Iran: Threats to British Interests

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the threats posed by Iran to British interests.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting me an urgent question in this role for the first time. I fear that it will not be the last, but I am grateful to you for doing so.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his urgent question, and I welcome him to his new role. He has always been a good colleague and friend, and I thank him for his service to this country, not only as a former Minister but in his past career.

The Government take the threats posed by Iran to British interests extremely seriously. We have acted robustly in response to them, and we will continue to do so. Iran’s hostile activity, both directly and through its proxies and networks, continues to pose a significant threat to the United Kingdom, to our partners and allies, and to the rules-based international system. We know the threats posed by Iran, whether that is directly or through partners such as the Houthis, militias in Iraq, Lebanese Hezbollah and many other groups that the right hon. Gentleman is more than aware of. We will act, because protecting the British public and defending our national security is the Government’s first duty.

Yesterday the Government sanctioned two Iranian IRGC—Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—officers for their role in state threats activity. In relation to Iran, we have sanctioned nearly 240 individuals and entities whose actions threaten our people and security. We will continue to keep all those tools under review, and will not hesitate to take further action where appropriate.

Yesterday I summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office in response to Iran’s activity, and informed him candidly and forcibly that this Government condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s continued attempts to undermine the safety and security of the United Kingdom and our allies.

Yesterday the Foreign Secretary signed a statement with 35 other Foreign Ministers across the Five Eyes and Europe, making it clear that we will not tolerate state threats activity on our soil and that we are committed to facing those threats together, and earlier this year we strengthened our legislative toolkit through the national security framework. These measures provide enhanced powers to investigate, expose and counter hostile activity that threatens our security, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that we immediately designated the IRGC and the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right under that framework. We will continue to work closely with the police, intelligence agencies and international partners to identify, disrupt and deter hostile activity directed against the United Kingdom and our allies.

As recent events have demonstrated, the threat from Iran is not theoretical. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that the incident at RAF Fairford was highly likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran and was almost certainly directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, although investigations remain ongoing. More recently, in September, law enforcement agencies disrupted an alleged plot targeting Jewish communities in Manchester that involved individuals suspected of links to actors in Iran. We will continue to take the action necessary to protect the public, safeguard our democratic institutions, defend communities at risk and ensure that those responsible for threatening British interests are held to account.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to the Minister, whom I call a friend, for his response today. However, after almost a decade of consistent Foreign Office advice to reject photographs with Iranian officials, and particularly handshake photographs, because of the propaganda tool that it gives the regime, it seems that our Foreign Secretary has just been ambushed in New York. Either he was ambushed by a snapper, or there has been a change of policy. It is important that we understand which, because although it is certainly clear that the Foreign Secretary did not look happy, Araghchi was absolutely beaming. If that was not deliberate, has the Foreign Office changed its advice, and if so, why?

Frankly, following the Iranians’ threats against UK airbases that both the Minister and the Prime Minister have mentioned, the state threats that the head of MI5 has listed, which have been reported today, the murder of 40,000 of their own people, their expansion of violence in Yemen by using the Houthis to target civilians in Riyadh, and their attacks on Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, I would be very grateful to know what made the Foreign Secretary believe that it was worth giving them a propaganda win.

Perhaps the Minister will tell me that this does not matter, but he knows better than that. He knows that images project a message, and in this case they project the message that the Iranian regime is equal to the moment. Well, it is not. The reality is that the Iranian regime—and, in fact, Mr Araghchi himself—is merely a front for the IRGC, which is of course the terror group responsible for the murder of thousands in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq and elsewhere.

I will finish by asking the Minister a few questions. Was the Foreign Secretary aware of his Iranian friend’s threats to the United Kingdom before he decided to shake hands with him and have it photographed? Was he aware that the US and Israel had given warning to the British Government that the Iranian regime’s threats to US airbases in the UK were credible? Lastly, has the policy of the UK now reverted to not giving propaganda wins to such a vile regime?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Foreign Secretary followed the standard practice of previous Foreign Secretaries of both parties, and of those of many countries, in meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. In fact, Foreign Ministers including William Hague, Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), Liz Truss, David Cameron and others all engaged with Iran.

It is important to understand what the Foreign Secretary raised with Foreign Minister Araghchi. He met with him to strongly raise the UK Government’s objections to Iran’s behaviours, to protect our interests. He told the Foreign Minister that Iran should choose de-escalation and diplomacy, instead of prolonging war and conflict. He underlined the importance of restoring freedom of navigation, and of the reopening of the strait of Hormuz. He reiterated the UK’s unwavering resolve to combat threats from Iranian-backed groups on UK soil, including attacks on the British Jewish community. He made it clear that we will not tolerate intimidation, threats or hostile activity on UK soil, and set out the measures that we would take in response. He also raised a matter that I know will be of great interest to the House: the ongoing detention of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. He repeated our call for their immediate release, and stressed that their welfare remains a priority for the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that Iran’s threats to the UK are public. Indeed, the evidence that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have set out is public, so we are fully aware of the threat that Iran poses to the UK, our interests, and our allies and partners. I am not going to comment on intelligence matters at the Dispatch Box—he knows why I will not do that. I strongly encourage him to avail himself of opportunities for Privy Council briefings, which we would be very happy to arrange. I know that the Leader of the Opposition and others have taken up those opportunities, and he is very welcome to come in and have a briefing on these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised issues relating to Iran’s threats—not just directly to the UK and our interests, but more broadly, including to partners in the Gulf. What Iran has done in relation to Kuwait, Bahrain and other partners is utterly unacceptable. I met with all our Gulf partners in New York over recent days to reiterate our support for them, and we are engaged in heavy diplomatic and other efforts to find a resolution. Just this morning I spoke to my Saudi counterpart and the Foreign Minister of Yemen about the appalling Houthi attacks in recent days, not only on the people of Yemen but on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including the attacks at the airport in Riyadh and other threats.

The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that, whether it is direct threats from Iran or indirect threats through its proxies, partners and others, we take these matters incredibly seriously. A substantial amount of our diplomatic and other effort is involved in countering them, and I welcome his engagement and co-operation in the national interest on these issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I welcome the calling out of what seem to be the IRGC’s actions in Fairford, not just by the UK but by more than 30 of our friends and partners, from Albania to the USA. I thank them for standing in solidarity with us.

Much of the IRGC’s divisive work, whether it is feeding antisemitism or through bots wearing kilts, is done quietly in the shadows and often online. This time, it looks like the Iranians have been caught out through the diligence of a local resident. Does the Minister agree that our approach needs to change and that we need to be clear about what Iranian attempts to hurt our country look like—both offline and online, with more examples—so that the public are confident enough to identify such attacks, just as they did at Fairford?

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend raises very important issues. It is a fact that Iran poses threats across a range of domains, and she rightly raises the issue of misinformation and disinformation. I know that her Committee has been doing very important work on that, and the Government have taken that on board. We have announced a new centre for information defence, which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, but she is absolutely right to say that we need to be open-eyed about the threats that are posed. We certainly attempt to keep the public informed about the nature of those threats, not just in this country but abroad, and we will continue to implement a range of measures to deter and disrupt them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Iranian regime is a threat to global security, to the UK’s interests and to its own citizens. The question is how best to respond to that threat, while protecting people at home. The unilateral US and Israeli attack on Iran and the conflict that has followed have driven up prices for British families, while emboldening the Iranian regime.

I visited Oman last week, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At the maritime security centre, we were told that shipping rates are less than half what they were prior to the conflict, with a mere 35 to 50 vessels passing through Omani waters in the strait of Hormuz each night—every one of them at risk of attack from Iranian drones or missiles. What steps are the Government taking, with other maritime nations, to protect shipping and secure safe passage through the straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, to keep food on our shelves and fuel in our tanks at prices that British consumers can afford?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises the reason why all this matters, which is that the threats are not just to our security, but to our economy; they affect the prices that British people, and indeed people around the world, pay for energy—and for consumer goods on the shelves, because this disruption to energy has a wider implication, in that fertiliser and other things that come out of the Gulf also have an impact on prices. I am delighted that he visited Oman. I was in Oman just a few weeks ago. It is a key partner and friend, and its long-standing historical relationship with the UK is crucial to us. We and His Majesty the King look forward to welcoming His Majesty the Sultan of Oman to the UK soon. It is a crucial partnership for us.

The hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about maritime security and the work we do in that domain. I am glad that he saw that work during his visit. Just last week, I visited our Joint Maritime Security Centre at Portsmouth, in which incredible work is done jointly by the Royal Navy, Border Force, UK Maritime Trade Operations and a range of civilian and other agencies. It is crucial that we understand the threats to shipping, and that we are able to provide information to mariners and avoid threats and risk. We continue to work internationally with partners on this issue, just as at the UN General Assembly in New York, the Foreign Secretary, working with Bahrain and others, brought together nearly 80 countries to stand up for the principles of international navigation. It is crucial that we recognise that this is not just about what happens in the strait of Hormuz or the Red sea; this is a threat to the very principles of freedom of navigation and global trade. We need to stand up and defend those principles.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

In July, the Government took the very welcome step of designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, thus criminalising support for its hostile activities. Given Iran’s support for the Houthis, their recent attacks on Saudi Arabia and their threats to international shipping in the Bab al-Mandab strait and the Red sea, are the Government considering taking this step against the Houthis, or are they looking at proscribing the organisation as a terrorist group?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend knows that I do not comment on future designations, but he can be assured that we take the threat posed by the Houthis, both in the region and more broadly, incredibly seriously. As I have said, I spoke with the Foreign Minister of Yemen this morning. I am also utterly appalled to hear that the Houthis are using child soldiers, and are carrying out forced re-education of citizens in areas that they have taken. Attacks are currently taking place around Taiz, where there is a humanitarian crisis, and hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. This is not just about the appalling kinetic attacks we have seen on Saudi Arabia and in Yemen, but the humanitarian suffering caused by the Houthis’ actions. We stand with the recognised Government of Yemen, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. My hon. Friend rightly points to the work that we have done on the IRGC, the IMCR and individuals, and that relates to the sanctions we issued just yesterday.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

When the Iranians risked the lives of armed forces personnel by attacking RAF Akrotiri earlier this year, Labour Members took great pleasure in mocking the Leader of Opposition for suggesting that a direct attack required a direct response. Does this latest episode not prove that when we do not respond with force, our enemies are encouraged to come at us yet again?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am absolutely assured that we will respond to defend our bases, our allies and our partners—and, indeed, UK interests in this country—with absolute resolution and vigour.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s response. As a member of the International Development Committee, I regularly hear about conflicts such as the wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, in which Iranian proxies are actively fighting, destabilising those countries, and causing death and despair. What is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office doing to support victims of Iran in these countries, and to ensure that Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine have functioning states, free of Iranian influence?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s objective of eliminating Iranian influence and that destabilising factor in all those contexts. She rightly mentioned a number of them, and I have already mentioned what we are doing in Yemen. We have also announced an additional £10 million for the United Nations humanitarian appeal to respond to that terrible situation. She also points to Lebanon; we are working closely with the Government of Lebanon to respond in a range of ways to the crisis there.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that it sends a strange signal when people suspected of mounting a terrorist attack backed by Iran are let out on bail? Does he also share my concern at recent media reports of several—fortunately foiled—terrorist attacks that were being planned by people who came into this country illegally, on boats crossing the channel?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the right hon. Member will understand, I will not comment on the ongoing investigations into the events at RAF Fairford, or on police operational decisions, which are very much for them. However, on his broader point about threats and challenges, he will know that MI5 identified at least 15 credible Iranian-backed plots to kill or kidnap people in the UK in 2022 and 2023 alone. This is obviously activity over a sustained period of time. We have made it clear to the Iranian regime at the highest levels that this must end immediately.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

As we know, Iran’s use of criminal networks and online disinformation is a threat to national security, and to safety on British soil. I welcome the recent designations, but does the Minister agree with me that further sanctions are required on Iran and the IRGC to restrict their capacity?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend will know that I do not comment on future designations, but I can assure her that we will continue to keep open all possibilities for deterring and disrupting Iranian state threat activity on our soil, or indeed elsewhere. We keep those measures under regular review; I think the action we have taken in recent weeks is testament to that.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The incident at RAF Fairford proved yet again a point that we have long known, which is that Iran is an exporter of terrorism and violence around the world—not just in the UK, but, crucially, in the region. We have seen the support for Hezbollah undermining security in Lebanon, and we have seen the attacks on our ally Saudi Arabia. What are the Government planning to do to increase the support that we provide to our allies in the region to counter the Iranian threat?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member is right about the scale of the threat, which is exactly why we announced measures and made a statement yesterday with many countries, who are joining our efforts to respond to those threats. Whether it is the air defence support we are supplying in Saudi Arabia at the moment and the air-to-air refuelling, or the work we did to support air defence for many Gulf partners when they were undergoing attacks, we will not cease in our efforts to support our partners and allies in responding to and defending themselves from unprovoked Iranian aggression.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Just this morning, the chief of MI5 warned about the implications of artificial intelligence reducing the barrier to advance terror and cyber-attacks on the United Kingdom, so what work have the Minister and his colleagues done to assess how Iran is using this technology and how we can defend ourselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The implications of AI for our defence and security are obviously significant. My hon. Friend knows that important work is being done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Artificial Intelligence on this issue. It is crucial that we look at this not just in any one context—he rightly mentions the risk of Iran or others using this technology—because it of course applies more broadly. I can assure him that we are leading international conversations on these issues.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I have a lot of time for the Minister, as he knows. I hope he will confirm to the House that he has read the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Iran, published in July 2025, because many of the issues that it covered have been raised on the Floor of the House today. It was in 1862 that the first Iranian became a British national—a dual national in this country. We now have about 120,000 British Iranians living in this country. Not all of them are dual nationals, but many of them are. Given that Iran does not recognise dual nationality, and given that many British Iranians travel to see family in Iran, what further consideration has the Minister given to the Foreign Office’s travel advice, as the Iranian regime is, unfortunately, detaining people illegally?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly illustrates the risk to people. I strongly encourage anyone, whether dual national or otherwise, to read and heed the FCDO travel advice for Iran. These are very serious threats. We know of the risks involved; people have been detained, and I referred to one very high-profile case. We encourage people to follow the advice very closely. I will certainly look at the report that he mentions.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his responses to questions so far, and I reiterate the concerns raised by colleagues about online disinformation, which is clearly designed to undermine our democracy in this country. What are the Government doing to tackle hostile activity by Iran and its network of proxy groups?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are acting against the threats posed by Iran and proxy groups in a number of ways. I mentioned the statement that we signed in the past few days; also, in June, we issued a joint statement with 23 other countries relating to the lethal plotting and other malign actions by the IRGC, an intelligence organisation, the Quds Force and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, including threats against dissidents, journalists, and Jewish and Israeli communities. They are undertaking a wide range of activities, and we need to work with key partners to deter and disrupt that activity.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

What assessment have the Government made of the threats we face from the IRGC or its proxies, and of the impact of February’s US-Israeli attack? Did that attack strengthen or weaken the regime in Tehran, internally and externally? Do those assessments show whether the UK has become more or less exposed, since February, to events such as those we witnessed recently?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I will not comment on intelligence assessments. What I will say is that we continue to seek diplomatic resolution of the crisis in the strait of Hormuz. There is a huge amount of common ground between all partners on Iran. First, it cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. It must cease its attacks on partners and allies. In our interests, it needs to stop malign activity in our country, as well as others, and of course, it needs to stop the repression of its own people. I think there is a lot of common ground, but I will not comment on specific assessments.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

The threat of Iranian surveillance is very real in my constituency; faith and residential communities have shared with me the real fear that they face. What processes do the FCDO and the Home Office have in place to make sure that communities are as safe as they possibly can be, and that intelligence is appropriately shared?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those threats. I co-operate very closely with the Security Minister and others on these matters. I referenced the number of plots that MI5 had identified. Of course, those threats continue, and we have seen some very high-profile examples, which the Prime Minister and others have referred to. My hon. Friend can absolutely be assured that we are putting in place the necessary protective security arrangements, including with faith communities, and particularly the Jewish community, and that we are very aware of where threats are originating from. That is the nature of the response that we have conveyed directly to the Iranian regime.

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

The regime is using every opportunity to reach deep into our communities and society. Even charities in this country are at risk. The Charity Commission has embarked on an investigation into the extent to which the regime, particularly the IRGC, is percolating into the sector. What assessment has the Minister made of whether Iran has got itself involved in British charities? If he believes that it has, how will he expunge that particular malignancy?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman raises the important wider issue of Iran and other hostile states attempting to undermine or use mechanisms in the UK to conduct their activities. I welcome the work that the Charity Commission is doing. We will look very seriously at any findings that come out of that investigation. Crucially, this is a matter for the Security Minister and our agencies to look at. We take any threats or activity of that nature incredibly seriously, and we will not hesitate to act.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

There is wide acknowledgement of Iranian efforts to weaponise social media in order to promote Iran’s propaganda, spread disinformation and shake UK politics. What work is being done to hold to account social media companies whose algorithms boost dangerous content?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

It is an important question. My hon. Friend will know of the work that has been done through the Online Safety Act 2023 and other measures, but the wider challenge and threat of disinformation is growing. We spend a lot of time in this place focusing on Russian disinformation and the billions that Russia is spending on it, but of course it is not just Russia; it is also Iran and others. That is exactly why the Prime Minister is bringing together our capabilities, and responding to the Foreign Affairs Committee recommendations with a new centre for information resilience.

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

There is a real fear that Iran has achieved the aim of its attack on RAF Fairford. We have seen the US respond by removing very important military capability away from Europe and away from the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree—he is very thoughtful on this point and sympathetic to it—that there is a need for increased military spending? Will he use his office to put pressure on Downing Street and the Treasury to come forward with a settlement for our armed forces that ensures we have the capabilities to properly defend RAF Fairford and the many other bases up and down the country?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are spending hundreds of millions on defensive measures around bases in the UK. He will also know that operational decisions of the United States are based on a range of factors. The US rightly continues, as our closest defence and security partner, to retain a very significant presence in the United Kingdom. He will also know that we have raised defence spending. We are spending £300 billion over the course of this Parliament. We have increased it to 2.7%, from the 2.3% under his Government. We will continue on that track to 3.5% by 2035.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Two weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats were clear that if Iran or the IRGC were confirmed to be behind the plot at the RAF base at Fairford, every Iranian diplomat who assisted in acts of terror should be expelled, up to and including the ambassador. That has now been confirmed. What does the Foreign Secretary intend to do, and when?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, the investigations into the RAF Fairford incident are continuing and it is right that they are able to take their course. The Prime Minister yesterday set out the situation very clearly and the Iranian involvement in it. What I would say is that I have conveyed at the highest levels—indeed, I summoned the Iranian ambassador yesterday to make it absolutely and categorically clear—our condemnation of Iran’s actions and our expectation that it ceases them immediately. We always ensure that diplomats operating in the UK are able to do so in accordance with the Vienna convention. We keep all of that always under review.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. All of us in the House recognise the Minister’s commitment to the job he does. The hostile activities of the Iranian regime, both through state actions and dangerous proxies across the middle east, pose a direct and undeniable threat to the national security of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister and I share many things, including the view that Iran’s worsening track record of human rights abuses and religious persecution, and the hanging of prisoners whose only crime is peaceful protest, needs to stop. Will he outline what robust co-ordinated steps the Government are taking, alongside our international allies, to dismantle Iran’s cyber-warfare capabilities and its funding of global terror? Can he reassure my constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland that our own domestic infrastructure is fully secured against Iranian state-sponsored cyber-threats?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are fully aware of the threats that Iran poses. Our agencies do important work in identifying those threats and responding to them. We have excellent teams that work in cyber-defence. Of course, cyber-defence is a responsibility of all in society—businesses, individual citizens, Government and agencies—so we all have to play a part in that endeavour. On internal repression in Iran, including of religious minorities, I share the hon. Gentleman’s deep concerns and abhorrence at the use of the death penalty. That is exactly why we maintain diplomatic relations. We engage closely, through our ambassador and others, to raise those concerns and to hope for a better future for all people in Iran and globally.

Israel and Palestine

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Israel and Palestine.

As this is my first debate as Minister of State for the middle east, I want to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who spoke from the Dispatch Box on this important issue many times with great conviction and clarity. I also acknowledge the broad terms of the debate today. With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will focus on very specific issues, but I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will want to cover a number of topics. I acknowledge the strong views of Members from across this House, and indeed various views on issues relating to Israel and Palestine are reflected in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, where, I am proud to say, we have people from many different backgrounds and heritages. I am proud to represent constituents of Palestinian and Israeli backgrounds, and of a diversity of faiths and none. I draw attention to my past work on these issues in my time as an MP in this place and as a Minister, and to my declarations.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House last week, we need to start from clear principles: this is a country that stands up for the rule of law, freedom, self-determination, and in this case, the cause of peace, and of a secure future for all Israelis and Palestinians. It is with those principles that we approach this important issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister, who is much liked in this House. He always puts forward a balanced point of view. I have to say that at the weekend, after the decision taken by the Labour party last week, my Jewish friends and constituents, and other contacts from Israel, have been on to me in large numbers, expressing deep concern about what the Labour Government have put forward. Ever mindful that this is a time of unprecedented threats from Hamas and other terrorist entities, they say that the Government and Labour have introduced a “one-sided” trade ban. If that is the case, how can the Minister and the Government reassure my constituents about our deeply important security and intelligence sharing with Israel? There is a danger of a major diplomatic clash with Israel and the United States of America. These drastic steps will affect the lives of British people and, in particular, Jewish families.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises significant points about the important security, intelligence and defence relationship that we have with Israel. I will be clear at the outset that the measures that we have taken very much relate to our dispute about the actions of this Israeli Government, not of Israel, and certainly not of the Israeli people. With regard to his Jewish constituents, I absolutely recognise the significant concerns and fears about the threats that Jewish communities in this country and across the world face, particularly from rising antisemitism and violence. Of course, we have marked some very sombre events in recent weeks—I have heard that reflected from my Jewish constituents—and I can absolutely assure him that the Government engage closely with representatives of the Jewish communities in this country. He will also recognise that a range of views have been expressed about the Government’s announcements last week. I want to be clear that the British people, including those with ties to the region, want the suffering and violence in the region to end; a path to peace; and a two-state solution restored, in which a safe and secure Israel exists along a sovereign and viable Palestine. That is within the context of recognising the very real threats that Israel faces, including from Iran and its proxies.

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

The Minister will have to be very careful about what we say and do because of the effect on Jews in this country. In that regard, what assessment has he made of the Campaign against Antisemitism’s findings on Jew hate in our national health service? Does he agree that everybody needs to be assured that when they are at their most vulnerable, they will be dealt with equitably, without reference to their colour, creed, race or anything else? Yet we find that patients are being abused simply because they are Jewish, and that Jews working in the NHS are being disadvantaged.

[Stephen Doughty]

The concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises are very serious, and he can be absolutely assured that the Government want to root out antisemitism in all its forms in this country, and indeed in every walk of life, whether in the health service or in education; I have heard very concerning examples of antisemitic incidents in schools and universities. That is why this Government are investing not only in the security of Jewish communities in this country, but in specific measures in public services. I take very seriously any concerns that he raises; of course, he has distinguished medical experience himself.

It is also important to recognise that next month will mark three years since the atrocity of 7 October, which was, as the Foreign Secretary said,

“a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 879.]

It was designed not only to cause death and destruction in Israel, but to instil fear across the world. This was the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, and I want to be clear again that there is no justification for the actions of Hamas, or their rejection of the peaceful co-existence of Israelis and Palestinians. They can play no part in that future, and they must disarm.

We avidly and continuously support the 20-point plan, and the efforts to bring about peace and a secure future for the people in Gaza and across the whole of Palestine. I also want to make it clear, as the Foreign Secretary did, that we reject those who make any attempt to de-legitimise Israel, or to support the so-called BDS— boycott, divestment and sanctions—movement. Our disagreements are with the Government of Israel and their actions, not with Israel, and certainly not with the Israeli people.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions the commitment to peace long term, but unfortunately it has never seemed further away than it does today. Peace will involve building bridges between communities in Palestine and Israel, and supporting civil society, which has been under attack, in Gaza and in Israel, unfortunately, by the Government. My hon. Friend’s predecessor and the last Prime Minister committed to the international peace fund, which many of us were advocating for. Can my hon. Friend provide an update on the Government’s position on the peace fund, and their support, I hope, for its continuation and growth? What role does he think it can play in building these bridges?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly support the type of work that my hon. Friend describes; indeed, he has been involved in various initiatives over the years, in a range of conflict contexts. He will be happy to know that I have just answered some parliamentary questions on the international peace fund; that will hopefully provide him with the reassurances that he seeks.

The appalling reality in Gaza and the west bank is placing the two-state solution that we all want to see under immense strain, as are the actions of this Israeli Government. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, Gazans have endured unimaginable trauma and suffering for three years. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine whether that is so. At the same time, we are witnessing unprecedented violence on the west bank, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by settler terrorists. We condemn settler violence and settlement expansion, which are contrary to international law and a grave threat to the two-state solution.

The question has been asked: why now? Why was it necessary for the Government to act? I will set out clearly the reasons for doing so. We need to recognise that last year was a record year for new settlements. In August, we saw a long-standing red line crossed when the E1 tenders were issued for more than 1,200 homes. The Foreign Secretary pointed out that at the time of Oslo, around 270,000 settlers lived in Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 750,000, and more settlements have been approved in the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. We have seen 65 Palestinian communities completely expelled since October 2023 and a total of over 4,000 Palestinians evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions. This Government refuse to stand by and watch further suffering and the destruction of the two-state solution.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my hon. Friend, and the Foreign Secretary last week, for the tone in which they have set out this recent decision on the settlements. I, too, have Jewish constituents who are very scared, but it is right, as the Minister said, to call a friend out when their behaviour goes too far. We know that there are big issues about the legal definition of genocide in Palestine. I wonder whether the Minister, or the Department, has had any conversations with the Israeli Government or the ambassador to the UK about the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, and whether the Minister could update the House.

[Stephen Doughty]

In advance of the statement, when the Foreign Secretary came into office and I took on this ministerial role, we were of course in contact with the Israeli Government. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Sa’ar, I spoke with the Israeli chargé here, and we have had continual contact with the Government of Israel about our concerns and what we believe needs to change. My hon. Friend will have seen the reaction and the commentary in recent days, which was deeply regrettable and deeply unfortunate, but of course we maintain close and important links with Israel on a range of other measures. This is very much focused on the actions that we see on the ground—the actions of, for example, settler terrorists and those who are backing them in expanding those settlements, and the withholding of aid to Gaza. This is not a quarrel with Israel, or the Israeli people.

We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. It is also important to recognise our engagement on furthering the agenda of reform and inclusion in the state of Palestine; we work very closely with the Palestinian authorities, hampered as they are by the continued withholding of tax revenues and a range of other measures taken by the Israeli Government. As I said, we have been resolute that Hamas cannot be part of government going forward and must disarm. As many people have said, we have worked with the Palestinian authorities closely on the reform of prisoner payments, and welfare payments must be needs-based.

We are very clear that there needs to be reform and an inclusive process in Palestine. We want a viable, secure, prosperous and well governed Palestine going forward, and we have always been there as a partner to enable that. As for that state being threatened geographically, or in the functioning of its institutions, if we say that we believe in a two-state solution, we must believe in two states, geographically and in terms of ability to function. We have seen that goal come under even greater pressure in recent times.

We have been very clear in our engagement with both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Government. I spoke to the Palestinian Foreign Minister recently, and have also engaged with those involved in the transitional processes that will hopefully lead to a settlement and a new Administration in Gaza. I met with the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza when I was in Egypt recently, and have discussed, even in these difficult times, the ways we can look to a positive and productive future.

I must be clear, as the Foreign Secretary was, that the official view of this Government is now that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine is unlawful. That concurs with the central finding of the June 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. We have come to that conclusion for a range of reasons. The Foreign Secretary and others have mentioned that Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist agenda and support for and facilitation of illegal settlements are key in this. That is our clear position. It is very important that I set out our values, what we aim at and the legal position, and that leads us on to the actions that we must take.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know of constituents who have moved from Israel to Leeds because of the actions of the Israeli Government, and who applaud what we have done in banning Israeli settlement goods and services. Many of us stand squarely behind international law and human rights, and commend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their actions.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I know that he has extensive experience on these issues, and he is right that many, diverse voices across this country have welcomed our actions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

The Minister has been very generous in giving way. In his discussions with the Government of Israel, has he ever raised the issue of Israel never defining what its borders actually are? That seems to me to be a fundamental problem in any discussions on this issue going forward.

[Stephen Doughty]

Ultimately, we have always been very clear, as the right hon. Member will know, that these matters must be determined in future negotiations. Fundamentally, when we talk about the actions that we are taking, we are clear about 1967 and the green line. When it comes to the actions that I will talk about, we make very clear distinctions between illegal settlements and green-line Israel.

The Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions regimes, and powers through which we will ban trade in goods from illegal Israeli settlements. We will also take action on services; we will create new designation powers to go after individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from illegal settlement activity. We will ban advertising or the promotion of land and property in illegal settlements, and we will strengthen our existing global human rights sanctions regime to go after those who defy international humanitarian law, be it in Palestine or around the world. I can think of a range of other contexts for this, as sanctions Minister, and a range of other matters that Members raise in this House, including in relation to Sudan, Yemen and Myanmar. It is important that the Government have the power to act against those who defy international humanitarian law, deny access to humanitarian aid or frustrate the actions of humanitarian organisations. We are using our existing global human rights regime to sanction several extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is being incredibly generous. He has been very clear that Hamas cannot play a part in whatever future settlement there may be, and I welcome that, as I know my Jewish friends and my constituents would too, but can the Minister outline how he envisages that future, in which Hamas can play no part, to look? I would be very keen to hear his ideas.

[Stephen Doughty]

Key to that will be ensuring that Hamas put down their arms, and I think important lessons can be learned from the hon. Member’s part of the world. Imperfect as many matters are there, we have important lessons that we can share, in relation to not just Gaza but other contexts too. I have been discussing that with a range of partners over recent times.

We have a process in place. We have the 20-point plan and the 15 points; it is deeply regrettable that we have not made further progress in recent weeks and months. We will work closely with the United States and other partners to further that agenda and find a way forward, but it is absolutely clear that we need to have unity, a functioning state between Gaza and the West Bank, and a state of Palestine that can function, and to ensure that all forms of violence and extremism are rooted out.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

On a functioning state, one of the issues raised with me by constituents who have come to my surgery—people from the synagogue and people who volunteer in Palestine—is that the Israeli Government have withheld $5 billion in revenue from the Palestinian people. It was curtailed in 2019 but then stopped in 2023. That money should be going towards hospitals, schools and a functioning state, as the Minister says. Has he had meetings with the Israeli Government about the return of those revenues, maybe through a third party that they could trust, to make sure that the money goes to the right places?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have raised those issues on a regular basis, and I have discussed with Palestinian Ministers the impact that it is having on their ability to function. My hon. Friend raises a very important point.

I will make a little progress, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak. I know that a number of Members will want to raise the issue of arms sales and export licensing. I want to be clear to the House that we have already suspended or refused more than 80 export licences in relation to Gaza, and our suspension remains fully in place. I also remind hon. Members—there is a lot of misinformation about this issue—that not all export licences are for military purposes or indeed provided to the Israel Defence Forces; they include exports of crucial medicines, body armour, defensive capabilities and material that is not used in Israel but is used in important components for allies.

I want to emphasise very clearly, as the Foreign Secretary said, that because of our view that the occupation is itself unlawful we will also now refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation. In effect, that provides a double lock against all relevant exports, on the basis of which we will determine our export licensing. That means that the ban on exports will remain for relevant items as long as the occupation persists—that is very clear.

I want to clarify, because it is important, what these measures will not do. Our sanctions regime will not target important and valued trade with green-line Israel. We oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign, including attempts to exclude Israel from, for example, sports or cultural activities. This is not a ban on travel or religious visits or, indeed, religious expression—that is very important. We will put in place the appropriate religious exemptions, and I thank all those who have raised important and sensitive matters with us on that. It is important that we listen to those communities and also that we do not share misinformation around what this regime does or does not do. We will work to ensure that the measures we set out do not have unintended consequences.

On the timing, the expanded global human rights regime will come within weeks. We expect the legislation for the wider new sanctions in relation to settlements to take around six to nine months, but as the Foreign Secretary said, if we can do it sooner, we will. I want to explain to the House that because sanctions are impactful and powerful, but also technical, we have to take time to carefully design them to ensure that they have the impact we want, that they are lawful and proportionate, that they do not have unintended consequences and, crucially, that they are enforceable.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Can I raise the “NAZA” film that was recently shown at the Venice film festival? It talks about the targeting systems that the IDF used in Gaza, and where it had specifically waited for Hamas fighters to return home so it could target them in a place they knew, but with huge civilian casualties. One whistleblower suggested that 500 civilians were killed in a strike on a single Hamas target. To give a UK example, something similar happened against three former British servicemen at the World Central Kitchen. Could the Minister reflect on that documentary and how we will get accountability for those former British servicemen who were killed with this awful targeting system?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have not seen the documentary that my hon. Friend mentions, but the fact is there have been horrendous humanitarian deaths, including the ones he mentioned and, of course, appalling numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary and I were clear that the decision about World Central Kitchen was shameful. We have been in contact with the families and have obviously urged the relevant authorities to reconsider that decision. In the end, all these matters will be reviewed and understood by courts and other competent authorities, but there is significant evidence of atrocities being committed, and I have been very clear on that specific case.

I am clear that we are already taking action on those involved in settler violence, using the powers we have. That includes the five extremist settlers that we sanctioned last Tuesday, and we have also, alongside partners including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, sanctioned extremist Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in their personal capacities in response to their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities.

It is also important to say—this perhaps did not receive as much attention last week, but it is very important—that we absolutely recognise the threats that Israel faces, and not only Israel but other countries in the region, from Iran. That is why we imposed a number of sanctions on Iran last week, and we also sanctioned Lebanese Hezbollah. In the light of the actions we see in Yemen and around the Bab al-Mandab, we also absolutely condemn the actions of the Houthis—the atrocities they are responsible for—and we are working closely with partners, including the Government of Yemen and others. But it is absolutely crucial to recognise that the Houthis have previously struck against Israel.

I want to reiterate—I am conscious that we are in the high holy days—that no community must face discrimination, violence, hate or the threat of violence. Antisemitism disgusts me, as I am sure it does all of us in this House, and the Foreign Secretary is very clear that the actions we took are against the Israeli Government, not Israel, not its people. In any case, holding British Jews responsible for the actions ever of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple. I have heard directly from Jewish communities in my own constituency the threats and risks they face—I know we have all heard similar. We are living in a time when we have had the horrific attacks in Heaton Park and, indeed, what we saw in Golders Green. That is why we are investing £250 million for community security. We are taking action on antisemitism in schools and communities. In October, the Foreign Secretary will host representatives of the J7 to discuss how we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism. I praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) on post-Holocaust issues and, more broadly, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on freedom of religion and belief.

I will conclude, because I know many Members want to speak, by saying that we know the actions we announced last week would prompt strong reactions, but that did not mean they were any less necessary. It is deeply regrettable that the Israeli Government have announced measures, such as wanting to close our consulate in Jerusalem, but we stand by our actions. If we are guided by values, by the law and by the facts on the ground, we need to see action and leadership. That is the right thing to do to defend the two-state solution, which is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, but also in our national interest, and we have been joined by others, including France and Canada.

Peace and security depend on our resolve to create the conditions in which Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states, confident in their futures. We might be far from that hope being realised at present, but it is one that we will work absolutely assiduously to deliver, and we have to speak and act with clarity to achieve that. I look forward to the contributions of Members across the House and am glad to have been able to open the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Iran: Sanctions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Written Statements

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

Today we are laying legislation that will tackle Iranian nuclear activity and other hostile Iranian activity.

The lack of transparency around Iran’s nuclear programme has long posed a serious threat to international peace and security. We have repeatedly seen Iran not act in good faith to address these concerns. For over two decades the international community has sought clarity and assurance about the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran has expanded its nuclear programme in ways that lack any credible civilian justification. This includes Iran’s accumulation of over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%. Iran is the only country without nuclear weapons that has enriched uranium to this level.

The UK complied with its UN obligations to implement the snapback of UN Iran sanctions on 1 October 2025, when the Iran (Sanctions) (Nuclear) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 came into force. The UK went further and designated 71 individuals and entities in sectors that have links to Iran’s nuclear programme, including financial institutions and energy companies.

As my predecessor set out in a written ministerial statement to the House of 13 October 2025, and also in their oral statement to the House on 13 January 2026, the UK will now introduce legislation to impose further sectoral measures on Iran. Today I am laying in the House the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, through which the Government are amending both the Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023 and the Iran (Sanctions) (Nuclear) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

These regulations introduce sectoral measures that are broadly those lifted as part of the joint comprehensive plan of action. Today’s legislation therefore doubles down on our action to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Financial measures will further reduce the Government of Iran’s ability to access the UK financial system and raise funds in support of its nuclear programme. Trade prohibitions against Iran are expanded under this legislation to additional goods, technology and services, including those key to significant industries contributing to Iranian nuclear escalation, such as energy, software, metals, gold, and related activities such as shipping, insurance and banking. The export of additional goods and technology key to Iran’s conventional weapons and nuclear capabilities are also prohibited. In addition, to bolster our existing designations and the termination of our bilateral air services arrangements in 2024, Iranian aircraft will be prohibited from landing in the UK unless certain exemptions apply.

The legislation will further expand our powers to sanction ships, strengthening our ability to target ships enabling and facilitating Iran’s nuclear programme and malign and destabilising behaviour.

As part of the UK’s responsible approach to the use of sanctions, this legislation—like all sanctions legislation—includes carefully designed sanctions mitigations.

This will include general licences to enable the continued operation of the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan, which provides critical energy supplies to our European partners. This is a continuation of long-standing policy and aligns us with the EU and the US, which have similar carve-outs for activities related to Shah Deniz.



Through these measures, the Government will uphold our commitment to ensuring that Iran is never able to acquire a nuclear weapon, and will strengthen sanctions that reduce Iranian hostile capabilities.

Iran’s nuclear programme has long been a serious concern to the international community. Iran remains in significant non-compliance with their international safeguards obligations.

A negotiated outcome is the only long-term solution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. We remain fully committed to a lasting and sustainable diplomatic solution that ensures Iran never develops a nuclear weapon.

[HCWS319]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

1. If he will take steps with Cabinet colleagues to review arms export licensing to Israel.

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

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. We have engaged with the authorities in Kathmandu and Beijing, and we stand with them at this incredibly devastating and difficult time.

We categorically do not export any bombs or ammunition for use in military operations in Gaza. We suspended 29 licences in September 2024, and approximately 50 licences have been refused since then. All licences are assessed in line with the strategic export licensing criteria and are kept under continual review.

[Brian Mathew]

Will the UK ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan heights, sanction companies profiteering from this trade and enforce the International Court of Justice ruling against illegal occupation?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the statements made by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this issue, and he should expect further announcements in due course.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

In September 2024, the Government suspended some arms sales to Israel over its war on Gaza. Given the escalating Israeli violence in the west bank, will the Government review their export licences to ensure no British military equipment is supplied to Israel that could be used there?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and as I assured the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), we keep all our licences under review. We only approve licences that are consistent with our legal obligations, and all of them are kept under careful and continual review, as standard. We will of course keep the House updated on the implications of any other announcements we make.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I welcome the Foreign Secretary and the new Ministers to their places in the House.

As previous speakers have mentioned, the UK’s trade relationship with Israel includes the trade in goods from illegal settlements. Members across the House will have been shocked to see the violent scenes of settlers acting with apparent impunity and with overt support from Israeli Ministers who have set out their support for those settlements. May I push the Minister a little bit further, and ask him to confirm whether the Government will introduce new sanctions to target those settlers involved in these attacks as well as the extremist Ministers who are encouraging them; whether their reported progress towards a trade ban on illegal goods will extend to services; and most importantly, whether they will set out the consequences if those bans are breached?

[Stephen Doughty]

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. We absolutely condemn the proposals for E1 and all illegal settlements; we have joined other countries around the world in condemning that proposal. We have been clear with the Government of Israel that this must stop. The Prime Minister has been clear that we need to do more, including looking at further sanctions on those involved in the violence in Gaza, as well as at measures to ban trade in goods with illegal settlements. We have been clear that British companies should not be financing, constructing or advertising new settlements.

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

2. Whether his Department has budgeted for future spending on the UK-Mauritius Treaty on the Chagos archipelago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking with international partners to help protect freedom of navigation through the strait of Hormuz.

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

The strait of Hormuz should be open to safe, secure and unimpeded transit, in accordance with international law. In the United Kingdom, the Foreign Secretary and I are working closely with international partners to drive diplomatic efforts to restore navigational rights and freedoms. We continue to make it clear to Iran that it must cease its egregious attacks on shipping and on our partners and allies, and it must engage in negotiations to reopen the strait in good faith.

[Alison Taylor]

My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North are feeling the impact of higher energy and petrol prices, and they will appreciate the efforts that my hon. Friend’s Department is making. Would he agree that military action by the world’s superpowers is risking a return to pricing instability, and that all efforts must be made to cease military activities?

[Stephen Doughty]

I entirely understand the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents, particularly in an advanced manufacturing district such as Paisley and Renfrewshire North—I know her constituency well and understand why she is speaking up for her constituents. These events are affecting communities across the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is taking action at home to support people with energy bills and the cost of living, but we absolutely need to see a diplomatic solution involving negotiations and the reopening of the strait of Hormuz, and to stand up for the fundamental principles of trade and maritime security.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Clearly, the free flow of shipping through the strait of Hormuz is vital to western economies, but the threat is that Iran will seek to take complete control over shipping through the strait. What sanctions do the Government propose to take to prevent Iran from succeeding?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the strait reopened. We need to have an agreement between Iran and Oman, and we need to ensure that there is a free flow of trade, with no tolling, and that the attacks on shipping and on partners in the region cease immediately. We have already imposed 240 sanctions on Iran, and we will continue to work with international partners to apply economic pressure, but a diplomatic settlement is the right way to restore the right of passage in the strait of Hormuz.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Iranian regime is deliberately weaponising the strait of Hormuz, using rockets, drones and sea mines to menace international shipping and to hold the global economy to ransom. Its aggression threatens British vessels, drives up fuel prices, and places our energy, aviation and food supply chains at direct risk. Following the latest American strikes and the Iranian retaliation, will the Minister set out what specific and concrete measures the Government are taking with our international partners to resolve this crisis, restore the safe and sustained passage of commercial shipping, and ensure that Tehran can no longer threaten Britain’s energy security with impunity?

[Stephen Doughty]

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. That is why, over recent weeks, the Foreign Secretary and I have been engaged in so much diplomatic action with our partners in the Gulf, and made it clear to Iran, directly in conversation, what we expect to happen. I mentioned the sanctions that are already in place. We keep other measures under review. Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and cannot continue its destabilising activity in the region or its threats to Jewish and Israeli communities around the world. We need to see this as a whole package of activity. Those are the things that we have been making absolutely clear to Iran and working on closely with partners.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the level of threat China poses to UK interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to secure the release of UK nationals detained abroad.

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

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. We are strengthening that support, including through the appointment of the first dedicated envoy for complex detentions, our former colleague the right honourable Alistair Burt. I am sure that was welcomed across the House. He is supporting British nationals and their families in the most difficult detention cases. I have met him to discuss those cases, and I look forward to his challenge and his review of all of those cases.

[Douglas McAllister]

Today marks 3,224 days of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal’s arbitrary detention and torture in an Indian prison. I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place—he is the ninth Foreign Secretary in office since my constituent’s detention. What steps has he taken since his appointment to secure Jagtar’s release? Will he do more than just raise his case? Will he use his authority and take decisive action to end this injustice, and will he agree to meet Jagtar’s family as a priority?

[Stephen Doughty]

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. We continue to raise concerns about his detention with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, emphasising the need for a prompt, full and just resolution of his cases within India’s independent legal system. The former Foreign Secretary raised the case on 4 June. The Foreign Secretary’s envoy for complex consular detentions met Mr Johal’s brother on 7 August, and I can confirm that we will meet the family in due course. Consular officials most recently visited Mr Johal on 29 July.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I raise the cases of Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai—both United Kingdom citizens—to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, who I welcome to his position. Ryan Cornelius has been incarcerated for 19 years—trumped-up charges by a corrupt regime that is supporting a war in Sudan at the moment. In his case, will the Government first bring sanctions against that regime to persuade, or force, them to release this man, as he should have been? In the case of Jimmy Lai, would the Foreign Secretary also threaten clear sanctions? I now know that Sebastien Lai wants to see the Prime Minister. Would the Foreign Secretary please say to the Prime Minister that he should see him because, again, Jimmy Lai has been wrongly incarcerated by a despotic regime?

[Stephen Doughty]

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. Gentleman knows, we condemn the politically motivated prosecution of Jimmy Lai in the strongest terms. At the age of 78, his sentence is tantamount to a life sentence, and we are deeply concerned for his health and continue to call for his immediate release. The Foreign Secretary has raised this with his Chinese counterpart and will, of course, be happy to meet the family.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I have been in regular contact with my constituent, Chloe Pepper, who has expressed serious concerns regarding the welfare of her brother, Ryan. Ryan has been detained in Dubai since the beginning of November, and he has reported that he has experienced mistreatment while in detention, which is a matter of significant concern. The UAE authorities have conducted an investigation and found no evidence of mistreatment. What scope do consular officials have to seek information about the UAE’s investigation to ensure that Ryan’s allegations were properly investigated?

[Stephen Doughty]

We raise all cases with authorities in line with the appropriate consular protocols. I am happy to speak with my hon. Friend about the case involving his constituents and see what further we can do.

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

I congratulate the Government on the hiring of Alistair Burt—he is a good hire and will do great things for some of these most complex of cases—but does the Minister agree that many of these cases are extremely difficult and exceptionally traumatic, and that it is far better to prevent them happening in the first place? What more can be done to advise discretionary travellers on the risks they run when travelling to some of these exceptionally challenging locations, and particularly to advise them in advance of the finite nature of any consular support that may be forthcoming if they get into trouble?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for Alistair Burt. He held my position in the past, and commands immense respect across this House; it has been a pleasure to work with him so far. I certainly will welcome his challenge and review of the most complex cases—as the right hon. Gentleman said, some of these cases are incredibly difficult. He rightly says that prevention is crucially important. We provide FCDO travel advice, as well as tailored advice in some cases, but we absolutely want to make sure that British nationals are aware of the full range of risks of travelling to a number of locations, and we attempt to make those risks very clear in advance.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking with international partners to help tackle climate change.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

T3. Last month, 12 protesters were arrested in Tbilisi just for displaying a banner criticising Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, who controls the Georgian Dream Government. The European Union and the United States have taken steps to sanction Mr Ivanishvili. When will the UK Government follow suit?

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

The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not comment on future designations, but we have sanctioned a number of individuals in Georgia in relation to actions. We urge Georgia to respect rights and freedoms and an inclusive and open democratic society.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. The catastrophic events in Nepal last week have had a profound impact on the significant Nepalese community in my constituency. As well as underlining the need for further, sustained effort to tackle climate change internationally, do not those events also underline the need for continuing aid to Nepal?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend speaks up powerfully on behalf of his constituents with connections to Nepal. I can absolutely assure him that we are looking at what further support we can offer to Nepal. Let me emphasise that we had stuff prepositioned, and our work on disaster risk reduction over many years has enabled us to be in a strong position to respond. We will stand by Nepal as it has always stood by us, and we will work closely with China.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

T4. As bond yields climb sharply and turmoil in the middle east revives inflationary pressures, how is the Foreign Secretary reassuring international partners that Britain can pay its way? More importantly, is he warning the new Prime Minister of fresh, non-essential spending?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the British company, Dana Petroleum, is involved in a consortium that has been granted licences for oil exploration in Palestinian waters off the coast of the occupied Gaza strip? Does he agree that it is illegal and amounts to the war crime of pillage? What does he intend to do to challenge this illegal action by a British-based company?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The United Kingdom recognises Palestine as a state and therefore its entitlement to a territorial sea. Let me be clear: I expect any UK company to abide by its obligations under international law.

Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the UK-EU treaty on Gibraltar. Before I do, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the people of Spain following the recent wildfires in Andalusia. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, all those affected and the emergency responders working under extremely difficult conditions. We are thinking of all the British nationals tragically affected by the fires, and our embassy and consular teams remain available to support those who require assistance.

I am pleased to inform the House that on Tuesday 14 July, I signed the treaty in Brussels, alongside EU Trade Commissioner Šefčovič, who signed on behalf of the EU. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar and Spanish Foreign Minister Albares were also present at the ceremony, in recognition of the important role Gibraltar and Spain have played in the negotiations.

This is genuinely a historic moment. It represents the culmination of over five years of work, and I pay tribute to all those whose efforts have brought us here: members of the previous Government, including the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton; and particularly my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the former Defence Secretary and the current Defence Secretary, and our crucial teams of negotiators in London, Brussels and Madrid. I particularly pay tribute to the Gibraltar team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, who have done sterling work at so many levels; it has been recognised in the Department, but I want to place on record my sincere thanks for all their efforts over many years. Of course, I also thank the Government of Gibraltar, who have been our partners at the negotiating table throughout. Nothing in this treaty has been agreed without their full involvement and support. I am also grateful to the European Commission and Spain for the constructive approach they have taken to negotiations. Together, we have found solutions that worked for all.

Throughout this process, we have been committed to transparency with Parliament. Since last June, when we reached political agreement on the treaty’s core elements, we have regularly kept Members informed of developments, including through private briefings and, on many occasions, being held to account here and in the usual ways. As I promised, we laid the final text of the treaty before Parliament on 14 July, the day of signature, alongside an explanatory memorandum, which was the earliest possible opportunity to do so. Members will see that, as I assured them, the signed treaty has not substantively changed from the draft treaty that I deposited in the Library of the House in February, which they have been examining for the past four months.

Signature of the text enabled provisional application of the treaty on 15 July. That has given the people of Gibraltar clarity and certainty. They do not have to wait for a far-off and undefined date of ratification before they can enjoy the economic and social benefits of the treaty—the fluid border is here now. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have seen the joyful, moving and genuinely historic scenes at that border after so many years, which reflect the fact that people have been at the heart of this agreement throughout. With the European Union, Spain and Gibraltar, we have put the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the wider region first.

Yesterday morning, the Chief Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, oversaw the removal of the final pieces of the fence, and there were emotional scenes. Workers, Gibraltar residents and holidaymakers are now crossing between Gibraltar and Spain with ease. The Government of Gibraltar have worked tirelessly to put in place all the necessary legislative and operational changes to make this happen, and I am very grateful for their dedication. As I said, they were truly historic and special scenes, and I was honoured to be presented with a piece of the now removed frontier, to celebrate this significant moment of a barrier coming down in continental Europe.

Having mentioned the benefits of the treaty, I think it is right to set out in full once more what those are. Over half of Gibraltar’s workforce cross the border every day. They depend on being able to do so swiftly and easily, as do the shoppers and holidaymakers going in both directions. The treaty guarantees that. Customs and immigration checks will no longer take place at the border. Instead, everyone arriving into Gibraltar airport will undergo dual immigration checks: first, a check by the Gibraltarian authorities, who remain responsible for immigration and entry into Gibraltar; and then a check by Spanish officials to enable entry into the Schengen area. Completion of both checks will enable people to move freely between Gibraltar and Spain as they choose.

As for goods, Gibraltar and the EU will form a bespoke customs model. Gibraltar will bring its standards and tariffs for goods in line with the EU’s where relevant. That eliminates the need for checks on goods at the border, making life easier for ordinary shoppers and providing reassurance for businesses. The impact of the treaty on Gibraltar’s prosperity is not limited to the fluid border, as significant a change as that is; it also enables commercial flights between Gibraltar and EU member states in the Schengen area, removing a block that has been in place for years. That will potentially bring new investment to the region and unlock economic and transport opportunities.

Among all these changes, the treaty preserves the operational autonomy of our military base. As Members will know, British Forces Gibraltar is a critical hub for naval, air and joint operations across the Mediterranean and into the middle east and more widely. The treaty fully protects our ability to operate to, through and from Gibraltar. Spain will have no ability to restrict the movement of UK military personnel or goods into the base. All information sharing will be limited to the necessary details required to support the new border arrangements. British Forces Gibraltar will remain a sovereign base for operations well into the future.

This treaty has always been about creating a framework for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU and providing its people and businesses with the stability and certainty they need post Brexit, having been left out of the arrangements at the time of withdrawal from the European Union. Nothing in it affects UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, but to make that explicit, article 2 of the treaty clearly states that no part of the treaty can be used to challenge the UK position on sovereignty. Gibraltar is a vital part of the UK family—that will not change.

In conclusion, I would like to reflect on the significant achievement that this treaty represents. It has banished the fears of a hard border between Gibraltar and Spain, bringing back memories of the past. It has given Gibraltar the certainty to move forward with renewed confidence. It will enhance the prosperity of both Gibraltar and the wider region. It has bolstered our relationships with the EU and Spain, unlocking wider and deeper co-operation, which is very welcome. I am very proud to have signed it and to have worked alongside all those others to achieve a hopeful future, to put the past behind us and to find a way forward focused on people and prosperity. I want to celebrate that new relationship here today. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I gently remind the Minister that the statement he just gave seemed to deviate slightly from the copy I had received. We need to ensure that they align perfectly. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I apologise to the previous occupant of the Chair? There was no substantive difference in my statement as delivered from the copy provided, but I may have stylistically altered a couple of lines slightly; I apologise.

I thank the shadow Minister for her very reasonable questions, her broad support for what we have signed and agreed, and her recognition that the agreement is supported by the people of Gibraltar. It is what the people of Gibraltar want and there was unanimous support in the Gibraltarian Parliament for the deal; that is very important.

The right hon. Lady asked about the CRaG process. As I explained in the debate that we had the other day, the treaty is now laid so the CRaG process starts, but scrutiny will only take place when both Houses are sitting—the intervening period of the recess does not interfere with the ability of both Houses to provide scrutiny. Helpfully, this aligns with the process in the European Parliament, which has its own processes, so scrutiny will take place in the autumn there as well. I remain completely at the disposal of the right hon. Lady, shadow Ministers and other shadow spokespeople if they have further technical or other questions, and I am sure that officials would be happy to provide further briefings.

I would gently say that we have answered many, many questions on this issue. We published a draft treaty text on 26 February—it has been available to study in this House for four months—but the text has not substantively changed since then. I have appeared before multiple Committees and indeed we had a debate in Westminster Hall just the other day. I am very happy to talk about this; there is absolutely nothing to hide. It is an important treaty and, despite the right hon. Lady’s comments about the process, I am glad that she broadly endorses it.

The right hon. Lady asked about military autonomy. I can tell her absolutely that military autonomy is protected—that was a key red line for us. Indeed, I think the treaty reflects a new relationship of co-operation: Spain is a key NATO partner, who we are working alongside on many different issues. The agreement reflects a mature and responsible way forward, but it does not affect the operations of British Forces Gibraltar in any way.

The right hon. Lady asked about goods. Guidance is being provided to businesses. There are always teething issues when bringing in such processes, but we are actively monitoring what is happening and ensuring that the systems can keep up.

The right hon. Lady asked about checks on people. I am not sure what she meant by “reported chaos”. I think there were some slight issues with the first flight that came in, but the second flight has come in, I think, without incident. We are closely monitoring what is happening on the ground. As with any new system, this is a dramatic change and there will be implementation issues. She rightly raises important concerns about the entry-exit system. The deal was made to prevent that system from operating at the existing—now removed—hard border, which would have been very logistically complex; she knows from the geography at the border. I am confident the new arrangements will work and we are monitoring them closely. Myself and other Ministers have been regularly raising with other European counterparts and the European Commission the wider entry-exit system issues that she mentions.

The right hon. Lady made some specific points about pensions, which I will happily write back to her on. I do not expect to see any provocations in the future—I am not sure what she was referring to when she said that. I expect co-operation in the mutual prosperity of the people of the whole region. That was clearly reflected in the remarks made by the Spanish Prime Minister, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Mayor of La Línea and Spanish officials. Everybody wants this treaty to work for people and for businesses, and we see a new spirit and a way forward.

The right hon. Lady asked about the concordat. I have signed the concordat with the Chief Minister. I have also written with some further clarifications, which I hope are satisfactory and address any concerns, but we are very clear: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. Of course, we have some constitutional responsibilities, but as I have set out, only in exceptional circumstances would there be any difference in our position and we would always be working alongside Gibraltar. I set that out very clearly in the documents, which she can read. I hope she is satisfied and I remain at her disposal for further detailed technical questions.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on this important agreement, which provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar, while also providing economic opportunities and important safeguards for that place. I thank Foreign Office staff for the work that they have done, and both the current and previous Gibraltar Government representatives in the UK, Jonathan Scott and Dominique Searle. Does the Minister agree that this much-needed agreement provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely do. The agreement enjoyed unanimous support in the Parliament. Gibraltar has been at the heart of the negotiations throughout: one of our key conditions was that Gibraltar was entirely satisfied with what was agreed. Fundamentally, the agreement will benefit people, businesses and communities —that is at its heart. I add my thanks to the officials mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar last July. I warmly welcome the agreement and congratulate the Minister and the Government, together with Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on securing it. Gibraltar has always insisted that there should be nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar, and this agreement both meets that expectation and honours that principle. I also pay tribute to the Spanish Government for the pragmatism they have shown in coming to this arrangement.

The agreement finally resolves the existential uncertainty created by Brexit. It protects Gibraltar’s economy, safeguards our defence interests and gives the territory certainty and confidence in its own future. Self-determination is and must remain the bedrock of our relationship with all our overseas territories. Sadly, that is especially important to say today after the disgraceful scenes in Atlanta last night, where football was used as a platform to challenge the democratic right of Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. That principle is not negotiable and never should be.

I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, in relation to the EU’s entry-exit system coming into force, what reassurance can he give British travellers that journeys to and from Gibraltar will not face unnecessary disruption this summer and into the future? Secondly, have the Government assessed the practical impact of the Schengen 90-day and 180-day rule on British citizens travelling to Gibraltar? If so, what conclusions has that assessment reached? Finally, will the Minister reassure the House that the constitutional safeguards within this agreement are sufficiently robust to ensure that Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain never again return to the uncertainty and border disruption of the past?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their wholehearted support, which is very welcome. I assure him that the constitutional safeguards are in place; they are at the heart of this agreement and are entered into in good faith by all involved, particularly by ourselves and the European Union. That is why this has been a complex and long process. The treaty is a substantive document that ensures that the right safeguards and provisions are in place.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the 90-day and 180-day rule. People do not have an automatic right to go and spend beyond that period in Gibraltar at the moment, and Gibraltar remains responsible for its own immigration processes. We looked at these issues, and this is what Gibraltar agreed to in order for there to be fluid access into the Schengen area. Gibraltar residents are not prevented in any way from returning home to Gibraltar, and we will look at how these things are implemented over time. Fundamentally, this treaty opens up opportunities for people and businesses to travel to Gibraltar and the wider region. Hopefully, new flights will also open up—obviously, subject to commercial interests. This genuinely open up new hopes for travel and investment in the region.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the entry-exit system. As I explained to the shadow Minister, we keep this matter under close monitoring, as we do in relation to all entry and exit points in the Schengen area. We are always raising issues through our posts and concerns, and we raise things with the European Commission. There are exceptions and processes by which those can be dealt with when queues get too large or problems emerge, but we are confident that they will be dealt with in the case of Gibraltar.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the events yesterday, which I agree were deeply inappropriate and disappointing. It is a real shame that people could not focus on the football, and I think most people looking at the events would feel that way. We have absolutely no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. The Falklands are British—they remain British, and they will continue to be British. Falkland Islanders want to be British, and they have explained that many, many times. Let us get back to focusing on the football.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister and his counterparts in the Gibraltarian Government on getting this treaty over the line. Along with many Members across this House, I went on a visit to Gibraltar a few weeks ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was incredible to see our British forces in Gibraltar and to see how many of them are actually Gibraltarians, and are not just from the mainland United Kingdom. I was really impressed by the Chief Minister and all his team; they were really looking forward to this moment. They are a very agile Government. We could learn some lessons from them—I suppose the population of Gibraltar being only the same size as the population of the Isle of Sheppey in my constituency probably helps slightly! Can the Minister confirm that there will be no diminishment in or deterioration of the capability and operational abilities of our forces and our base in Gibraltar? Are there things that this treaty enables us to do that will enhance our military capacity in Gibraltar?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit. Having visited Gibraltar a number of times myself, I know that it is a truly special place to visit. Having also been caught in long queues while crossing the former border, I know how delighted I will be not to face that in the future and to be able to enjoy the wider region in Spain as well. The impact is very positive. There will be no changes to our military capability or ability to operate; our autonomy and operational capability remain the same. I think this is a new era for co-operation between the UK and Spain as NATO allies and in many different areas, and this treaty sets a new spirit for that co-operation going forward.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I warmly endorse what the Minister said about the Falkland Islands, and ask a question or two about security aspects? Given that both we and Spain are in NATO, the reassurances about the sovereignty of the base are welcome. Can the Minister confirm that on those occasions when military assets, including munitions, have to be moved into the area, the report that I have seen suggesting that everything about munitions has to be reported to the Spanish authorities does not mean that this cannot be done in secrecy when that is required? Finally, with regard to the border, is there any danger that, without the land border, people will be enabled to get on an aeroplane and come to the UK who might pose a security threat, and then we would be in difficulty sending them back? Hopefully none of those fears is warranted, but I would like to hear that from the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

As always, the right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. I can absolutely assure him that there is no change in the ability to operate in the way that we have done from Gibraltar in the past. Indeed, I welcome the new co-operation with our Spanish friends—our NATO allies. All the appropriate liaison will take place, but our ability to operate will not be affected in any way. That was an absolute red line for us.

The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that the wider security concerns were a key part of our discussions. They are important for Spain, they are important for us, they are important locally, and they are obviously important given air travel from Gibraltar. I will not go into the operational details in the House today, but he can be assured of that.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I warmly congratulate the Government on successfully securing this historic, landmark agreement. I thank the Minister and his team for engaging with the APPG and for his words today explaining the sheer emotion that this treaty brings to Gibraltarians. Having visited Gibraltar on a number of occasions, and having spoken and listened to its Government, businesses and people, I know that they are really proudly British and want to remain so.

This agreement protects Gibraltar’s sovereignty and its sovereign military base, strengthens our relationship with Spain, improves co-operation with our European neighbours and delivers what Gibraltar has consistently asked for. It has been backed by the Gibraltarian Parliament and supported by every former Chief Minister —I thank them for their commitment, dedication and trust in us. Does the Minister agree that those criticising this agreement should spend less time speaking on what they believe is for Gibraltar and more time listening to the people of Gibraltar? They have consistently supported this agreement and, as I have heard today, joyfully welcomed it.

[Stephen Doughty]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work and that of the all-party parliamentary group. I genuinely welcome the cross-party involvement in that group over many years, which has always been done with a focus on the interests of the people of Gibraltar. I can see that a number of members of the APPG are in the Chamber today, and that is very important. I absolutely agree; we need to listen to what the people of Gibraltar want, what they have clearly expressed throughout this process and what Gibraltar’s Parliament has reflected in its unanimous support for the agreement. She rightly summarises all the benefits. It was a delight to see her in Brussels just before I travelled over to sign the treaty in person, and I thank her and all Members who have taken an interest in Gibraltar for their work. I encourage them to continue to do so as new opportunities emerge.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I understand entirely why His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar needed a new arrangement following our departure from the European Union. Gibraltar was excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement by the last Conservative Government and left high and dry, so it needed a new arrangement. However, I believe this agreement is deeply flawed—it is quite clearly a constitutional compromise. British citizens will no longer have the same right of access to Gibraltar that we have today. Having sat in this House when the previous Labour Government tried to negotiate joint sovereignty with Spain, I know that we simply cannot trust Madrid or the European Union—if we give them something, they will give nothing back. Their ultimate aim is sovereignty over the Rock, so any compromise on the constitutional arrangements for Gibraltar should be opposed by this House.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman was previously a member of the party that left Gibraltar high and dry when it was in government, so it is quite rich to hear him make those comments. I am afraid that I totally reject his claims. If he had seen the scenes of Gibraltarians celebrating and actually listened to them and what they wanted, and if he had actually read the treaty, he would know that it says nothing about joint sovereignty. Sovereignty was not on the table in these negotiations, and it never would have been. His comments about trust are completely out of kilter with what people on the ground want. People in Gibraltar and in Andalusia want to work together, have prosperity together and celebrate their trade and commercial links, so it is not for him to stand up in this House and tell Gibraltarians what to think.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on the agreement. Does he agree that it is only possible in part because of the work that this Government have done to repair the relationship between Britain and the European Union? That is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the people of Glasgow who I represent.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The benefits of this agreement go well beyond just being for the people of Gibraltar, La Línea and the neighbouring region; they reflect a new relationship between the UK and EU—one of trust, co-operation and working in the interests of people, business and consumers, not pursuing an outdated ideology. The element of trust that we all collectively were able to inject into these negotiations is why we have come to this successful conclusion, and it provides a very good basis for discussions on other matters.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the article 2 sovereignty clause, this treaty demands that Gibraltar aligns with a number of EU laws, standards and tariffs. If the European Court of Justice is at odds with a Gibraltar court on the application of those, no matter of arbitration will ever shift the European Union from being absolutely wedded to the supremacy, in their eyes, of the European Court of Justice. How can that sovereignty test ever be met?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear that sovereignty was not on the table. Gibraltar—its Government and its Parliament—has freely agreed to this agreement, and a range of arrangements are in place, as well as dispute mechanisms, to ensure that fluid movement can take place across the border and high standards will continue to be enjoyed. Those are set out very clearly in the treaty, and I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of those arrangements and how they will operate in practice, but I emphasise that this agreement has Gibraltar, its Government and its people at its heart. They have backed it, and they have agreed to remove that border and the risk of a hard border, which would have been disastrous for Gibraltarians.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

As the Minister knows from our Westminster Hall debate last week, I was part of an APPG delegation to Gibraltar a couple of months ago, where we had a wide-ranging set of meetings. I congratulate all those involved in achieving the treaty. One reservation that was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition there—who did, of course, eventually support the treaty—was about possible future changes. He wanted an absolute guarantee that the people of Gibraltar would have the final say on any future constitutional changes. Could the Minister confirm that is the case?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent advocacy and support on behalf of Gibraltarians —it is very important to see that support on both sides of the House today. The concordat that I have set out with the Chief Minister, and indeed the letter I have written, set out how we will work incredibly closely with the Government of Gibraltar going forward to address any unforeseen circumstances. The treaty has clear provisions in relation to that, as well. Of course, we do not foresee circumstances in which those provisions would ever be needed, but it is important that they are always there, and I am confident that they will stand the test of time.

Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government are pleased to provide an update to the House on the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar. The treaty was signed in Brussels yesterday, 14 July, and laid before Parliament for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I signed on behalf of the UK, and Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, signed on behalf of the EU. The ceremony was also attended by the Spanish Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares, and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo.

This treaty resolves one of the last outstanding issues from Brexit, by creating a framework for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. It establishes a fluid border between Gibraltar and Spain, providing the people of Gibraltar and the region with much-needed legal certainty and stability, and securing their prosperity. It safeguards the operational autonomy of our military facilities, ensuring that they can continue their vital contribution to regional security without interference or interruption. And it protects UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, with a clause which makes explicitly clear that nothing in the treaty can be used to challenge our sovereignty position.

The Treaty is being provisionally applied from 15 July, providing certainty for the people and economy of Gibraltar. His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar has prepared the necessary legislative, operational and infrastructure changes to enable the new arrangements to begin on 15 July.

The scrutiny process will be led by the European Affairs Committee.

[HCWS260]

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John, for what I hope will be an interesting and constructive debate about the future of Gibraltar. I am delighted to be joined by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar—the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—on which I serve as the vice-chairman.

As the result of a discussion between me and the Gibraltar Government representative, who is in the Gallery, we thought it would be useful to have a fact-finding trip to Gibraltar, so that when the treaty on the future of the Rock was up for discussion, we could have one from an informed position. Two or three people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to, but I was delighted that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the Cross-Bench peer, accompanied me, and we were also joined for one or two of the meetings by Lord James Wharton, from the upper House.

Following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme that was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the local population, the business community and, of course, the politicians in Gibraltar. We had a meeting with His Excellency the Governor, which was just a courtesy call, but it is always a pleasure to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear how they approach the issues. I should point out that we went at our own expense, so we were independent of the Government of Gibraltar.

After we had seen the Governor, we were delighted to go to the airport and be joined by the Chief Minister, who delighted in giving us a tour of the airport. He has clearly devoted a great deal of time and effort to the arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides are content and, importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is maintained. We all know the long history of Spanish claims on the Rock, but that is definitely not in any way part of the treaty; sovereignty is absolute.

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

indicated assent.

[Martin Vickers]

I can see the Minister nodding; no doubt he will confirm that later.

On our trip to the airport, the concerns about Spanish officials operating on the Rock were, to some extent, assuaged. I was delighted that we were able to receive reassurance from not just the Chief Minister but his senior officials who accompanied us on the tour of the airport. I know there have been certain concerns about Spanish officials, police and the like operating within British territory, but the arrangements that have been made mean that, to a great extent, our fears can be assuaged.

Next we visited the commander at the British base. He assured us that there is co-operation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial to both sides. There is no interference in the operations of the base, and the military is content with the arrangements. The American navy had been in the port only a day or two before our visit. It was encouraging, particularly in view of the current world situation and some of the noises coming from the American Administration, that work and co-operation are continuing at a purely operational level.

There was one visit on which we heard some discontent. We walked along Main Street and called in to see a number of retailers, purely at random, and they raised some concerns. As we know, the retail sector is struggling in many countries, and Gibraltar is no exception. Interestingly enough, one of the shops we went into dealt in ceramics, and the owner imported most of his products from the UK. He pointed out that because of various impositions on the ceramics sector, the costs were rising in the UK so much that it was becoming unprofitable to operate. With the proposed taxation arrangements in Gibraltar affecting retailers, he was going to cease operations in the not-too-distant future after being in business for about 25 years. It was very sad to hear that. But on the whole, although many of the retailers were not particularly happy, they recognised the overall benefits to Gibraltar of the operations.

I have mentioned the concerns about security and so on. One of our meetings was with the chief commissioner of the police, who recognised that there are a number of issues that need what he described as “further consideration”. Having said that, when we left the meeting we felt that, on the whole, his concerns could be worked through. I am sure the Minister is well aware of them, but I would be more than happy to discuss them with him if that would be beneficial.

We then had a lunchtime meeting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Health, Care and Business Minister. It is important to stress that we had full co-operation from the Chief Minister and his Ministers during our visit, bearing in mind that we had no official standing and were merely there as representatives of the all-party group. I want to put on the record our sincere thanks to the Gibraltar representative for assisting us in making the arrangements for the visit.

In the course of the lunch with the Chief Minister, once we had dealt with the routine matters we were there to discuss, we had a very useful political discussion. It is always interesting to hear an outside politician’s views of what is happening over here in the UK. I am not entirely sure what they would make of it today, but a couple of months ago we had a fascinating discussion, mainly about whether there were concerns about the treaty across the political spectrum here in the UK. We were able to give reassurance, based on the meetings we had and knowing the views of colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group, that there would be all-party support from Westminster.

According to the report we put together, we discussed the evolving UK-EU relationship, and on the whole the direction of travel was greatly supported. We also discussed a number of the issues that were causing concern, including—if I can remember the ins and outs of it—people taking advantage of the arrangements that were being put in place. It is probably not something we need to cover today, but it is worth recording that there were some concerns about people trying to take advantage of the health services provided in Gibraltar. We also had a constructive meeting with the vice-chancellor of the university, whom we had met on previous occasions. It was interesting to receive an update on how things were progressing there.

We had an interesting meeting with Keith Azopardi, the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, because we wanted to ensure that we received views on the treaty from across the political spectrum. He pointed out that the opposition had imposed a number of red lines in their discussions, but as Members will know, the draft treaty was eventually approved unanimously by the Gibraltarian Parliament. The leader of the opposition quite understandably pointed out his party’s concerns. As opposition parties do, it obviously wanted to carve out a position whereby if something went wrong, he would be able to say, “I told you so.” I can see Government Members smiling at that, because they have been in opposition—my party is in opposition now, and the shadow minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), may point out one or two of our concerns in that respect.

Mr Azopardi expressed genuine concerns but—he will probably not thank me for saying this—in all honesty I think he was struggling to find reasons why he would have been tempted to vote against the treaty. It is important to recognise that political parties across Gibraltar have supported the treaty and feel on balance that it would be beneficial for it to be ratified.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, and to that of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which have been broadly in the spirit that I and the people and Government of Gibraltar would have hoped for: reasonable, fair scrutiny with broad support. It is important to emphasise that, because it sends a strong signal that complements the strong support of the democratically elected Parliament of Gibraltar for the draft UK-EU agreement.

I will respond to specific points as I go, but will start by paying a tribute to all those involved in the process over many years: His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar—the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Attorney General and all their officials and teams—and our teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the senior officials who did sterling work in taking us through the detailed process. The treaty is a big one, with many associated administrative and practical arrangements. I know there have at times been frustrations about the length of the process and the detail, but it was important to get it right. This is about the future of Gibraltar and our relationship with the EU, Gibraltar and Spain.

I also pay tribute to our friends in the EU and Spain for the constructive spirit they have shown throughout the discussions and negotiations. We have come to a conclusion that is beneficial for people, which is what we all sought to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a party political point but an important one: in the end, this was about people and businesses, their lives and their ability to move, to trade and to get on, without the uncertainty caused by Brexit.

Gibraltar was not included in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement that was negotiated by the previous Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. That meant serious uncertainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why we have worked together to find a practical and lasting solution that protects Gibraltar’s economy and way of life for the long term, while crucially safeguarding our sovereignty.

We had previously reached the provisional and political agreements, and have been involved in the detailed process for some time. We have now achieved an agreement that ensures the free circulation of people and goods between Gibraltar and the EU by removing the physical barriers on the border between Gibraltar and Spain. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that, not least because of what the people of Gibraltar went through for so many years. That will mean jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar but—it is important to emphasise—for the whole region. That involves EU Schengen area rules relating to border checks being applied in Gibraltar and a customs union being established between the EU and Gibraltar. That will bring certainty to the territory.

Let me turn first to some of the questions about scrutiny; I will answer the questions from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in detail in due course. The CRaG Act 2010 gives statutory form to long-standing constitutional conventions on the scrutiny of treaties and is the process we are legally obliged to follow to ratify treaties. Despite the very particular approach of the CRaG system, transparency has been at the heart of our approach. I gently rebuff some of shadow Minister’s comments, because we published the draft text of the agreement on 26 February, and I gave an oral statement to the House on the same day. We have had this debate today and I have appeared before Committees and answered many questions. We have attempted at all stages to be transparent and open. I have offered private briefings to shadow ministerial colleagues and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister set out the timeline today and assure us—

[Stephen Doughty]

indicated assent.

[Wendy Morton]

He is nodding, so I will sit with bated breath.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will come back to the timeline in due course. It is quite right that throughout the process Parliament has provided scrutiny, as it has been doing in this debate, which is very welcome.

[Edward Morello]

Perhaps it is useful to point out that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not, as standard, hold evidence sessions on every treaty that is laid before Parliament under the CRaG process. The Minister and the Chief Minister very kindly appeared before us to give evidence, and frankly a lot of the questions that the shadow Minister asked were probably answered in that evidence session.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed; that is a fair point, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making it. We did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have endured scrutiny in the media and from businesses and others—and quite rightly so. On my visit to Gibraltar, I met with the leader of the opposition, businesses and others, who had legitimate and reasonable questions to ask. We have done our best to answer those transparently and in good faith.

What matters most at this point is providing clarity and certainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why I am pleased to say that the UK and EU will provisionally apply the agreement from 15 July—next week. This is an important milestone for Gibraltar. The UK and the EU, along with Gibraltar and Spain, are committed to fully ratifying the treaty as soon as possible, and we are all working at pace to achieve that.

My understanding is that the process in the European Parliament will take place this autumn, up to December. We will be operating under a similar timeline, in accordance with the discussions we are having with the relevant Committees and others regarding the CRaG process. Once signed, the treaty will be provided immediately to the UK Parliament, and I will make the appropriate statements to signify that moment. We will then have the CRaG process and ratification. I hope that satisfies Members who asked about the timeline, but I will go into a little more detail later.

Much of the legislative and operational work to bring the agreement into force is being led by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and they have made very strong progress in a short space of time. They have already put in place their main primary legislation and are working tirelessly on the many practical steps needed to apply the agreement. I am pleased to say that there is very strong co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian authorities across areas of shared implementation, including the physical infrastructure works required at Gibraltar’s airport. We stand ready to assist in whatever way we can, and have done so throughout the process.

It is important to emphasise, as many Members have, that negotiations on sovereignty were never on the table during the treaty negotiations, and that was not in doubt. The agreement is about technical arrangements that govern Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. I appreciate the compliments paid by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), and others about article 2 of the treaty, which makes it clear that the agreement in no way affects our sovereignty position on Gibraltar and cannot be used to challenge it.

As I set out both in opposition and now in government, we remain committed to the Gibraltar double lock, which means we would never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, and we would never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar was not content. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected in the treaty for the long term. If it had not been, we would not have agreed it.

Many Members raised important points about the military base. Safeguarding the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities has been a red line for the UK Government throughout our discussions. The agreement protects that autonomy and allows our facilities to continue their vital contribution to regional security and prosperity. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved in the negotiations at every stage. We have the full backing of the Defence Secretary and defence teams on this agreement. I am glad that that was confirmed by colleagues’ experiences of engaging with the Commander British Forces in Gibraltar.

The agreement also removes immigration checks at Gibraltar’s land border with Spain. That is crucial for the nearly 15,000 people who cross the border every day for work, and for protecting Gibraltar’s economy. To unlock the benefits of a fluid border, travellers arriving at the airport will undergo dual immigration controls. Under this system, visitors have the benefit of crossing freely into Spain without checks. Time spent in Gibraltar will therefore count towards the EU’s 90/180 days requirement. The Government of Gibraltar have assessed that the significant impact of an open border outweighs any challenges that might result from it. Because Gibraltar automatically already applies a period for UK residents coming into Gibraltar, it has been pointed out that, practically, this means very little. It does not, of course, affect the residents of Gibraltar itself. The agreement delivers a solution that the Government of Gibraltar want, and the Chief Minister has been very clear on that.

The treaty has a series of benefits for wider relationships. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the welcome announcement regarding non-co-operative jurisdictions from our friends in Spain. That is important to Gibraltar and is a testament to how things have moved forward. We have seen tangible and positive developments in our relationship with our friends in Spain across a whole series of issues that matter to people here in the UK, including our co-operation in business, security and trade. That is welcome. The treaty is, of course, one of the crucial aspects of the reset in our relationship with the European Union. This agreement is good for Gibraltar and for the United Kingdom, and it is good for all the people, including our people. Right hon. and hon. Members have accurately reflected the work and statecraft that has gone into it and the practical benefits it will deliver. This marks a turning point.

Before I conclude, let me respond to some of the specific points that have been made. I have answered the questions about the timing of the CRaG process, but Members will appreciate that bringing a treaty of this complexity into effect has required a set of interlocking processes. We are not the sole guardians of the process; there are processes in Gibraltar, Spain and the European Union, and the treaty can be signed only once those processes—including the EU’s translation of the text into 23 other official languages—have concluded and been aligned. Rather than delaying the publication until that point, we chose to bring forward the draft treaty so that Members could scrutinise it and see the detail.

I assure Members that the text published in February remains substantively unchanged. The intervening period has been used for legal verification, technical checks and the preparation of authentic language versions. That is one of the reasons why the final treaty will be published and signed imminently. The provisional application will take place from 15 July, and we will then make the appropriate statements in this House and start the CRaG process, in line with discussions with the secretariat of the European Affairs Committee regarding the practical arrangements.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I am conscious that in between there will be a recess. I will ensure that that does not affect this House’s ability to have the proper period to scrutinise under the CRaG process. That may be what the shadow Minister was going to ask.

[Wendy Morton]

It was along those lines, but for absolute clarity, does the Minister envisage the treaty coming forward before we break for recess?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do envisage the treaty coming forward, but I want to ensure that we do not start the clock and then Members feel they do not have a chance to scrutinise it over the recess. The minute that the treaty is signed, it will be provided—within appropriate transmission times—to both Houses. We will ensure that we are in close contact with the Committees and that we have an agreement on the CRaG process, and we will make the appropriate statements. Sir John, you will know that the timing of statements and debates in the House is a matter for the usual channels between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to shy away from scrutiny, and that is why I welcome this debate. We will not try to curtail the CRaG process in any way. In practical terms, this treaty will have had far more pre-scrutiny and Committee scrutiny in this House than many other international treaties. I hope that provides some assurance to colleagues.

Members asked a number of other questions. I have covered the questions about article 2 and sovereignty. I was asked about future scenarios that might emerge with respect to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. It is important to emphasise that the Gibraltar Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the UK to ratify the treaty, subject to the existence of a concordat assuring that the UK can exercise its powers in the treaty only with the consent of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine in a referendum whether the treaty should be terminated in the future. Obviously, we hope to never get to that scenario, but it is important that we have those safeguards in place.

To answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked, I quote from my letter to the Chief Minister on 2 March:

“It is therefore politically inconceivable that in any normal circumstances, should a democratically elected Government in Gibraltar or indeed the Gibraltarian people determine that this agreement does not serve their interests, His Majesty’s Government would not take action.”

I hope that provides assurance, as it is certainly the tenor of my discussions with the Chief Minister and, indeed, of the discussions he has had in the Gibraltar Parliament.

I have touched on the questions about the 90-in-180-day rule, but for the record, under the agreement, non-resident British nationals can visit Gibraltar for up to 90 days, as is the case today—there is no change in that—but, as visitors will be free to enter Spain without checks, time spent in Gibraltar will count towards the 90-in-180-day requirement of the EU. Importantly, immigration into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. The agreement provides a unique solution, a fluid border, and puts different procedures and processes in place.

On the military base, there are lots of details, but I was asked a specific question, so I want to be clear that UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks under the proposed arrangements. That will enable our facilities to continue their vital operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel serving in Gibraltar and their families will not depend on Schengen border checks; as is the case now, the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. We also have important agreements on goods entering the base. As colleagues will understand, we do not disclose sensitive operational details, but we have agreed special arrangements to ensure the functioning of the new arrangements.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I asked him about officials from Spain being at border control posts alongside officials from Gibraltar to oversee that work, and about the impact and influence that they may have. Can he confirm that that will be the case? What influence will the Spanish officials have? Will they oversee or counteract Gibraltar border control and customs officials?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. The practical checks that take place at the airport are not dissimilar to the juxtaposed controls at St Pancras and elsewhere. We tried to come up with a practical solution to the new arrangement, and it is one that has the full agreement of the Government of Gibraltar. Everyone arriving at the airport will undergo Gibraltar immigration controls carried out by Gibraltar officials, followed by Schengen entry checks carried out by Spanish officials on behalf of the EU. On completion of those checks, individuals will be able to enter both Gibraltar and the Schengen area.

As I said, that set-up is similar—it is not exactly the same—to how we make the arrangements work practically at St Pancras. Of course, 18,000 people use Eurostar every day, and we have heard about the 15,000 people crossing the border in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar and the different authorities are working closely on a whole series of practical and physical arrangements for how things will work—I will not go into the detail of all the different maps, plans and architect’s drawings that we scrutinised in great detail.

As was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, another benefit of the agreement is that, subject to commercial interest, new flight routes into Gibraltar from other areas within the Schengen area could open up. Again, this will provide an economic boost and benefit. I pay particular tribute to the Deputy Chief Minister, who has taken a keen role in relation to the airport and its functioning over the years; it has been at the heart of the agreement throughout.

On customs checks and the business impacts, I recognise the points made by Members about the questions they have been asked by businesses. The UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar are confident that overall, the economic benefits of the agreement will massively outweigh any issues with changes. Obviously, there will be implementation periods for the taxation arrangements, which are for Gibraltar to decide on; for example, there will be a period coming up to the VAT rate changes.

On customs checks for businesses, to allow for free flow across the Gibraltar-Spain border, goods in Gibraltar must meet EU standards. Over half of all goods in Gibraltar arrive from the EU and already meet those standards, as do many others that arrive from outside the EU. They are going to be pre-cleared away from the land border by relevant customs officials. The Government of Gibraltar fully support that new model, which brings in the benefits of an open border and protects Gibraltar’s economy.

Points were made about security. I think there is a steadfast commitment on both sides to work together, with practical arrangements between law enforcement agencies. None of us wants anything going on in Gibraltar or indeed over the border in Spain that will put anyone at risk. We all know the types of threats, which we share. That is at the heart of the wider discussions we are having with the EU about how we better align on law enforcement and security and defence.

I want to conclude by thanking everybody for their scrutiny, which has been hugely important. I thank the all-party group for its consistent engagement over many years, and I thank friends in the Gallery for their engagement. I really do think this is a milestone moment in finalising something that was left undone by Brexit. The agreement will have practical benefits for the people of Gibraltar, for the people of the whole region, for the United Kingdom, and for the UK and the EU. There are wins across the board in the agreement. I very much hope that Members will engage with the CRaG process as it goes forward. I will keep the House fully informed, as appropriate, the minute the treaty is signed and deposited. With that, I thank Members for their contributions.

Russia: Chemical Weapons

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Written Statements

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

In February this year at the Munich security conference, the United Kingdom, together with our European partners Sweden, Germany, France and the Netherlands, confirmed that prominent Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a lethal toxin, Epibatidine, while being held in the custody of the Russian state in a Siberian penal colony. He did not survive. Epibatidine is a poison derived from the skin of a toxic dart frog found in the Amazon rainforest, far away from Russia, and only the Russian state had the means, motive and opportunity to administer this.

This is only the latest incident. Russia’s willingness to develop and deploy highly toxic chemicals forms a clear and disturbing pattern. Alexei Navalny survived an earlier poisoning from a Novichok nerve agent in 2020 which he attributed to the Kremlin. In 2018, a Novichok was used in Salisbury in an attempt to assassinate the Skripals which tragically resulted in the death of a British national, Dawn Sturgess.

Following the confirmation that Alexei Navalny was poisoned with Epibatidine, the Foreign Secretary said we would

“make use of all policy levers at our disposal to continue to hold Russia to account.”

Today I am updating the House on a new package of sanctions under the UK’s chemical weapons regime, targeting two leading scientific and military Russian institutions and key individuals involved in the research, development and production of the lethal toxin Epibatidine and Novichoks in flagrant violation of Russia’s obligations under the chemical weapons convention and biological and toxin weapons convention.

Our sanctions today send a strong message that the UK will continue to take action by exposing those within Russia’s scientific and military community who are responsible for such egregious actions, deterring others from pursuing similar activity.

This package builds upon prior sanctions for Russia’s use of chemical weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine.

The Russian state has demonstrated time and time again that it is unafraid to use the full range of despicable tools available to it to terrorise people, including its own citizens, and undermine democracy, in brazen defiance of international norms.

It is clear Russia did not destroy all its chemical weapons as claimed in 2017, and that it has not renounced biological weapons, as it is obliged to under the biological and toxin weapons convention. Ahead of tomorrow’s 112th executive council meeting at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons we stand ready with our partners and states parties to impress upon Russia the need to rejoin the consensus of the international community, and to pursue science for peaceful purposes.

[HCWS186]

Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Written Statements

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

On 25 and 26 June, the Foreign Secretary attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026 in Gdańsk, Poland, where she was joined by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The annual conference is the major international recovery and reconstruction event for Ukraine, and the most important non-military focused conference in the Ukraine calendar. It brings together Governments, international financial institutions, civil society and the private sector to mobilise support for Ukraine’s long-term recovery.

URC26 has come at a critical moment as Russia continues its illegal war with sustained attacks on Ukraine’s civilian and critical national infrastructure.

On Thursday, the Foreign Secretary set out a total package of half a billion pounds of support for Ukraine, made up of almost £290 million of bilateral assistance to bolster Ukraine’s recovery and energy security, and the signing of a £210 million UK Export Finance guarantee, previously announced by the Prime Minister at the G7, to help secure Ukraine’s nuclear energy supply.

The bilateral assistance of £290 million for this financial year will help meet Ukraine’s urgent energy and humanitarian needs as well as support longer-term economic and social recovery. This package was referenced in the Foreign Secretary’s written ministerial statement and oral statement on official development assistance programme allocations back in March.

Three projects were highlighted which form part of this package:

Up to £13 million to support British International Investment’s intention to commit to the EU flagship fund. The fund will provide long-term equity investments into key sectors including energy, infrastructure, and SMEs—all critical to rebuilding Ukraine’s economic foundations. The fund—backed by the European Union, and the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, and Poland, alongside their development finance institutions—represents a flagship platform for collective UK-European action.

Up to £12 million for a new governance programme. This will include up to £2.4 million for the EU anti-corruption initiative to help Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies and key civil society actors prevent, spot, investigate and prosecute corruption. It will also include up to £1 million to deliver core judicial reforms so Ukraine’s justice system operates with integrity, meets EU accession requirements, and underpins wider objectives on anti-corruption, democratic governance, and post-war recovery.

Up to £763,000 to continue to support reforms to modernise Ukraine’s energy and climate sectors and to develop and promote decarbonisation policy, through support for the Green Transition Office and for the implementation of the recently adopted national energy and climate plan of Ukraine, key for the green transition, and unlocking EU markets.

The £210 million UK Export Finance guarantee will enable UK-based Urenco to supply nuclear fuel to Ukraine’s national power company Energoatom to enable nuclear power plants to continue supplying over 50% of the country’s electricity for the next two years. This deal is critical to Ukraine’s energy security, strengthening Ukraine’s resilience and ability to withstand Russia’s attacks on its energy infrastructure. The deal will also boost the British economy, as Urenco employs more than 650 people in the UK and its Chester site supports more than 4,500 jobs around the UK in the wider supply chain.

The UK also announced a series of additional measures for Ukraine, including:

the UK’s latest $1 billion tranche of fiscal support for Ukraine, approved by the World Bank, which, pooled with partners’ support, will provide more than $4 billion in additional funding for Ukraine. This support will keep hospitals, schools and essential public services operating across Ukraine and help unlock private sector investment, support economic growth and create skilled jobs.

new British International Investment investments of up to £65 million, utilising existing UK ODA funding, to co-finance projects that will expand lending to small and medium-sized enterprises through the Bank of Lviv and support construction of two new wind farms;

up to £200,000 to scale up support to Ukraine’s critical minerals sector through deploying British Geological Survey expertise to strengthen geological data, improve standards and unlock investment;

up to £1 million for the second year of the DBT’s project development programme to support British business participation in the early-stage planning of reconstruction projects across Ukraine following the successful delivery of projects in phase one, including feasibility and scoping studies of Lviv airport future expansion by British companies and modernisation of schools in Vinnytsia.

UK Export Finance and Ukraine’s export credit agency also signed a memorandum of understanding which will strengthen expertise sharing and support Ukraine’s export credit agency to help drive Ukraine’s private sector and exports.

These announcements bring total UK non-military support since the start of the invasion to £5.6 billion which includes:

up to £4.1 billion in fiscal support through World Bank loan guarantees to bolster Ukraine’s economic stability and support vital public services.

up to £1.5 billion in committed bilateral assistance to fund humanitarian, energy, stabilisation, reform, recovery and reconstruction programmes.

The UK remains a leading partner for Ukraine’s resilience, recovery and long-term prosperity. Our support fosters long-term political, security, economic and reform collaboration, anchored in the 100-year partnership, to help Ukraine endure now, recover at scale, and build the foundations for a secure Euro-Atlantic future.

[HCWS173]

UK-St Helena BIOT Migrants Memorandum of Understanding: Extension

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Written Statements

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

On 21 October 2024, I spoke to the House confirming that on 15 October 2024, a new memorandum of understanding (MoU) had been reached with the Government of St Helena so that any new migrants arriving on the British Indian Ocean Territory would be transferred to St Helena, recalling that in practice no new migrants have arrived on Diego Garcia since 2022. The intention was for that MoU to last until a treaty between the UK and Mauritius came into force.

Given the need to ensure this arrangement continues to operate effectively moving forward, on 21 May 2026, we reached a further understanding with the Government of St Helena to extend the MoU until 30 April 2028.

Although we do not anticipate the arrangement with St Helena being required for its full term, we and the Government of St Helena agreed it would be prudent to settle on a maximal timeframe, negating the need for any further extensions.

We are hugely grateful to the Government of St Helena for their continued commitment to the border security of both the United Kingdom and BIOT.

As part of the arrangement and within existing FCDO budget allocations, the UK Government have committed to provide a one-off investment of £8 million in St Helena to improve health and education outcomes, and improve telecommunications and renewable energy infrastructure. This is consistent with our long-term support to the sustainable development of St Helena. Other technical support and costs remain, as I said to the House on 21 October 2024.

In further recognition of St Helena’s valued place within the British family, the UK Government also commit to provide a one-off ex gratia payment of £250,000 to St Helena.

We thank the community of St Helena for its willingness once again to support fellow members of the British family. This extension underlines the strength of our modern partnership with every one of our overseas territories.

[HCWS138]