Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Stephen Doughty(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Stephen Doughty(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
There has been much speculation in recent weeks about the state of the Diego Garcia treaty and the associated Bill, and—with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will take this opportunity to update the House.
We have debated at length the critical importance of the military base on Diego Garcia to the national security of the United Kingdom and that of our allies. The base allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability and global trade. It is vital to the countering of terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and overseas.
As the House knows, the operation of the base has been under threat for decades. The Government inherited a situation in which there was no legal certainty for future operations, and the threat of the UK losing our ability to operate effectively for us and our allies was and remains real, as those on the Opposition Benches know full well. The status quo is untenable, and ignoring the situation would have been reckless and irresponsible. The previous Government knew that, which is why they opened negotiations with Mauritius, why they put sovereignty on the table, and why they had 11 rounds of talks and agreed the vast majority of the treaty. [Interruption.] I know the Conservatives do not want to hear this, but it would be better if we had some quiet and I could make the statement.
I am proud that this Government completed the process in May last year. The Diego Garcia treaty puts the base on a secure legal footing for the first time in decades. It gives us complete operational freedom, and puts in place important safeguards to protect the base from outside threats. In short, the treaty ensures the continued contribution of the base to UK national security, and to the security of our allies, for generations.
The Diego Garcia military base was founded as a jointly operated base by the UK and the United States. It is one of the foundation stones on which our close defence and security partnership was built. Of course, the previous Government knew that, which is why they took action to start the negotiations when they did. For that reason, the treaty to protect the base was negotiated in close co-ordination with the United States, under both this and the previous US Administration. The treaty was tested thoroughly at all levels of the United States system under two Administrations, and found to be robust.
Throughout this process, we have always been clear that we could not let the treaty enter into force without US support. We had that support when the treaty was signed, and we have had it consistently since. President Trump called it “very strong” and “powerful”. Secretary Rubio welcomed it as a “historic agreement” that
“secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.
Nothing in the treaty has changed since then, and the United States’ support has been consistent in viewing the agreement as the best means of protecting operations on this vital military asset.
However, the position of the US President appears to have changed in recent weeks. This means that, in practical terms, it has become impossible to agree at political level an update to the 1966 UK-US agreement concerning the availability of defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, known as the exchange of notes, which is necessary to ratify the treaty. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that updates to the exchange of notes are nothing unusual; in fact, they have been updated periodically to ensure that the governance arrangements for the base remain fit for purpose in a changing world. They were updated in 1972, 1976, 1987 and 1999, and were rolled over in 2016. They now need a further update in the light of the Diego Garcia treaty. We have previously debated this issue in this House, and I know that my counterpart, Baroness Chapman, has similarly discussed it in the other place.
Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the Ministry of Defence, have been working with United States counterparts over many months and have made excellent progress in updating the agreement. I can confirm that a finalised text was agreed at official level and is ready for political clearance and signature, but due to the new comments to which I referred, this process will obviously not proceed on the previously agreed timeframe. Because of the delays in agreeing the exchange of notes, the Diego Garcia Bill cannot complete its passage in this parliamentary Session, and it cannot be carried over due to its advanced progression through Parliament. The Government nevertheless remain confident that the Diego Garcia treaty is the best means of protecting the full operation of the military base for us and our allies for future generations. We will continue to work with the United States on the agreement and the way forward, and we will continue to engage closely with Mauritius.
In parallel with the geostrategic developments, there is the human story. I refer to the Chagossians, who have rightly been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members, and who were removed from the archipelago in the 1960s and ’70s. As I have said on many occasions, the Government deeply regret the manner of their removal, and we remain committed to building a relationship with Chagossian communities that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The delay to the treaty will be sad news to many Chagossians—although I accept not all—who rightly see it as the only viable means of a sustainable programme of resettlement, which Mauritius would be able to implement under its terms. As I have said on many occasions, we also want to see the recommencement of the programme of heritage visits, which we understand are so important to Chagossians, particularly to the older generations.
These are times of great uncertainty and acute risk to British interests. Our security and prosperity are under threat at home and overseas, and this is a moment for calm and considered reflection, not cheap political point scoring by Opposition parties—[Interruption.] They are absolutely proving this very point. They would put our security at risk and play reckless games.
The threats facing the future operation of the Diego Garcia base are real, as the Opposition well know, and the Diego Garcia treaty remains the best means of securing the vital military base on the island. We will continue to work with partners, including the United States and Mauritius, to protect our national security and that of our allies. I commend this statement to the House.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Stephen DoughtyMonday 20th October 2025
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 October 2025 - (20 Oct 2025)
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear about the legal position and the legal risk. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government knew this; it is why they started the process. I do not want to detain the Committee by going through all the arguments that I made on Second Reading—[Interruption.] But he knows that we faced the comprehensive rejection of our arguments at the ICJ in 2019, we lost votes at the UN General Assembly, we had the maritime delineation judgment binding on Mauritius and the Maldives—[Interruption.]
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Opposition ask questions and then make so much noise—they do not even want to hear the answers.
I have mentioned the obligations placed on the BIOT Administration by UN bodies to cease specific activities. I have mentioned the series of procedural complications and blockages at international organisations, including the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. There are many examples of clear risks. I have explained before the potential under annex VII of UNCLOS—
Sanctions
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Stephen Doughty(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We take up all possible avenues of limiting Putin’s war machine and the energy revenues that go towards it. We keep all options under consideration, and we look at them carefully. As he knows, I will not comment on any future actions or designations for obvious reasons, but I can tell him that this action on the shadow fleet has had a significant real-time impact on Putin’s ability to wage war. I have given this figure on a number of occasions, but our sanctions programme overall has denied Russia $450 billion, which would have been enough to keep this war going for many more years. The action has had a tangible impact. Action taken under the last Government, and the action taken by this Government, which has been accelerated, is having a real impact on Putin’s war machine. Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for Ukraine, and his support for these measures.
We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to that, which is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions. We have now sanctioned more than 2,400 entities and individuals under the Russia regime. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade: Russian imports to the UK have fallen by more than 98% since the invasion, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain the relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations. We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine in order to create the space for talks on a just and lasting peace, and we commend President Zelensky for making his own commitment to peace by expressing his openness to engaging in direct talks with Putin. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary hosted Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The House can be assured that these conversations form part of all our engagement with partners and allies across the world; indeed, I had such conversations today.
Now is the time for Putin to come to the table, and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or else face the consequences. The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia, so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. As I have said, we will continue to explore all measures through which we can ratchet up economic pressure. The statutory instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of more than 150 new trade sanctions, including new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise from being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and will expand our prohibitions, with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth and ability to fuel its war machine.
Let me deal with each of the measures in the instrument. First, it introduces new export prohibitions that apply to a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means of procuring products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying them to a broader set of technologies relating to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors, and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise—whether in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how—from Putin’s critical supply chains.
Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design, and oil and gas exploration and production. As has been said, Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy, so the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive and therefore less able to fuel this illegal and barbarous war against Ukraine. Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. This targets future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes. Finally, the instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable the office of trade sanctions implementation in the Department for Business and Trade to enforce certain trade sanctions offences, and to refer serious offences to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for criminal enforcement consideration.
This Government remain committed to European security, and to our steadfast support for Ukraine. We are committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values that continue to be attacked so brutally by Russia. Sanctions, including this important package, are a key part of our efforts, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman might have missed it earlier on, but I outlined the significant work that we have done on that, including targeting hundreds of vessels, which is having a real impact. I will come to that impact in a moment.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked a number of specific questions. She asked about third-country circumvention and the measures we are taking diplomatically—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We must now take the motion relating to deferred Divisions.
DEFERRED DIVISIONS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motionin the name of Stephen Doughty relating to Sanctions.—(Kate Dearden.)
Question agreed to.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had forgotten about that particular procedural aspect of talking past 7 o’clock. Thank you for giving me the eye to remind me that that was coming; I appreciate it.
As I was saying, on third-country circumvention, the shadow Minister asked me what measures we are taking. I can assure her and the House that this has been an extremely high priority for me and the Foreign Secretary. I regularly raise issues and we have a number of countries that we are particularly focused on. We have the common high priority list of items that are of most value to Russia’s military industrial complex. I assure her that we have also taken robust action against entities and individuals who have been involved in those matters. We have set out a number of those measures in past sanctions packages. I raise them on an almost weekly basis to try to bear down on that.
The right hon. Lady asked about the proceeds from Chelsea football club. We are determined for the proceeds to reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly. The shadow Minister will understand that this is a complex legal issue, but we are working with our international partners. We have engaged with Abramovich’s team and we are exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.
The right hon. Lady asked about the tranches of the ERA funding. I can assure her that two of the tranches, over two thirds of that funding, is already out the door. I spoke to Ukrainian Ministers about that and its availability, and they confirmed that they had access to it. She asked a detailed question about why it is being done in three tranches. I have just written to the shadow Foreign Secretary to set that out in more detail. We can make sure that she gets a copy of that letter. There are technical and other reasons for that, but we are ensuring that Ukraine gets what it needs right now, and is able to plan and deliver in its own defence.
The right hon. Lady asked, as others did—it was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary)—about Russian sovereign assets. I repeat what I said to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is that we are working at pace on that with others. We are exploring all lawful options to ensure that Russia pays. We have been leading; we have not been lagging. Indeed, the ERA loan is very much a testament to our leadership on this issue and I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that we are engaging very closely with international partners on that, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) rightly talked about the importance of continued and absolute support for Ukraine. I can assure her that that is the case, particularly at this time. The leadership shown by President Zelensky, President Trump and others in seeking an unconditional ceasefire and a just and lasting peace is crucial. We will continue to work with them on that and we will continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours. She rightly drew attention to the activities of others—North Korea, Iran and others—in supporting Russia’s barbarous actions. We have taken action on many of those things.
The hon. Member for Lewes raised a couple of other points. On enforcement, I hope to have more news imminently and to be able to update the House on those matters. I promised that we would undertake an important review on the enforcement of sanctions across Government. It has been a crucial piece of work, which was rightly raised by many people. I hope we will have more to say on that very soon. I would also point him to the illicit finance and kleptocracy campaign led by the Foreign Secretary and me. We are taking a series of measures, working with Departments across Government, to ensure that London, our country and our wider British family are not used to support kleptocrats and those contrary to our national interests, or indeed Ukraine’s interests in this specific case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important role of the Council of Europe. I completely agree with him. My ministerial colleague the noble Lord Collins is currently attending a meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We have taken important work there—not only on the register of loss and damage, but on crucial issues such as the special tribunal against Russian aggression, as the Foreign Secretary spoke about yesterday.
There were, rightly, a number of questions about the impact that these sanctions are having. The impact is substantial: the Russian Government have been forced to take their first major tax hike in more than 20 years, and, following a loss of $7.6 billion in 2023—its first loss in 25 years—Gazprom, one of Putin’s main sources of incomes, lost $12.9 billion in 2024. Russian oil delivery now takes significantly longer due to sanctions, showing how they and the work on the shadow fleet have disrupted and impeded Russian trade.
Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Stephen Doughty(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and hope that he will write me the letter that he promised in the debate. I will read it with great interest. He is extremely well informed on these matters and he knows that I have taken a keen interest in them over some time. As I said, we will consider all lawful measures that we can possibly take to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs. I will listen closely to his advice and, indeed, that of many others. He would not expect me to comment on any legal advice or technical advice under consideration.
I am conscious of the time and the need to move to the next debate, but I genuinely want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members. Hugely important points were made. It is clear that there is unity in the House that we all want to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and to get that there as quickly as possible. I am convinced that we are doing everything we can on both sides of the equation—choking off Russia’s ability to fund its war machine on the war economics side, which was mentioned, as well as getting Ukraine the support that it needs. We will continue to do that.
Our support is ironclad, and we have made that clear to President Zelensky. I was with Foreign Minister Sybiha a number of times before Christmas, and he is absolutely clear that the UK’s support is critical and that it must continue. We are glad to give him confirmation of our resolute support.