Tag: Stephen Doughty

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-01-11.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many civil servants accompanied him on his visit to Cardiff on 7 January 2016.

    Harriett Baldwin

    Consistent with all official events, the Chancellor was supported by a small number of officials from his private office and the Treasury press office when speaking at the St David’s hotel and at the two associated visits.

    Costs associated with the major economy speech at the St David’s hotel in Cardiff were met within the existing events budget at HM Treasury. Invitations were not issued by the department.

    The event at the Salt Bar was not a Government event and so no costs were met by the Treasury and no civil servants attended.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-02-02.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what UK bilateral and (b) multilateral funding to support health care system strengthening in countries determined by the WHO to be affected by, or at risk from the Zika virus, has been in each of the last six years.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    The table below shows UK bilateral disbursements, against a number of OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) health related classifications, to countries on the WHO list of those affected, or likely to be affected, by the Zika virus. These include basic health care, communicable disease control, health education and health personnel development, all of which contribute to strengthening health systems.

    Table: UK ODA spend on health 2009-2014

    £’000

    2009

    2010

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    Barbados

    3

    Brazil

    13

    1,461

    2,779

    491

    1,233

    87

    Costa Rica

    191

    Dominican Republic

    10

    16

    Ecuador

    3

    5

    Guatemala

    26

    Guyana

    2

    2

    Haiti

    1,000

    Honduras

    9

    Mexico

    61

    1,061

    105

    835

    202

    363

    Nicaragua

    219

    0

    Paraguay

    3

    2

    Venezuela

    7

    Total

    322

    2,730

    2,890

    1,349

    1,448

    1,450

    Source: Statistics on International Development 2015

    The UK has also provided support to these countries through core contributions to multilateral organisations, but data on expenditure on specific sectors to specific countries is not available.

    DFID and the Department of Health will request the World Health Organisation to provide further guidance on which countries beyond those currently affected are at greatest risk from Zika, including the risks to other regions including Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia; this is scientifically very challenging.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-02-09.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Business Premises Renovation Allowance scheme is planned to close.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not collate information at the aggregate level requested.

    The Business Premises Renovation Allowance (BPRA) is an incentive designed to bring derelict or unused business properties back into use, by providing 100 percent relief for renovation of vacant properties in disadvantaged areas.

    In 2012 HMRC noticed a spike in the cost of BPRA. Investigations revealed that this increase was due to marketed avoidance. HMRC challenges avoidance wherever they see it. Where taxpayers choose to press their case to litigation, HMRC wins around 80% of cases heard in court.

    In addition, legislation was introduced in Finance Act 2014 to prevent future avoidance. The NAO complimented the speed with which HMRC addressed this avoidance and tightened the legislation.

    The costs of BPRA are published annually in HMRC’s Estimated cost of minor tax allowances and structural reliefs, which can be viewed using the following link:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/487097/Dec15_minorallowances_reliefs_Fi…pdf

    Budget 2011 announced that Business Premises Renovation Allowance would be extended to 31 March 2017 for Corporation Tax and 5 April 2017 for Income Tax.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how many staff leaving employment at her Department in the last three years have subsequently been rehired within 12 months by the (a) Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) Ministry of Defence, (c) Department for Energy and Climate Change, (d) Department for Culture, Media and Sport, (e) Cabinet Office and (f) HM Treasury.

    Mr Nick Hurd

    DFID would not record or have access to details of former employees who have been rehired by other government departments.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-03-16.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people were registered with HM Revenue and Customs as self-employed (a) wholly and (b) partly for the purposes of tax and national insurance in Cardiff South and Penarth constituency in each of the last 24 months.

    Mr David Gauke

    The latest available data for the numbers of individual taxpayers with self-employment income, by constituency level, is for 2012-13. There were estimated to be 4,000 individuals with self-employment income in Cardiff South and Penarth out of 48,000 with income from any source.

    These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are taken from table 3.15 of the HM Revenue and Customs Personal Income statistics publication. The estimate for 2013-14 is due to be published on the 31st March 2016.

    No information on the purpose for individuals registering for Self Assessment is collected.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people received payments from the Financial Assistance Scheme in each (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) government region in the last year; and how many of those recipients were former members of the Allied Steel and Wire pension scheme in that year.

    Justin Tomlinson

    The information requested is not collated centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-07-20.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether she plans to delay or revisit the (a) bilateral aid review and (b) multilateral aid reviews in response to the EU referendum result.

    Rory Stewart

    The Secretary of State is currently considering the outcomes of the Department for International Development’s Multilateral and Bilateral Aid Reviews, ahead of their publication.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Stephen Doughty – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2016-09-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many UK armed forces personnel are stationed in (a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Yemen, (c) Oman, (d) Qatar and (e) UAE.

    Mike Penning

    There are around 100 military personnel based in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including at the Defence section within the British Embassy in Riyadh. These personnel provide mentoring and advice to the Saudi Arabian National Guard as part of the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Personnel also work on the Saudi Arabia National Guard Communications Project to acquire and support, modern communications capabilities for the Saudi Arabian National Guard and work on the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Saudi Armed Forces Projects, supporting the United Kingdom’s commitment to the defence of Saudi Arabia through the supply of modern military aircraft, naval vessels, weapons and associated support services to the Saudi Armed Forces. We have a small number of liaison personnel who work at the Saudi MOD and Operational Centres. We do not discuss specific numbers for reasons of safeguarding operational security.

    There are no UK Armed Forces personnel based in Yemen.

    There are around 195 military personnel based in Oman, including at the Defence section within the British Embassy in Muscat; personnel on Loan Service to the Omani Armed Forces and others on temporary assignments in the region. These numbers change on a daily basis according to the tasks assigned.

    There are seven military personnel permanently assigned to Qatar (three within the Defence Section in the Embassy and four Loan Service officers working in training establishments). There are also a number of temporary personnel who work at Al Udeid airbase but we do not discuss specific numbers for reasons of safeguarding operational security.

    There are six military personnel permanently assigned to the UAE (three within the Defence Section in the Embassy at Abu Dhabi; one within the Defence Section in the Dubai Consulate; and two Loan Service officers working with the UAE Electronic Warfare and Signals departments). There are also a number of temporary personnel at Al Minhad airbase but we do not discuss specific numbers for reasons of safeguarding operational security .

  • Stephen Doughty – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Stephen Doughty – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Doughty on 2015-11-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he last met (a) the Afghan ambassador to the UK or (b) other representatives of the Afghan government.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) most recently met with Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah at the UN General Assembly in New York on 28 September 2015.

    The Embassy of Afghanistan in London has been without an Ambassador since 23 March 2015, but Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are in regular contact with Afghan Embassy representatives, including the Chargé d’Affaires Mr Siamak Herawi.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2022 Speech on the Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory

    Stephen Doughty – 2022 Speech on the Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory

    The speech made by Stephen Doughty, the Labour MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 7 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing the debate at this critical time of change for the Chagos islands, and I thank colleagues for the range of comments and contributions they have made to the debate.

    I am not sure whether to thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments he made about me at the start of the debate, but we had a very enjoyable trip to the Falkland Islands. I will be making declarations about that trip in due course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of our united position on the Falkland Islands and our resolute support for them. That is the Opposition’s long-standing position, which I have reiterated on many occasions, including well before the visit and in relation to our position on other British overseas territories.

    From the outset, I gently say that I do not accept a number of the hon. Gentleman’s historical analyses and comparisons. Neither are they supported by the House of Commons Library briefing that has been provided for this debate, or by statements made by the Governor of the Falkland Islands and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. When we talk about our overseas territories, it is important that we understand their distinct and different situations. The situation around the Chagos islands is particularly complex and nuanced, and we should take it in that vein and not make comparisons to other overseas territories.

    I pay tribute to colleagues across the House, particularly those with Chagossian communities in their constituencies, for the advocacy and support they have provided over many years on this issue, which is sensitive and painful for those communities, and for raising concerns about our diplomatic standing and commitments internationally. I express my gratitude to the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands, of which I am a member, for its tireless efforts in keeping the Chagos islands on the political agenda and for meticulously scrutinising the policies of successive Governments.

    The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to begin discussions with Mauritius about the future of the islands, but I will set out some detailed questions and concerns on the matter. We have to be guided by a few key principles, so my questions are not in order of priority. We must understand concerns about our national security and that of our allies and strategic partners; our compliance with international law and upholding our international obligations, and the consequences if we do not do that; and the rights and wishes of the people of the Chagos after decades of pain and hardship.

    I have personally met and heard from many different representatives from the Chagos community over many years. I have heard different views expressed by different parts of the community, but it is crucial that their distinct and different voices are heard in the process. We should also be concerned about other crucial issues, particularly the protection of the environment and the marine ecosystems around the archipelago, which a number of hon. Members have raised.

    This is a deeply complex issue, and I want to start with the question of the rules-based international order, which must be central to UK foreign policy. This historic injustice continues to prevent us from adhering to that, and I share the absolute and deep regret for the past actions of previous Governments, including Labour Governments. The actions taken in the late 1960s and early 1970s were completely unjustifiable. A number of us will have read the shocking documents from that period and the language expressed in them, which was completely and utterly unacceptable. We have a fundamental moral responsibility to the islanders that will not go away. I remain convinced that there must be a lasting resolution to this challenge that lives up to our moral and legal obligations, that draws on the views of Chagossians around the world and that is reached in co-operation with our partners and allies. There must be an apology from all of us—there certainly is from our side—for those past actions, but we need to look to the future and to what is being done for Chagossians today, not just in relation to the situation in the archipelago, but for Chagossians here in many communities.

    The ICJ in 2019 was unequivocal in its ruling that

    “the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”.

    That was adopted after a vote of 116 to six by the United Nations General Assembly, which called on the UK to

    “unconditionally end its occupation of the Archipelago as soon as possible.”

    That was supported by the 2021 ruling of the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Although the tribunal did not have competence on territorial disputes, it stated that

    “Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago can be inferred from the ICJ’s determinations.”

    Unfortunately, the Government have spent several years simply ignoring and denying these developments, and that has damaged our diplomatic reputation with not just Mauritius but many other countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and with a range of international legal and human rights bodies. Even the Maldives, which historically has been aligned with the UK Government position on this matter, recently changed its position to align with the rest of the international community.

    I take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on China and its expansion in the South China sea, the Indian ocean and beyond, and he raises some legitimate concerns, although I do not accept his wider characterisations of Mauritius. It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region, so I hope the Minister can set out what assurances we have had on these matters and on China’s activities in the region.

    It is my view that the inverse will play out if we do not resolve this matter, because if this is unresolved in terms of international law, it will only play into the hands of China and others who seek to undermine international judgments and law. When we want to call on China to comply with the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s judgment on the South China sea, it will say, “Well, you are not in compliance with the ICJ or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”. That could be the case for a number of other maritime and territorial disputes that it is in our interests to pursue and defend resolutely. We cannot have one hand doing one thing and the other doing the opposite.

    Of course, we must also do the right thing for the Chagossians. The various support packages that were announced have not been followed through, and very little money from that £40 million package has been spent. The last answer I had said that only £810,000 of it had been spent. That is completely unacceptable, and I hope the Minister can say something about that. What discussions has she had with all the different Chagossian groups located not just here in the UK, but in Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere?

    Daniel Kawczynski

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Stephen Doughty

    I am conscious of the time, so I will not. I want to speak about the costs the UK Government have incurred defending the indefensible on the legal position. An answer I received said the UK had spent nearly £6 million on external legal services relating to defending cases that the Government then lost in the ICJ. That is clearly unacceptable at this time of pressure on the public purse. Could the Minister update us on how much money has been spent on defending the previous position?

    Citizenship has rightly been raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 created an entitlement for direct descendants of Chagossians who were not already citizens to acquire British nationality. I understand that the process opened in November, but I hope the Minister can set out what will be done to address the issue of Chagossians being denied that right to British nationality and to ensure they get what is rightfully theirs. We know that previous negotiations have not gone well and that they broke down in 2009, 2016 and 2017. Will the Minister speak about the tenor and tone of the negotiations and how we will ensure that they go forward in a constructive spirit to achieve an agreement?

    On defence, it is crucial that we understand, as many Members have rightly said, that the United Kingdom-United States defence facility in the territory plays a vital role in keeping us and our allies safe. It plays a role in monitoring drugs and piracy, and in the national security activities of regional partners. It supports allies from many countries, and it carries out nuclear test ban monitoring and regional humanitarian efforts. Can the Minister say what discussions have been had with our allies, particularly the United States, about those negotiations and ensuring we maintain our defence capabilities in Diego Garcia?

    On the environment and the maritime importance of the islands, we recognise the judgment in relation to the Mauritius Ports Authority, but, given the importance of the archipelago, it is clear that we need to protect that environment. What discussions have been had on that with Mauritius and other partners in the region, as well as with the Chagossians, who believe in protecting their environment and historical homeland?

    I will conclude by saying there have been some important questions asked today and some very reasonable contributions. I do not agree with all of them, or with the tenor of some of them, but this is a complex and nuanced issue and it requires a complex and nuanced solution. We want to engage with Chagossians here in the UK, and we will work constructively with the Government to find a permanent and equitable settlement that will end decades of pain for so many, while addressing legitimate concerns about defence, security, the environment and the right of return for Chagossians.

    The ultimate problem here is that this issue is hampering our diplomatic position in the world and having much wider implications. We must remember that this was an historic injustice committed against a people by a past Government, and those people have to be at the heart of any solution.