government will not scrimp when it comes to the national security of the United Kingdom and our allies.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sorry, but I have a lot of Members to get in. I have given the Chair of the Select Committee a lot of leeway. It might be worth her putting in for an Adjournment debate, if there is so much to say on the subject; I would be more than happy with that.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her interest in this important issue, which she and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have raised with me previously. The Government have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago, supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius, under which we will support Mauritius’s ambition to establish a marine protected area to protect the globally significant ecosystems to which she refers. The agreement of the terms of the technical support and assistance is a priority within the ongoing implementation process with Mauritius. I have listened very carefully to what she says and she can be assured that I have already been asking questions about many of those issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Government have now been forced to admit the real cost of the catastrophic Chagos surrender deal: it is not £3.4 billion—oh no, Mr Speaker—it is a mind blowing £34.7 billion, which is 10 times more that we were told. No wonder Mauritius is planning tax cuts of its own, and it is British businesses and families who will pay the price. This deal leaves our country poorer, our defence capabilities damaged and our standing in the world weakened. Will the Minister now apologise to the British people for this epic failure in diplomacy, withdraw his Chagos surrender Bill and keep the islands British?

[Stephen Doughty]

How ever many times the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) or the Conservative party in its emails to supporters make this claim about the cost, it does not mean that it is true—it is not. The £30 billion figure is inaccurate and misleading. It is wrong to ignore the cost of inflation and the change in the value of money, over the real cost of a deal that lasts 99 years. The figures are verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, drawing on long-established methodology. I have set out the costs. We will not scrimp on national security. Quite frankly, the brass neck from Conservative Members, after they disinvested in our armed forces and our defence over the entire time they were in office, is quite extraordinary.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

5. What diplomatic steps he is taking to help protect democracy in Georgia.

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

We are deeply concerned about the situation in Georgia, as I have discussed with my hon. Friend on a number of occasions. We are working closely with European allies to protect democracy in Georgia. In June, I convened a meeting of European partners to discuss and address the democratic backsliding in Georgia, and on 11 July the Foreign Secretary condemned the detention of opposition leaders in a statement with European Foreign Ministers. We remain committed to Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic path and democratic norms.

[Blair McDougall]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in congratulating the Minister on his nuptials? I thank him for the lead he has taken on Georgia. He will know, because he has recently been in Georgia, that over the summer the situation has dramatically worsened: opposition leaders have been jailed, young democracy activists have been given life-changing prison sentences, and the civil society organisations that are trying to protect democracy have been threatened with prosecution. The complaint of the democracy activists I used to work with is that all of this brutality is happening while the regime’s money is washed through business associates in London. Will the Minister target the people who are responsible for this brutality and hold them accountable?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend raises important and serious issues. He knows that the Foreign Secretary and I prioritise tackling illicit finance more broadly. I will not comment on future potential measures, but he will know that we have imposed a number of sanctions on Georgian Dream Ministers, on police chiefs and on Georgian judges under the global anti-corruption sanctions regime. Indeed, in April we also sanctioned the general prosecutor, the head of the special investigatory service and other officials. I cannot comment on future steps, but he can be assured that I am following this issue daily.

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

I join others in congratulating the Minister on his nuptials—that is happy news for everybody. The Minister will be aware of the fantastic work that UK-based non-governmental organisations have done about civil society stability, which is crucial in these darker times. With the cuts to the international development budget, will the Minister assure me that work in that space in Georgia and elsewhere will not be undermined as a result of those cuts?

[Stephen Doughty]

I set out the position on the changes to our aid budget earlier. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the important work that civil society does in Georgia, and indeed more broadly, in ensuring a free society. He will appreciate that the situation there is very difficult. We have suspended all our programme support for the Georgian Government, restricted our defence co-operation, limited our engagement with Georgian Dream representatives and frozen the annual strategic dialogue in response to the very disturbing direction of travel that we have seen in Georgia. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is indeed time for a step change in the UK’s response to the sinister crackdown on freedom and political opposition in Georgia. It is welcome that the Minister is assessing asset bans and freezes on those responsible for this wholly unacceptable situation. May I ask that he steps up efforts for the Georgian civil society counter-destabilisation hybrid activities, especially in the information space and the actors that might be involved in that? What discussions has he had with the US Administration in the light of the MEGOBARI Bill going through Congress?

[Stephen Doughty]

We engage regularly with international counterparts on Georgia and on wider stability in the south Caucasus. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of media freedom. He will know that we condemned the disproportionate and politically motivated sentencing of Mzia Amaglobeli in August; she has been sentenced to two years in prison, and we call for her immediate release. I also discussed the wider situation with Georgia’s fifth president, President Zourabichvili, on her recent visit to the UK, and I expressed my support for her work supporting democracy in Georgia. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I will not comment on further measures, but he can be absolutely assured that I am closely following matters, as are other colleagues across Government.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

6. What progress his Department has made on the evacuation of UK scholarship students from Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

T3. My constituents Lee and Joanna Woodcock’s daughter Holly was found deceased in France in August last year. They have raised significant concerns regarding the investigation by the French authorities, and some lesser concerns regarding the support they have received from the FCDO. Will the Minister meet Mr and Mrs Woodcock to hear directly about their experience?

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

First, I express my deep condolences over Holly’s death. I know this is a very distressing time for Mr and Mrs Woodcock and the whole family. My hon. Friend will know about the consular support that is being provided, as we have spoken about that. I would, of course, be very happy to meet him and the Woodcock family to discuss the matter further, although he will understand that I cannot get directly involved in overseas investigations by authorities in France.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I was pleased to read that the Government are finally taking steps to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme—something for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time. Will the Minister now set out a timetable mandate and expected terms for UK reassociation with that programme?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not want to go into the details. We are involved in many different discussions with the European Union following our historic summit on 19 May. I attended the Gymnich with Foreign Ministers in Denmark last weekend. We are progressing this alongside the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, and we will provide details in due course.

ODA Target 2024

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development, Latin America and Caribbean, the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has today made the following statement:

The FCDO’s annual report and accounts 2024-25, published today, reports that in 2024, on a provisional basis, the United Kingdom did not meet its target to spend the equivalent of 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance.

The International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 envisages situations in which a departure from meeting the target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA may be necessary, including due to economic circumstances, fiscal circumstances and circumstances arising outside the UK. The fiscal circumstances did not allow for ODA spending to be returned to 0.7% of GNI in 2024.

This Government are committed to restoring ODA spending at the level of 0.7% of GNI as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. The principles for a return will be met when, on a sustainable basis, the Government are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. We will monitor future forecasts closely against these tests. The latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility indicates that the tests will not be met in this Parliament. The Government are working hard to create the conditions to enable the ODA fiscal tests to be met by prioritising growth—stronger growth will help in time to get underlying debt down.

As required by section 2 of the 2015 Act, an unnumbered Act paper has been laid before Parliament and is in the same terms as this statement.

[HCWS888]

Overseas Territories: Illicit Finance Dialogue and Beneficial Ownership Registers

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

In my statement of 3 July, I provided an update on progress made by our overseas territories on delivering on commitments at the Joint Ministerial Council in November 2024 on corporate transparency and beneficial ownership registers.

On 15 July, I convened a virtual illicit finance ministerial dialogue with elected leaders of the overseas territories, Ministers and senior officials and was pleased to be joined by Baroness Hodge, the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion.

We discussed the importance of working together to tackle the threats of illicit finance and the important role that beneficial ownership registers play as part of our toolkit.

In line with my previous statement of 3 July, we reviewed progress made in each overseas territory, and I have asked Baroness Hodge, in her capacity as the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, to support me and other Ministers in working with the overseas territories to help deliver progress. As an immediate next step, Baroness Hodge will visit the British Virgin Islands to assess progress in implementing their commitments on beneficial ownership registers. She will report back to me after the summer. I will carefully consider what further steps to take in the light of this report.

Our next formal review of progress will be at the next Joint Ministerial Council scheduled in November. I and my officials will remain in close contact with the overseas territories prior to that to support completion of the commitments made previously.

I also updated overseas territory leaders and other delegates about the opportunity to work together in support of the Foreign Secretary’s illicit finance campaign and ahead of the countering illicit finance summit that is being planned in 2026.

I welcome the work of the overseas territories to implement international standards, including the Cayman Islands, which have been appointed by the Financial Action Task Force as guest members under the new regional bodies’ guest initiative.

Finally, we discussed the important role of the overseas territories in implementing and enforcing UK sanctions. I commended the efforts of the overseas territories to implement UK sanctions effectively and acknowledged the excellent progress that the overseas territories are making on building their sanctions capabilities.

I encouraged the overseas territories to strengthen their enforcement frameworks, in line with the outcomes of the UK’s own sanctions enforcement review, including by exploring introduction of civil monetary penalties for sanctions breaches in overseas territory jurisdictions and increasing information sharing on sanctions wherever possible. I underlined the ongoing Government commitment to support the overseas territories in this vital work.

[HCWS877]

Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am updating the House on the introduction of “The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanction Regulations 2025” which will be laid before Parliament in due course and will be debated after the summer recess. These regulations are subject to the made affirmative procedure for secondary legislation.

This new sanctions regime is the first of its kind anywhere in the world and aims to tackle people smuggling and human trafficking and those that enable, facilitate, promote and profit from these vile trades. It is made under powers provided to the Government by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and delivers on the commitment made in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s speech in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s Locarno room of 9 January to bring forward legalisation to tackle this evil trade as quickly as possible.

This regime will stop criminal gangs exploiting some of the most vulnerable, to prevent them profiting from risking the lives of innocent human beings, and to stop them getting rich and committing more crime on Britain’s streets.

The regulations provide extensive new powers enabling the Government to designate persons who are involved in people smuggling, trafficking in persons and the instrumentalisation of migration for the purpose of destabilisation. Those sanctioned under the regime face being banned from entering the UK, prevented from being a UK company director, and having any assets held in the UK frozen. These powers will complement our wider efforts to break the business model of those profiting from the misery of others in this way.

This regime delivers on the Government’s commitment to use every tool available to crack down on the abominable people smugglers risking people’s lives, including in the English channel. It gives the Government new powers to take direct action against them and their enablers in the way we can already against terrorists, cybercriminals and corrupt kleptocrats.

Sanctions experts from across Government have worked in close collaboration with the Home Office and law enforcement authorities to deliver an effective and targeted sanctions regime that will help stem the finance flows of people smugglers at source and deter them from taking part in this inhuman trade.

As the world’s first sanctions regime dedicated to targeting irregular migration and organised immigration crime, it will target individuals and entities wherever they are—from countries of origin to those who smuggle migrants across borders or enable and facilitate these dangerous journeys. It will allow the Government to sanction targets along the entire smuggling and trafficking chain, including companies involved in small boat supply chains and organised immigration criminals and their enablers.

While we are proud to be leading the way on this issue, people smuggling and human trafficking are not problems the UK faces alone, but shared global challenges. We will continue to play a leading role with our international partners to combat these joint challenges, including to strengthen our sanctions co-ordination.

This is part of the Government’s resolute mission to secure our borders and crack down on irregular migration. This Government have made irregular migration a priority from the outset, and we are continuing to break new ground on innovative approaches to address the challenge, including the recently agreed groundbreaking pilot with France to detain and return migrants who arrive via small boat. The Germans have also committed to amend their criminal legislation this year to explicitly cover facilitating irregular migration to the UK. This will save lives by disrupting the dangerous small boat supply chains of criminal networks.

The sanctions regime forms part of these wider efforts to secure our borders and disrupt and deter dangerous irregular migration, complementing new powers for law enforcement, including those introduced in the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. In the last year, this Government have more than doubled asylum decision making—a 116% increase since the election. We have also made over 35,000 returns since the election—a 13% increase compared with the same period 12 months ago. We have increased illegal working raids and arrests by 50% in the last year, with 7,130 arrests and over 10,000 raids—the first time in a 12-month period where more than 10,000 raids have taken place.

By helping to smash the people smuggling gangs and tackle irregular migration flows upstream, this regime will play an important role in delivering the Government’s plan for change on behalf of the British people.

[HCWS879]

ODA 0.7% GNI Target 2024

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

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

The Minister of State for International Development, Latin America and Caribbean, my right hon. Friend Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has today made the following statement:

This statement will be made at a later date.

[HCWS874]

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Written Statements

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

Illicit finance, corruption, and kleptocracy pose a direct threat to our national security, economic resilience, and the integrity of the global financial system. The UK remains steadfast in its commitment to tackling these threats both at home and abroad by strengthening our defences and leading international efforts to ensure there is no safe haven for dirty money.

Illicit finance is a transnational challenge that thrives on opacity and weak governance. It undermines sustainable development, distorts markets, and erodes public trust. That is why this Government have made it a core priority to enhance transparency, restrict enablers of financial crime, and hold perpetrators of grand corruption to account.

In November, the Foreign Secretary launched a comprehensive illicit finance campaign, placing corporate transparency at the heart of our agenda. A key pillar of this work is the implementation of beneficial ownership registers across the overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

At the Joint Ministerial Council in November 2024, all overseas territories committed to increasing access to company ownership data. The Falkland Islands and St Helena pledged to implement fully public registers by April 2025, joining Montserrat and Gibraltar, which had already done so. Other territories—including Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands—committed to implementing registers with legitimate interest access by June 2025, with appropriate safeguards to protect privacy in line with their constitutions.

Since then, we have worked closely with each territory to support implementation. I am pleased to report that progress has been made across the board, with several registers now operational.

I welcome the launch of St Helena’s fully public register on 30 June 2025.

The Falkland Islands reaffirmed their commitment to transparency in their public statement on 30 June and intend to implement their register by July 2026 due to capacity constraints. Preparatory work is under way, and UK support remains available to help implement their register as soon as possible.

Gibraltar has maintained a fully public register since 2020. I commend its leadership and welcome its efforts to improve user access.

Montserrat has also played a leading role by launching its public register in 2024. I welcome its leadership.

The Cayman Islands launched their legitimate interest register in February 2025, which allows access by a range of people, including journalists. I welcomed Premier Ebanks’ commitment to make further enhancements in our meeting last month, including more streamlined processes for multiple search requests, including on fees.

The Turks and Caicos Islands launched their legitimate interest register on 30 June, which was very welcome. My understanding is that further enhancements will be made to the TCI register, and we look forward to working with them to deliver on this. I had a constructive conversation with Premier Misick on Wednesday 2 July.

Anguilla is progressing towards implementation later this quarter, and we remain in close contact to support timely delivery. I welcome the discussions I have had with the new Premier Richardson-Hodge.

Bermuda is targeting implementation by July 2026, with interim access for obliged entities. I have made clear our expectation that Bermuda implements a register of beneficial ownership as soon as possible. Officials continue to be in touch with their counterparts in Bermuda to offer support in implementing its register as soon as possible.

The British Virgin Islands published a revised policy on 23 June. Although improvements have been made, I remain concerned about the system’s limitations, particularly regarding proactive investigations, and provision for data subjects to be notified of searches concerning their information. The delay on implementation to April 2026 is disappointing. It is important that further progress is made to improve functionality of their proposed registers. I have set clear expectations and officials are following up directly with counterparts in BVI to bridge this gap and to implement their register as soon as possible. The recent decision by the Financial Action Task Force to place the BVI under increased monitoring underlines our concerns.

Later this month, I intend to convene an illicit finance dialogue with elected leaders of the overseas territories. This will be an opportunity jointly to take stock of progress against the Joint Ministerial Council commitments on beneficial ownership registers, agree further remedial actions, and reaffirm our shared commitment to transparency and accountability. I am pleased that Baroness Hodge, the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, will join us to share her insights and update us on her role and mandate. I will update the House following that dialogue.

[HCWS774]

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 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 ratification of the UK-Mauritius treaty on 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. On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of the signature, this treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, including the United States, and is essential to keeping the British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership.

The base enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states, and it has a unique strategic location. The treaty ensures that the UK retains complete operational control of Diego Garcia well into the next century. It has robust security measures that prevent threats from the outer islands of the archipelago, including: a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure the base is never undermined. These robust provisions give the UK an effective veto over any activity that presents a clear and direct threat to the base on Diego Garcia, and they will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base.

The treaty sets out that it can be ratified once both parties have completed their relevant domestic processes, and for the UK this of course includes scrutiny of the treaty by Parliament and making the necessary changes to domestic law. The treaty was laid before the House on the day of signature for scrutiny under the usual process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We welcome the report into the treaty by the International Agreements Committee in the other place, which recognised the importance of ratifying the treaty to secure the base, and the debate on Monday in the other place in which peers rejected a cynical Conservative motion to block ratification.

Nevertheless, before the treaty is ratified, the Government will also bring forward primary legislation, as I have said on many occasions, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way, and secondary legislation as necessary. Ahead of ratification, the Government will also make a ministerial statement in both Houses, providing a factual update on Chagossian eligibility for resettlement and on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund. That will also enable further discussion in a proper manner. The treaty will then enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which both parties have exchanged letters confirming these processes are complete.

This landmark agreement secures the future of our strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. It is, as I said, a crucial contribution to the defence and security partnerships that we hold. As the Defence Secretary told this House, there was no alternative but to act, and in so doing we have protected Britons at home and overseas. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not recognise that fact, why did they start negotiating in the first place?

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. With the 21-day CRAG process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour has breached the parliamentary conventions and denied the House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification. The Minister says that we will get a vote on the Bill, but having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on a treaty under CRAG.

Earlier this week, the House of Lords had a debate and vote, where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. Why cannot we have a debate and vote in this House? What are Ministers afraid of? Are they afraid that their Back Benchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and will force them into another embarrassing U-turn? Are they afraid that MPs across the House will do the maths even, and see that the actual amount of money going to Mauritius will be at least £30 billion and not the £3.4 billion accountancy valuation claim that Ministers talk about? Are they afraid that Labour’s barefaced hypocrisy and appalling treatment of the Chagossian community will be exposed?

The Minister once said:

“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future” —[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]

but this surrender treaty betrays them. He has betrayed them, leaving any decisions on resettlement and support through the trust fund in the hands of Mauritius.

With a legal case ongoing, will the Minister extend the CRAG process until all legal challenges have concluded? Will the Minister finally admit that Labour made October’s bad deal even weaker by giving up the unilateral right to extend the lease on the base and ditching the clause authorising the UK to exercise sovereign rights? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that it has done that, so will the Minister finally admit it? Will the Minister confirm that there are no guarantees that the current levels of marine protections will continue?

There is too much ambiguity; we have not had clarity. There are no guarantees on security or on safeguarding, unanswered questions about notification requirements around the base, and no guarantees that Mauritius will not pursue further lawfare to stop operations at the base if it thinks they contravene international law, including trying to block nuclear weapons, as the Pelindaba treaty now applies to the Chagos islands. The Minister should scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny and finally a vote in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I genuinely have to say, as somebody who has respect for and likes the right hon. Lady, that I am disappointed by the tone of those remarks. I do not know who writes this stuff; I do not know whether it is just performative politics, or rhetoric—I don’t know what.

I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from the right hon. Lady. I have answered over 250 questions in total on the deal and the process. We have had no fewer than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from the Government, from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. I personally briefed the right hon. Lady and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago, in good faith and in detail. I have been subjected, quite rightly, to robust scrutiny on these issues not only by the Foreign Affairs Committee, but by the International Relations and Defence Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other House, in great detail.

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady and her team are simply not reading the transcripts or the answers to the questions, but I have repeatedly answered them. She might not like the answers, Mr Speaker, but I have answered these questions. I have set out the position on costs. I have set out the position on the security arrangements. I have set out the position on the vetoes that we have. The fact is that this deal secures this base, and it secures our national security and that of our allies. It is absolutely right that it has had proper scrutiny, and there will be a vote, because there will be a vote on the legislation that we will put before the House in due course.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to Washington with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was struck by the support expressed by the US Government for the deal to secure the long-term future of the military base on Diego Garcia. Alongside the US, our Five Eyes allies support the deal, NATO supports the deal, and India supports the deal. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition would do well to listen to our closest neighbours and allies instead of trying to play party politics with our national security?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. National security is the top priority of this Government, and working with our crucial allies, including the United States, is key to that. He is absolutely right to point out the support that was gained for this deal through a full and detailed inter-agency process in the United States, at the highest levels of the Administration, as well as the support from our Five Eyes partners and from India. The fact is that this deal secures the base and secures our capabilities, and it would not have been signed off if it did not do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The shambolic process of securing this deal has left many questions for the House, but the glaring omission at the heart of that negotiation has been the failure by successive Governments to properly consult the Chagossian people. For much of their history, Chagossians have been denied consultation on who governs them and their right to self-determination. We Liberal Democrats now fear that in handing over the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius without properly reflecting the interests of Chagossians, the Government are only reinforcing that legacy.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) criticises the actions of Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, yet only the Liberal Democrats championed the rights of the Chagossian people and secured a commitment from the Government to make statements to both Houses on their approach before ratification. In the light of those shortcomings, it is wrong that the Government have not brought the treaty to this House for scrutiny. Will the Minister reverse that decision today and give parliamentarians the opportunity to assess and vote on the final deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for the generally constructive way in which he and his colleagues have approached the process. He is absolutely right to speak about the Chagossians. Indeed, as I have pointed out many times, the Chagossians’ interest in this matter has been at the heart of our discussions. We have the trust fund; we have the agreement to start visits again. Of course, Mauritius will be able to restart a programme of resettlement. He has heard the remarks made by my noble Friends in the other place, in response to the questions that his honourable colleagues raised. We have been very clear about what we will do in that regard, and I hold to that here today.

I have to challenge the suggestion that the treaty has not received scrutiny. It is receiving scrutiny right now. It has been receiving scrutiny in the Foreign Affairs Committee, it has received scrutiny in the other place, and it has received scrutiny through parliamentary questions. It is receiving scrutiny and it is absolutely right that it does.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

The Minister has just set out the scrutiny that this matter has received in various places, but I was really taken by the number of questions that he said he had received from the shadow Foreign Secretary on this subject. Can he tell me how many questions he has received on other matters of global importance?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. Since the treaty was laid, I have had 50 written questions from the right hon. Lady. In comparison, I have had four on Gibraltar, two on Ukraine, and one on Poland. He is right that this matter has received scrutiny.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not being funny, but it is amazing that the Minister had those figures to hand.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, keeps saying that the Government had no choice but to do this deal. I do not believe that to be true. My successor, Lord Cameron, did not believe that to be true either, which is why neither he nor I signed off an agreement. Will the Minister please explain to the House in detail why he believed that he had no choice, including what body, at what time, and with what jurisdiction?

[Stephen Doughty]

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

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

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

[Stephen Doughty]

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

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks China supports this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear on this: the United States, our Five Eyes partners and India support this deal. Mauritius was one of the few countries not to join the belt and road initiative. It is very clear that the deal is in the interests of our security and that of our allies—otherwise, the United States would not have agreed to it in the first place.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Clearly, language such as “surrender” is inflammatory and inappropriate. Conservative Members of this House wax lyrical and make a song and dance about national security. Will my hon. Friend remind them that on their watch, our armed forces were hollowed out, with the Army reaching its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, and spending never once reached 2.5%? Is it not true that Labour is the party of strong defence and strong national security?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right. Whether it is in the ambitious agenda for national security and defence set out in the strategic defence review, in the unity and leadership we showed at the NATO summit last week, or in securing our crucial national security bases, including Diego Garcia, this Government are leading from the front when it comes to national security. Quite frankly, the Conservative party is showing some brass neck after hollowing out our armed forces, leaving this deal undone and so many other things. I simply do not understand it, Mr. Speaker.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I simply ask the Minister the same question that I asked when he first came to the House on this matter. In relation to the cost consequences of this deal, he knows that the lion’s share of the interest lies with the military base on Diego Garcia. Therefore, what contribution is the United States making to the very significant costs of compensating the Mauritian people?

[Stephen Doughty]

The United States makes significant and crucial contributions to the operations from Diego Garcia. They are of a quantum much greater than the cost that we will pay in relation to the base under this deal. The benefit to the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies is priceless, and this Government will not scrimp on our national security.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The cost of this deal is equivalent to a quarter of 1% of our defence budget, and that is in the context of a Government who have made the highest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. When the Minister speaks to our international friends and allies, what is their message about the work that we are doing to restore confidence in national security and our reputation on the global stage? And what message should the Opposition take from those conversations?

[Stephen Doughty]

I repeatedly hear a strong vote of confidence in our investment in national security and defence, whether it is from our European partners or from the United States. One just has to look at our leadership at the NATO summit and our ongoing support for Ukraine, which we agree on across the House. My hon. Friend asks about the value and the costs. I have set out the costs on a number of occasions, but, as he says, it is just a fraction of 1% of our annual defence budget. It would pay to run the NHS for just five hours. It also compares favourably with other allies. For example, France pays approximately €85 million a year for its base in Djibouti. Diego Garcia is 15 times larger and the capabilities are priceless.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister rightly says that the base on Diego Garcia is vital for our national security, and we all agree on that. The key issue is what notification has to be given to the Mauritius Government for the base to be used for operational purposes.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has replied to multiple questions on this topic, as have I. Indeed, I answered these questions in the due scrutiny that I received the other day. We do not have to provide notification in advance. The treaty refers to “expeditiously” informing after the event, and that is absolutely the normal course of business. I am clear that the operations and the operational autonomy of this base are secure under this deal.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is amazing that we are to give up an important security base without it being necessary to do so, that we are to pay billions to a Government that will allow them to make tax cuts while we impose tax burdens on our own country, and that the Minister stands here today at the Dispatch Box and says that he does not have time to explain why it is necessary to do so. Surely the way to ensure that we have proper scrutiny of this deal is to have a proper debate, or is he afraid that his own Back Benchers, once they hear the real story, will find it as difficult to walk through the Lobby for it as they did for the welfare reform Bill yesterday?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I totally reject his assertion. There is full support for this deal—and, indeed, full support for it from our allies in the United States and the Five Eyes partners. On the point about alleged tax cuts, at no point in his Budget speech did Prime Minister Ramgoolam say that he was planning to fund income tax reform with the money from this deal. That was very, very clear. Indeed, the rationale for this deal, which I have explained multiple times to the House, is that our national security was at risk and the operations of that base could not function as they once did. That is why the Opposition started the negotiations and why we have concluded them.

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

After yesterday’s complete chaos, my constituents are bracing themselves for big tax increases in the autumn. How does the Minister think they feel when they see the Mauritian Government crowing about virtually abolishing income tax in Mauritius thanks to the largesse that he is about to pour on them?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am genuinely surprised by the comments of the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Defence Minister and someone who has served, he will know the importance of this base and the need to secure it, and he will know the risks to our operations that were inherent under the previous Government. That is why his Government started this process and why we have concluded it. It is also why our costs under the deal are broadly comparable with what France pays for its base in Djibouti, even though our base 15 times larger and has immeasurably more capability, as he well knows.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

In the Minister’s response, he quoted the answer from the Defence Secretary to my question, saying that he had no choice. But the reason for doing this deal is the worry about being taken to court—so the Government do have a choice, and that is what my constituents and Opposition Members are so upset about. The Government could have a fight in the court and appeal the decision, yet they have chosen not to, and they will not explain why.

Will the Minister set out what the need was for immediacy and why he and his Government will not go to the court for the tribunal he is so worried about to have that fight? If the case were shut down, Opposition Members would understand, and if it was found that we had a legal responsibility to pay, we would do so, but we do not, and we have not had our day in court as a country. That is the travesty of the deal.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to correct the hon. Member as we have had days in court on this issue. That is one of the reasons—[Interruption.] There was the non-binding judgment in the International Court of Justice. He also forgets to mention the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the votes in the United Nations and all the other legal processes. The fact is, it is our view—indeed, it was the view of the previous Government—that a legally binding judgment would inevitably follow. Leaving such a key national security asset in that way is not responsible; no, the responsible thing to do is to secure the base with our allies, and that is exactly what we have done.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

While China might support this terrible deal, let me tell the Minister that the British people do not support this appalling deal, giving away our strategic security asset and paying tens of billions of our taxpayers’ money in the process. Our taxpayers will be suffering tax rises for that in order that the Mauritians get tax cuts. Since the Government are in the mood for U-turns, why do they not take the hint and U-turn on this terrible Chagos deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not take any lessons from a party that fawns over Vladimir Putin.

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

In the Defence Secretary’s statement on 22 May, he stated with regard to potential legal rulings against us that

“The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

The US, which operates the base, is not even a signatory to UNCLOS. How would ITLOS have ruled a binding legal judgment that we would have recognised? It is notable that ITLOS has not been mentioned since that statement?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am confused—I have mentioned ITLOS on a number of occasions, including just a moment ago. The long-standing view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. Even if we chose to ignore binding judgments made against us—we would not do so—their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would give rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and the delivery of its national security functions.

International organisations have already adopted decisions based on Mauritian sovereignty, and others would follow suit following such litigation. That could affect the electromagnetic spectrum, access to the base by air and by sea, and the ability to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions. Further, the UK would likely face a provisional measures order in a matter of weeks. The position is clear, and we have explained it. The hon. Member’s previous Government knew exactly the same. [Interruption.] However much he shouts and however much he does not like the arguments, they are the facts.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister confirm that 40 years ago the most disgusting, cynical injustice was done against the Chagos islanders and that it was their resolute campaigning over decades—often alone, with little friendship or support—that eventually brought the whole case to international law and an opinion from the International Court of Justice, which has brought about the situation we are now in? Instead of obsessing with the twilight of empire, should Opposition parties not be thinking about the injustice done to the Chagos islanders?

Will the Minister confirm that in the arrangements now being made, the Chagos islanders, wherever they are resident, and whatever their opinions are, do have a right of return? Will he give us some idea of what the attitude will be about the right of visit, the right of residence and the right of return to Diego Garcia, where the majority of the Chagos islanders have come from? They are a people who have been badly treated by history and are now being used as pawns by people more interested in defending some strange notion of the twilight of empire than justice for the Chagos islanders.

[Stephen Doughty]

The primary purpose of the deal was of course to secure the base on Diego Garcia and the national security of the UK and our allies, but the right hon. Member is right to point out the historical situation regarding the Chagossians. We have expressed deep regret for how they were removed from the islands in the 1960s and ’70s; indeed, that is on the face of the treaty. We recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians as well as the different views in the community, which he is well acquainted with.

We will be restarting those visits, including to Diego Garcia. The programme of resettlement to islands outside Diego Garcia will be for Mauritius to determine, but we have committed to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place that we will provide further statements on how that will work in due course. There is also the trust fund and the support we provide here in the UK. We are listening to the different Chagossian groups and trying to ensure that their interests are at the heart of the treaty deal as we move forward.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Minister will be aware of a pending judicial review challenge focused on the lack of consultation with the Chagossians. Why was there not full and adequate consultation with the Chagossian people?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not comment on ongoing judicial matters, but as I have set out a number of times the negotiations were necessarily between the UK and Mauritius. However, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, which is why the measures that I just set out have been put in place.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answer to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Minister seemed to imply—to Opposition Members’ ears anyway—that the United States would be paying, I think he said, a larger quantum of the funding for the deal. I think he was referring to the operational cost of the base. May I ask for confirmation that the United States is not contributing at all to the £30 billion lease under the settlement?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but if the Minister wishes to respond I will allow him to do so.

[Stephen Doughty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it was because of the noise and the shouting, but I was clear. The United States contributes to the operations on Diego Garcia, and rightly so. There is establishment of that in relation to the exchange of notes between the UK and the United States. It is not contributing towards the costs of the treaty deal.