Stephen Doughty
MP for Cardiff South and Penarth · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to set out the situation, the threats and the impact on our economy. Across this House, we share a desire to get the strait reopened.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his sustained and continued advocacy on behalf of his constituent, which is deeply powerful. I know it is of concern to many Members across this House. Despite some progress in Mr Johal’s legal proceedings, eight of the cases against him remain outstanding.”
“I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror at some of the things we have seen going on in those illegal settlements, and we have absolutely condemned the settler violence—the settler terrorism—that we have seen.”
“I pay tribute to our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office consular teams, particularly for their current work on the Nepal-China flooding crisis. It is also important to pay tribute to the work they do to support the thousands of British nationals who are arrested or detained abroad each year.”
“If I may, Mr Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging the devastating floods in Nepal. I know many Members are supporting constituents who have been affected by this tragedy, and our intention remains to support British nationals and the people of Nepal.”
“The right hon. Gentleman raises important cases. I can assure him that we continue to support the clemency applications of Ryan Cornelius and Charles Ridley and to raise their case with the UAE authorities. In fact, I did so recently; the former Foreign Secretary did so as well and has met the families. As the right hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,494 lines we hold for Stephen Doughty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 130.
“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.”
“The total expected cost of the treaty using that NPV methodology, which is the same that has been agreed by the Government Actuary’s Department and others, is just over one third of the value lost by the Department for Health and Social Care under their Governments on PPE that was wasted in the first year of the pandemic, if they want to talk about costs and wasting money. This is a clear investment in our national security. We will not scrimp on our national security, and we will not apologise for keeping our base safe.”
“It is utterly wrong to ignore the effects of inflation and the changing value of money on the real costs of a deal that lasts 99 years. We published the full costs alongside the treaty. [Hon. Members: “How much?] They ask how much. I have been very clear about that throughout the debate and at the earlier stages. The average cost per year in today’s money is £101 million, and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. Just for comparison, the costs compare favourably to other international basing agreements. France, for example, as I said, recently announced an €85 million a year deal with Djibouti. This base is much larger and has much more capabilities, so it compares very favourably. Conservative Members ask about costs.”
“I will respond to some points first. Hon. Members have had plenty of time to make their case. I have also responded to many of their points during the course of the debate, and I am going to respond to the questions. China has been raised erroneously on many occasions, but we have negotiated robust security provisions to protect the UK and the base for decades to come, and that includes a strict ban on any foreign security forces, including the Chinese, across the archipelago. The question of finances was raised by a number of Members, and indeed a number of the amendments refer to it. I have to be absolutely clear, as I was on Second Reading: the £30 billion to £35 billion figure quoted by some from the Opposition is totally inaccurate and wildly misleading.”
“I remind the Committee that President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth and Secretary Rubio have publicly supported the treaty, as have Five Eyes partners and others.”
“I have been clear throughout. We have set and published the methodology. It has been backed by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the statistics regulator and others, and I am happy to set that all out again in writing for the hon. Member if that would be helpful. I was quite surprised to hear some of the unfortunate remarks made by some Members about the United States and its commitment to this base. The United States pays for the operating costs. We have a crucial national security relationship, which keeps us, the United States and our allies safe. This is a joint base on Diego Garcia. It is absolutely right that those arrangements are in place. As I said, the value from the capability of the base is priceless. This is absolutely the right investment to make. I was appalled by some of the comments being made.”
“But I repeat again for the record that the Government deeply regret the way Chagossians were removed from the islands. We are committed to building a relationship that is built on respect and acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure full operation of the base on Diego Garcia, but we will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian communities. We will work to start a new programme of visits, including to Diego Garcia. Of course, Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands other than Diego Garcia. We will continue our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects.”
“No, I will not give way to the hon. Member. He was not even here throughout the debate. His leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is missing in action—oh, he’s turned up now. He came up with so many figures throughout this process, but he has finally turned up; it is good to see him here. Questions were raised about the Chagossians, and I want to respond to them seriously because I recognise, as I have done, the very sincere feelings that are felt among different parts of the Chagossian community. We have heard a range of views expressed today by different Members, and I acknowledge the Chagossians who are here in the Gallery. I understand many of them will not support this treaty, but other Chagossians and Chagossian groups do support it, as we have heard during the debate.”
“I completely and wholeheartedly associate myself with those comments from my hon. Friend. I know he has been a passionate advocate for Chagossians in the UK, and particularly in his constituency, over many years. We have spoken about this matter many times, and I know he and other Members speak passionately on the matter.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“We have been very clear about the legal position and the legal risk. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government knew this; it is why they started the process. I do not want to detain the Committee by going through all the arguments that I made on Second Reading— [ Interruption. ] But he knows that we faced the comprehensive rejection of our arguments at the ICJ in 2019, we lost votes at the UN General Assembly, we had the maritime delineation judgment binding on Mauritius and the Maldives— [ Interruption. ]”
“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—”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“No, I am not going to give way now. There have been plenty of debates and questions, and plenty of discussion. The Government have provided all the information necessary for Parliament to hold us to account, including publishing the full costs of the treaty and the legal rationale for the deal. The International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee have confirmed their agreement that the Bill does what we have set out, and the Government do not take risks with our national security, as the Opposition or Reform would do. That has been our priority throughout. I reject the amendments and urge the passage of the Bill.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I am confident that we delivering in all three respects, and I commend these regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.”
“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.”