Stephen Doughty MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous comments. He and I have always had robust but friendly discussions on many issues. However, I do have to correct him on this point. The US pays for the operations, and the value to the British taxpayer, the US taxpayer and, indeed, all our allies is priceless in that it protects the people of this country from multiple threats, so what he says simply does not make sense.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member knows that we regret what happened historically in relation to the Chagos Islands. He will also know that the islands are not permanently inhabited. That was necessarily a negotiation between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. Let me respond to the many points about the environment, on which many amendments were tabled. We are absolutely clear that the United Kingdom and Mauritius are committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. Indeed, the Mauritian Prime Minister met the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), in the margins of the third United Nations ocean conference in Nice on 9 June, where he reaffirmed his commitment to the creation of that marine protected area around the Chagos archipelago. That will be supported by an enhanced partnership with us. The treaty has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. We continue to work with Mauritius on the implementation of that measure. We are considering seriously the many genuine concerns that right hon. and hon. Members, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and members of the Environmental Audit Committee, have raised. They are serious and important questions, and I assure the Committee that we are taking them seriously, and I will try to update the House on them in due course.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Opposition ask questions and then make so much noise—they do not even want to hear the answers. I have mentioned the obligations placed on the BIOT Administration by UN bodies to cease specific activities. I have mentioned the series of procedural complications and blockages at international organisations, including the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. There are many examples of clear risks. I have explained before the potential under annex VII of UNCLOS—

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will happily take interventions, but first I want to respond to the points that have been made. This agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and our Five Eyes allies. India, Japan and South Korea have also made clear their strong support. Many questions were asked about the robust security provisions that we have in place to protect the UK and the base for decades to come. The treaty and the Bill secure full operational control of Diego Garcia, a strict ban on foreign security forces across the archipelago and an effective veto on any activity that threatens the base on Diego Garcia. It has been welcomed by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Development Committee in the other place, which said that they “were assured that the Agreement preserves the UK’s and the US’s freedom of action.” The legal rationale has been referred to many times, but legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, for example, affecting our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia, and even if we did not comply, international organisations and other countries would. We have set out the legal rationale on a number of occasions. We have been very clear. We also published documents around it.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman chunters “potential”, but is he willing to gamble with our national security? Is he willing to gamble on the operational effect? [ Interruption. ] Oh, he is willing to gamble! I find it absolutely extraordinary that he is willing to gamble with our national security and that of our allies. That is exactly why the United States and our Five Eyes partners back this deal: it settles that debate. I will turn to the amendments. The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) tabled amendments 1, 2 and 7 and new clause 2 on the publication of legal advice. She will know from her time in government that it is highly unusual for the Government to publish legal advice that they have obtained. That advice is privileged, and it is important that the Government are able to take frank and confidential advice, as she well knows. In some circumstances, the Government may publish a statement of their legal position, as we did in the case of the Diego Garcia treaty, on the day it was signed. As I have repeatedly explained—Members keep chuntering about it—if a long-term deal is not reached between the UK and Mauritius, it is highly likely that further wide-ranging litigation would be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK. It might include, for example, further arbitral proceedings against the UK under annex VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment would be binding on the UK. Let me turn to amendments 11 and 14. The hon. Member for Clacton, who has finally turned up but is not even listening, tabled several amendments that appear to serve no function other than wasting Government and parliamentary time. The public consultation proposed in amendment 11, and the impact assessment, would be needlessly costly and time-consuming. They would only confirm the conclusion—on which he had no answers—already reached by our closest ally, the United States, by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, and by our Five Eyes partners. The public already know that the treaty secures the future of the critical base on Diego Garcia. The strategic value has been debated at length and is well understood. We are not willing to gamble with our national security, even if the Member for Clacton is willing to. Quite frankly, he has some gall to turn up after his comments on NATO and Russia—I find it quite extraordinary. In amendment 13, the hon. Member for Clacton offers an ill-conceived proposal that would keep Diego Garcia listed as an overseas territory while accepting that His Majesty the King would no longer be sovereign. Not only is that constitutionally inaccurate, but in the context of the British Nationality Act 1981 it would have serious consequences for the nationality rights of Chagossians born on different islands in the archipelago. Surely his intention cannot be for individuals born on Diego Garcia to be treated differently from those born on Peros Banhos or the Salomon Islands. Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Witham and amendment 8 tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), seek to change or remove the statutory powers to make an Order in Council. It is, of course, absolutely right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the use of power, which is why the Bill provides for the negative procedure to be used. The vast majority of changes that the Government will make using that power will be technical and operational amendments on matters to ensure that our domestic law is consistent with the new status of Diego Garcia—those are matters as varied as police pensions, copyright law, and changes to student finance. The proposed amendments would mean that the House would be obliged to spend valuable parliamentary time on each change to legislation for 99 years. Members surely cannot wish us to spend that amount of time on all those things, and that approach is consistent with powers taken to amend existing legislation in previously comparable situations. New clauses 1, 11, and 10 regard the prior approval of payments. I have set out clearly the costs, and the absolutely nonsensical figures that have been put forward by the Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton, and we wholly reject the new clauses. It is entirely usual and proper for payments under international treaties to be made under the royal prerogative, and requiring a separate distinct vote before payments can be made would create unacceptable risk for the long-term sustainability of the treaty. Without the certainty that the Bill and the treaty provide, the UK and US military would not be able to invest in vital capabilities. That would have major operational implications for the base. On new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the House of Commons will scrutinise our annual estimates in the usual way, and spending under the treaty will be included in that process. New clause 10 is not necessary either. New clauses 3, 4 and 9 are on the marine protected area. There is no requirement for the UK to consent to Mauritius establishing such an area or to its management, and that would be inconsistent with the treaty. Although the UK will be playing a different role in respect of the future MPA, both the UK and Mauritius remain committed to protecting that vital marine environment. That is why, under the terms of the treaty, we will provide technical support and assistance to Mauritius, in accordance with a separate written instrument. We will not make any additional direct payments to Mauritius as part of that activity. On Chagossians and the right of self-determination, amendments 9 and 10, and new clauses 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 concern the Chagossian community, and I understand and share the strength of feeling on the wider subject, and the historical treatment of the Chagossian communities. That is why the Government have put the preservation of nationality rights at the heart of the Bill. I am sympathetic to the concerns put forward about resettlement. I understand the intention of amendment 9, but it is not necessary. Under the agreement we have already agreed that Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia—I refer the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to comments from Olivier Bancoult and the Chagos Refugees Group. They have been clear that that is why they support this measure, and are urging us all to support the treaty. I also understand the questions on consultation, but as I have said, those negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius. The islands that make up BIOT do not have, and never have had, a settled population and have never been self-governing. No question of self-determination for a population therefore arises now. New clauses 5, 6, 15 and 17 relate to national security issues, but they are simply not needed because the treaty protects our national security and secures the base. We have maintained full operational control of Diego Garcia with all the necessary rights and authorities, as well as a series of additional protections. In closing, the Bill and the treaty have been thoroughly scrutinised—

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her work on climate and food systems, not just in this place but throughout her career, and I acknowledge her huge experience of these issues. In response to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), this is absolutely a priority for the Government at COP30, and more broadly, because how we grow, trade and consume food will shape whether the future is secure, sustainable and fair for farmers, communities and the planet. When I speak of farmers and communities, I am speaking of farmers and communities here in the UK and abroad. We are engaged in a global endeavour. In my past career in the international development and humanitarian sector, I saw the impact of climate change and food insecurity on communities. I remember being in Malawi during the middle of a very serious food crisis and period of insecurity, where I saw the steps farmers were taking to make agriculture more resilient and the devastating impacts on people there. In recent weeks I have met some of our leading climate scientists who are about to travel down to Antarctica with the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough. They will look at the sustainability of fishing and marine resources in the Southern ocean and the changing impacts of climate change in that part of the world, and the impact that has on global supply chains and weather patterns. I again thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for her contribution, and I agree with much of what she had to say. She spoke on two issues about which I am passionate. I have met young people in our overseas territories—part of our British family—who talked about the bleaching of corals. The hon. Lady also mentioned wheat, and through our investment, alongside others, in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, climate-resilient wheat varieties can now be found on about 50% of global wheat-growing areas, particularly in developing countries, and the work we have been doing on this over a number of years has been crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, made some very important points. I know how passionate he is about these issues. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the extraordinary retrograde position that the Conservative party has taken in recent weeks. It is shocking. I do not even want to get into Reform.

• 14 Oct 2025 · COP30: Food System Transformation · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond to some points, but I will take interventions if we have time. The position that the shadow Minister set out would lead not only to economic disaster but to a complete betrayal of future generations. I will not even get on to Reform, which shares similarly outdated and unrealistic views. I note that one other party is absent that people would expect to be here, which is somewhat surprising. Our investment in renewable energy, sustainable farming and global sustainability is generating jobs. It is generating opportunities for people in this country, but it is also addressing a global concern. That is why the former Prime Minister, Baroness May, was absolutely right to describe the Conservative position as a “catastrophic mistake.” I agree with what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said about the importance of resilience and the role of our oceans, and it is why we are investing in the blue belt programme and other global schemes. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on these issues over many years. I welcome that his experience and passion will not be missing from these debates in future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes important points, particularly about the importance of Northern Ireland agriculture and farming. It was a delight to enjoy produce from Northern Ireland at the Hillsborough summit on the western Balkans last week. He made important points about food waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who always speaks passionately on these issues, rightly spoke about diversity and its importance to our global ecosystems. I also thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her work over many years. It is a pleasure to work with her as a Minister and in many other capacities. She made incredibly powerful points. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) is also a long-term campaigner and advocate on these issues. I am glad that he raised Ukraine, and I thank him for his work engaging across all these issues as our trade envoy. I had not been aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) had worked in Somaliland, where I have also previously engaged with communities that have experienced food insecurity and drought. That has been a particular challenge across the whole horn of Africa, and my hon. Friend made some very important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who is also a passionate advocate on these issues, rightly asked about the Government’s commitments on the wider agenda. I have given her our assurance that it will be a crucial part of our agenda for what we will set out at COP. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about food systems and their impact on global emissions, and he is absolutely right. Food systems already drive one third of global emissions and they will become the biggest source by 2050. I totally agree with his view that farmers as the crucial custodians not only of sustainability but of animal welfare, which is a crucial issue. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), asked about attendance at COP. I will not get ahead of announcements about ministerial travel or otherwise, but I can confirm that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be attending, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure we will announce other ministerial attendance in due course. The hon. Lady asked about finance, and obviously we are committed to delivering on our pledge of £11.6 billion of international climate finance by the end of 2025-26. We are already looking at the results of what that investment has done so far. Since 2011, an estimated 137 million people have been better supported to adapt, and an estimated 145 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced or avoided. The hon. Lady asked about private finance, which is also a crucial part of this picture, and we are working through a range of mechanisms as part of our modernised approach to development. For example, I point to British International Investment, which had a $652 million food and agriculture portfolio in 2022. It supports sustainable and other forms of agriculture, which obviously contribute to growth, development and opportunities in those sectors. I also point to the work we are doing through the FASA fund in financing agricultural small and medium-sized enterprises in Africa. A number of specific points were made about the sustainable farming incentive, the Groceries Code Adjudicator and animal welfare. If Members do not mind, I will come back to those in due course, but I want to cover a few key points in the limited time remaining. It is absolutely clear that, by 2050, the world will need 50% more food, but land and natural resources are already under strain, and agriculture that produces food is already one of the sectors most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. When that is coupled with nature loss, conflict and global instability, the impacts on production are pushing up prices and exposing weak spots in our supply chains that affect people here in Britain and our partners. The pressure always falls the hardest on vulnerable people, whether in our own constituencies or in places ranging from the Sahel to the horn of Africa and Afghanistan. Of course, our own food security relies on resilient supply chains and stable global markets. Food must be part of the solution. We need to produce it more sustainably—on less land, with less deforestation, less waste, fewer emissions and less pollution. Sustainable systems can, of course, improve nutrition, strengthen food security, support livelihoods, restore ecosystems and build resilience. I mentioned our partnership with the CGIAR. We also work with the Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the UK-Brazil-Africa research partnership, which scales solutions. We are committed to science-led transformation in our role as a trusted partner. Whether it is our work with the World Bank to support Indonesia and the Philippines to reform inefficient and harmful fertiliser subsidies, or our work on livestock vaccines for foot and mouth in east Africa and on climate-resilient seeds, our work and investment is having tangible results. For example, we are working on drought-resistant maize through our CGIAR funding, and I have already mentioned our work on wheat. We need to do more in this area. Our research shows that food systems receive just 7% of total climate finance, and less than 1% of that reaches smallholder farmers. We need to do much more on that, and it will be a crucial part of the COP30 agenda we will be advancing. We welcome the work that Brazil has already been doing as host, including its resilient agriculture investment for net zero land degradation initiative and its efforts to draw attention to climate, hunger and poverty, and the links between them. We have shown leadership in past conferences by supporting landmark declarations such as the Emirates declaration and the Glasgow leaders’ declaration. I do not want to get ahead of the conversations we will have at COP30, but I hope I have demonstrated our absolute commitment in this area, which is of course reflected in what we are doing here at home. We are backing British farming with more than £2.7 billion a year for sustainable agriculture and nature recovery; and through our environmental land management schemes, we are rewarding farmers for environmental benefits, improving productivity and maintaining food production. We are committed to clear action at COP. This Government are committed to showing leadership, and we are conscious that we face this challenge both here at home and abroad. I thank all Members for their comments. The prize is clear: a future in which food systems are resilient, fair and sustainable, in which farmers are supported, in which ecosystems are protected and in which everyone has access to healthy and affordable food. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation.

• 13 Oct 2025 · The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025 (S.I., 2025, No. 902). It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Sir Desmond. I welcome all colleagues back after the conference recess. This statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 22 July under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument were made under the affirmative procedure and entered into force on 23 July. The Committee will be well aware that we in the United Kingdom face a grave problem: large numbers of individuals are undertaking dangerous journeys via irregular migration routes that not only risk their lives but undermine the rule of law. Irregular migration is as much a foreign policy issue as a domestic one. Smashing the gangs and addressing public concerns at home demand hard-headed action and co-operation abroad. We are determined to confront the concern head-on, targeting those responsible rather than the victims of the vile trade, and protecting national and international security in the process. People smuggling and trafficking are assaults on human dignity. They are vile trades that exploit the vulnerable, fuel organised crime and destabilise entire regions. As our national security strategy makes clear, they threaten peace, security and the very fabric of international co-operation. That is why irregular migration is a top priority for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Together with the Home Office, we have established a joint unit on international irregular migration to strengthen our efforts, deliver our strategy and drive results. In that vein, and given the purpose of the regulations, sanctions are one of the most important foreign policy tools that the UK uses to back words with action. We now have 37 live sanctions regimes, with more than 4,000 individuals and entities designated. All designated individuals and entities appear on the UK sanctions list, which can be found on gov.uk. We continue to use sanctions alongside all our other diplomatic tools to protect our citizens, uphold our values, and defend international peace and security. The sanctions regime is a landmark step, as it is the first dedicated regime of its kind anywhere in the world. It is designed to prevent and combat the networks that enable irregular migration; it reflects deep collaboration across government, from the Home Office to law enforcement; and it draws on the full breadth of our expertise. It enables us to strike at every link in the chain, from source to destination. We can impose real costs on the callous groups and individuals who promote and profit from this inhuman trade in people. Sanctioned individuals will face serious consequences, including being banned from entering the UK, being disqualified from company directorships and having their assets frozen. The regime adds powerful new tools to our arsenal. It will enable us to act against people smugglers and their enablers with the same force that we apply to terrorists, cyber-criminals and kleptocrats. It also reflects our broader strategy to use sanctions to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour, defend our values and protect our country. The regime will target individuals and entities wherever they are in the world, from operators in countries of origin to those who smuggle migrants across borders and those who enable, promote and profit from those dangerous journeys. That includes companies involved in small-boat supply chains and organised immigration crime. No part of the smuggling infrastructure is beyond reach. Crucially, it also allows us to target hostile state-backed actors who seek to weaponise migration to destabilise the UK or our allies. On 23 July, therefore, the UK took action. We sanctioned 25 individuals and entities involved in people smuggling, from small-boat suppliers in Asia, to hawala money movers in the middle east and gang leaders in the Balkans and north Africa. That included individuals such as Bledar Lala, who leads a smuggling ring that moves people from Belgium across the English channel to the UK, and Muhammed Pirot, a hawala banker who controls payments from people being smuggled from the Kurdistan region of Iraq to Europe via Turkey. Those designations cover a range of activities, including: supplying boats, forging documents, facilitating illicit payments and orchestrating smuggling operations. Each designation represents a blow to the business model of exploitation. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the designations imposed so far and of any future designations, to ensure that they demonstrate our ability to target individuals and entities anywhere in the world, to disrupt the activities of criminal networks, and to deter others from engaging in this vile trade. While we are proud to lead, we do not stand alone. People smuggling and trafficking are global concerns. We are working with international partners to confront them together. Indeed, with the new Foreign Secretary, I had important conversations with representatives from across the western Balkans just last week in Northern Ireland. There have also been important discussions at the European Political Community meeting in Denmark in recent weeks. Our work together includes strengthening sanctions co-ordination, sharing intelligence and building joint responses to dismantle criminal networks. We welcome news from EU Commission President von der Leyen that she intends to propose to EU member states a new system of sanctions specifically targeted at people smugglers and traffickers. We look forward to working with the EU and other key partners to smash the gangs and tackle irregular migration. To conclude, sanctions are a powerful tool of foreign and security policy. UK sanctions are built on a transparent and robust legal framework. That has been confirmed by our courts, including by the Supreme Court in July. However, there might be instances where a person’s activity falls within the scope of both sanctions and other relevant law enforcement and criminal justice powers. In such instances, we will work closely with colleagues across Whitehall and in law enforcement to de-conflict and to ensure that appropriate tools are used. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to play its full part in delivering the Government’s plan for change. This legislation and the designations that have followed and will follow are proof of that commitment. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 13 Oct 2025 · The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, but I must start by completely rejecting her overall thesis on the Government’s migration policy. I would put it to the Committee that the previous Government left the system in absolute chaos. Over 400 hotels opened, at a cost of nearly £9 million a day, and they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70% and wasted £700 million. I was also quite surprised to hear her mention the Rwanda scheme, which returned just four volunteers. In contrast, we have introduced this new world-leading regime, which is already having an impact, which I will come to in a moment. We have doubled the number of asylum decisions and increased the removal of failed asylum seekers by 30%. We have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, including 5,200 foreign criminals. The shadow Minister mentioned hotels, and the number of hotels involved is now down to 200, which is almost half of what it peaked at under the last Government, and we will close the rest as quickly as possible. We have also announced £250 million to fund the new Border Security Command since taking power. I mentioned some of the work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is doing, but at every level we are working in co-operation with partners in Europe and elsewhere to ensure that we tackle the gangs and individuals engaging in the vile trade of smuggling people across borders and ending up at the English channel. We are taking action in multiple areas to do that, and those that we are taking with partners in the western Balkans and with other European partners at the EPC just last week, for example, are testament to that. The shadow Minister asked about the length of time. She will know from when I was sitting in her place in opposition that I often raised the length of time, but she will also understand, I am sure with generosity, that to bring in a completely innovative and new regime—it is the first in the world of this nature—we need to ensure that it is legally robust and substantial. When making designations, we must ensure that they are absolutely based in facts and evidence, and that they can be substantiated. As I said, this regime was introduced in July and we are only debating it now because of the recesses, but this is very swift action and we used the new powers almost immediately. I can assure the shadow Minister that there will be further use of the powers, but I will not say when, as she knows that I do not comment on future designations. However, I can assure her that there is more to come, and we are monitoring the impacts of this first round of designations, which are substantial already. I can assure her that there has been an impact, but I do not want to get into operational details of what our law enforcement and other agencies are looking at. We are working closely with a range of agencies across government to ensure not only that the measures that we have already announced have an impact, but that we use the lessons from those in looking at what will be the biggest-impact targets, which will allow us to deter the vile smuggling chains and those who finance, support and facilitate them around the world. The shadow Minister was clear that she supports this regime and is not going to oppose the regulations, and I am glad at least for that. I think that is very important, particularly when we have seen Members from on all parts of the House work together on the issue of human trafficking and the vile trade that is involved. There is broad agreement that we absolutely need to go after the individuals involved in that vile trade, and that is exactly what this regime does. On the resourcing questions that the shadow Minister asked, we have an excellent team of officials who work on these matters. There must always be a balance to ensure that we can deliver on all our different sanctions priorities. We keep those resourcing requirements under regular review, but I can assure her that the team is more than capable of delivering. This is not just an effort by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; it involves our law enforcement agencies and close working with our colleagues in the Home Office and elsewhere, as it does across the piece on our sanctions regimes. The principles of disrupt, demonstrate and deter are at the heart of this regime, as they are at the heart of all our sanctions regimes. I am confident that we delivering in all three respects, and I commend these regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way at first. I need to respond to many of the points that have been made in the debate, after which I will happily take some interventions. The Prime Minister took this decision after new information showed that the nature and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s conviction was wrongful, encouraged him to fight for early release, and said that Epstein had been through “years of torture”. We know that the only people tortured were the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by Epstein’s heinous crimes. I associate myself with the remarks that a number of right hon. and hon. Members made on that point, both about the crimes and the victims.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in short order, but first I want to say something about our excellent diplomats and officials across the world. We have an excellent team at the British embassy in Washington—indeed, we have had many excellent ambassadors, and we have a wide network across the United States, not just in Washington—and in King Charles Street. I pay tribute to them and all the work they are doing, particularly in supporting the outcomes of this week’s important and historic state visit. I associate myself totally with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about their professionalism, which I know has been experienced by many Members across the House. It is important that we put that on the record. This is a crucial moment for UK-US relations; together, we are focused on delivering on jobs, growth and security for people on both sides of the Atlantic. I said that I would give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), so I will.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have taken a number of interventions, and I do want to make some progress. Hon. and right hon. Members have asked about the US-UK relationship. I can tell them that it is strong, thriving and growing. The steps that I have mentioned will ensure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth more than £315 billion last year, and the US and UK economies are inextricably linked. Through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade and investment deals that will benefit hard-working families across these countries and regions.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Of course I have confidence in our national security vetting staff. They do incredibly important work keeping this country safe. I will not comment on individual cases—I have been clear about that. I will return to the fundamental question asked by the hon. Member and others.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  With respect, this is an emergency debate that was secured by the Opposition. I am in the Chamber setting out the case very clearly, and we have had a number of contributions from Labour Members. The right hon. Member knows that I and Members from across the House have affection for him and the work he does, including his previous roles chairing many important Committees of this House. Many right hon. and hon. Members have asked a number of specific questions, including about the vetting process and security clearances that applied in this particular case. I fully understand the interest in those questions, and undoubtedly other questions will be raised over the course of discussions in this place. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the practice of successive Administrations—including precedents from the last Government—not to comment on which officials have access to confidential information. That remains the case today. I want to pay particular attention to this matter, because it is important and because Members present have asked very sensible questions. The national security vetting process is confidential, and the UK Government’s vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence. I am not going to depart from that approach in this Chamber today and release personal information about an individual’s confidential vetting. However, while I will not talk about the confidential details relating to this case, I can provide details of the overall processes that a number of people have asked about, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who opened the debate. Prior to the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertook a due diligence process, and after his appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting. That vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO, and concluded with clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up his post in February.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not in her seat at the start of the debate, because I made very clear our position on Epstein’s victims and our horror at the revelations, and said that all our thoughts are with them. I did that in sincerity in response to the points that have been made across this House, and I say that again. However, she could not answer my question. She did not raise this issue before last Wednesday. If it was all so obvious, why did not she do that?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  On Thursday, I came to this House to announce that the Prime Minister had asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. At the outset, may I say—there were many comments to this effect from across the House—that all of us are appalled by Epstein’s crimes, and all those who have suffered as a result need to be at the forefront of our minds today. I also thank a number of right hon. and hon. Members for what I think were genuine suggestions about scrutiny of processes in relation to ambassadorial appointments. In particular, the Government have listened to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on this matter, and we will consider all options to support the Committee in its work in future.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has been explicitly clear that the new information was not compatible with the duty that we owe to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes against women and girls, and with this Government’s clear commitment to tackling that kind of violence and abuse. As such, the Prime Minister took decisive action to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. He has also been clear—he undertook a number of media interviews yesterday—that Lord Mandelson would not have been appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time. I point the House to what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday: “Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.” Following Lord Mandelson’s departure and in line with standard diplomatic practice, the deputy head of mission, James Roscoe—an experienced and capable diplomat—has been put in place as the chargé d’affaires.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way on that specific point.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way; the hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate and he has just popped up now to try to intervene. National security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of individual Departments, and it reports back to them. It helps Departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites, and there are established processes within national security vetting to consider any security concerns raised and to manage such risks appropriately. Importantly, the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures were followed in this case.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I know the right hon. Gentleman makes that point with sincerity, but I will not comment on the national security vetting process. That would not be appropriate or in line with being consistent from Government to Government.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I was referring to whether this matter had been raised in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and others. The Prime Minister acted decisively in response to the new information, which is exactly what should have happened. The former ambassador has been withdrawn. The Prime Minister and the Government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people across the Atlantic for jobs, growth, prosperity, security and our defence. That relationship with the United States is a relationship that has endured, is enduring, and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I have set out the process clearly, and I note that the Chair of the Select Committee has received that letter, which also sets it out clearly. She may have slightly missed the commitment that I made to her and to members of her Committee at the start of the debate, which was about considering all options to support the Committee in its work on pre-scrutiny processes. She makes an important and sensible point.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I am in the Chamber responding for the Government as the Minister for North America. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with. We have also seen the new Hillsborough law launched today, which has been referenced during the debate.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to conclude, and I do want to get back to the fundamental question. The Prime Minister has made it clear that Lord Mandelson should not and would not have been appointed as ambassador in the light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week. The argument that we have heard from Opposition Members today is that the information was clear all along. But if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been so obvious, I hardly think that Lord Mandelson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University—but he was. I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as a presenter on Times Radio—but he was. He also appeared on BBC “Newsnight”, a programme that has done important work investigating the crimes of—