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 14 of 130.
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I point the House to the fact that last week we secured and announced a £400 million contract with Google Cloud, boosting secure communications between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, we announced more than £1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK’s world-leading financial services sector, and that new investment will create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. [ Interruption. ] Just yesterday, we announced a new UK-US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy, and I look forward to further announcements over the coming days.”
“I will make a little more progress and then will happily give way. To return to the fundamental question that has been asked by many Members, as I said at the start, in the light of new information, the Prime Minister made the decision to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. The Prime Minister took decisive action on these issues, and now the Government’s focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the next phase of government, moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal. A lot of Members asked sensible questions about the relationship with the United States, our economy, our security and the state visit that is happening this week.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“I was making an important point about the scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein conducted by BBC’s “Newsnight”; such serious questions might have been asked of Lord Mandelson, but to my recollection none were. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, because I have a question for her. She and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as other Opposition Members, have raised questions today, but did they say a word in this House about Lord Mandelson’s appointment before last Wednesday? I do not have any record of that. In fact, the record shows that they did not raise it and they did not ask questions. The reality is that in the light of new information, the Prime Minister has acted decisively.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”