Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I had the great pleasure of visiting Gibraltar in July last summer, perhaps shortly before the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and, like him, I got to experience the new border control operations that will be in place. I had the great pleasure of meeting multiple representatives, who spoke positively about the experience and the way in which the United Kingdom Government had ensured that, at every single stage of the negotiation that led to the agreement, Gibraltarians were present and gave their consent.

The Liberal Democrats welcome this agreement. It achieves the objective that matters above all others: preserving British sovereignty over Gibraltar while providing a practical solution to the problems that have hung over the territory since Brexit. I spent much of my academic career—I am a recovering academic—researching borders, sovereignty and contested territories, and I have spent time in Gibraltar recently and in the past and spoken to people who live with the consequences of the treaty, so I know all too well that borders are rarely just lines on a map. They are systems for managing movement, trade and security. When those systems fail, ordinary people end up paying the price.

That is precisely what happened after Brexit. Gibraltar found itself excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement, leaving 38,000 people living with years of uncertainty. As we have heard, the people of Gibraltar did not choose that outcome. Not only have they repeatedly rejected the prospect of joint sovereignty, as they did in 2002, but they overwhelmingly voted to remain in the European Union in 2016. Whatever our views on Brexit, we should recognise that Gibraltar has spent the past six years managing the consequences of decisions that it did not participate in making.

The treaty reflects one of the oldest truths in geopolitics: geography cannot be wished away. Gibraltar is politically British, geographically Iberian and economically dependent on the daily movement of people across the frontier. Good statecraft—of which these proposals are an example—reconciles those realities, rather than pretending that we can override them. The treaty deserves support—albeit not uncritical support—because it starts from the correct constitutional principle, which is that the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar are paramount.

That principle is reflected in the agreement. Article 2 contains what many legal experts have described as the strongest “without prejudice” sovereignty clause ever included in an EU agreement relating to Gibraltar. Three independent KCs have concluded that the treaty makes no concession whatsoever on sovereignty. That legal certainty matters for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined. That is why the agreement enjoys such strong unilateral support from Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and other representatives in the Parliament. Gibraltar’s Parliament and all three living former Chief Ministers agree that this is an appropriate deal. That consensus is highly unusual—Westminster might take note.

The agreement is equally clear on defence. The MOD has confirmed that the UK retains full freedom to operate from Gibraltar. British military capabilities remain sovereign and unconstrained, with Spain unable to impede British personnel or equipment. At a time of growing geopolitical instability across Europe and the Mediterranean, preserving Gibraltar’s strategic role in NATO is essential.

However, the possession and preservation of sovereignty alone is not enough. Sovereignty must also work—it must be practical. We have heard observations today not only about Gibraltar’s strategic importance, but about the sheer intensity of everyday cross-border movement: 15,500 people cross the frontier every single day. Those people staff Gibraltar’s hospitals, restaurants, financial services, construction industry and public services. Almost all food and medicines arrive in Gibraltar by road through Spain. That is why a functioning border is not just a convenience but an economic necessity. Gibraltarians understand better than most what happens when borders cease to function. Many have spoken to me about their recollections of the years after 1969, when the Spain frontier was closed, severing families, disrupting livelihoods and isolating Gibraltar economically and politically.

Even after that frontier fully reopened in 1985, political tensions have, at times, caused lengthy queues and disruption at the crossing. I have waited in those queues at various times. Gibraltar endured them for years, but its economy today is very different from the economy of the past. Thousands of workers now cross that frontier every day to sustain its economy and public services, which is precisely why this agreement matters so much.

The treaty has become even more necessary because Europe itself is changing the way its borders operate. The EU entry/exit system requires biometric registration of third-country nationals entering the Schengen area. That may work tolerably at airports—actually, I am not sure that it does, given the words of the chief executive of Aeroporti di Roma this week—but at one of Europe’s busiest land borders, it risks creating queues measured not in minutes but in hours.

Had this been left unresolved, Gibraltar would have faced severe disruption through no fault of its own. The agreement prevents that outcome and removes routine immigration and customs checks at the land frontier while keeping Gibraltar outside of the Schengen area. Gibraltar retains its own immigration laws and authorities. At Gibraltar international airport, British immigration controls will be carried out by Gibraltar officials before a Schengen check under the agreed arrangements. Spain has no unilateral power to refuse entry.

Equally important are the safeguards for Gibraltarians. Residents and Gibraltar identity card holders cannot be refused entry into Gibraltar, detained under those arrangements or subject to the EES or ETIAS systems. Those guarantees are practical expressions of sovereignty. The economic benefits are also equally significant. Without an agreement, Gibraltar faces prolonged uncertainty and significant economic harm. With the agreement, estimates suggest about £200 million could be added annually to Gibraltar’s economy—that is about 6% of its GDP—while boosting investment and confidence at no additional cost to the UK taxpayer.

The agreement also creates opportunities beyond the land frontier. Direct air services between Gibraltar and European destinations could strengthen tourism and economic connectivity. With more than 9.4 million visitors entering Gibraltar annually across the border, compared with around 184,000 by air, smoother movement would benefit Gibraltar’s economy while reducing friction for communities on both sides of the frontier.

Concerns have understandably been raised about the Schengen 90/180-day rule for air arrivals. However, it is worth saying that visitors stay on average just 3.4 days in Gibraltar—a small fraction of the 90-day allowance—and many already continue into Spain and use part of that allowance there. For most travellers the practical impact is therefore likely to be minimal. There are, however, still issues that deserve scrutiny.

Will the Minister clarify precisely how the Schengen 90/180-day rule will apply to British citizens spending time in Gibraltar? It is important that we avoid creating constitutional tests that have never existed elsewhere in the British family of overseas territories and Crown dependencies, with which the United Kingdom has never operated unrestricted freedom of movement. Territories such as the Falklands—as I know all too well—have long maintained their own immigration laws and entry requirements, reflecting their distinct constitutional status and circumstances. Gibraltar has likewise always controlled its immigration arrangements.

The question is therefore not whether Gibraltar should have border controls, but whether those controls serve Gibraltar’s interests while fully preserving British sovereignty. Notwithstanding the clarification that I just sought from the Minister, the treaty strikes that balance. Implementation must be undertaken in close co-operation and partnership with Gibraltar’s Government and its business community. Ultimately, this agreement will be judged by whether the borders work smoothly for those who depend on it every day.

Gibraltar illustrates a wider truth about Brexit. Like the Windsor framework, this agreement is an intelligent and pragmatic attempt to solve problems that Brexit created. Geography has not changed—Gibraltar remains politically British while being physically connected to the European continent, and good diplomacy recognises both those realities—but we cannot continue to resolve the consequences of Brexit one border at a time. I contend that the United Kingdom needs a broader reset with our European colleagues.

If I may be so bold, I suggest a growth and defence partnership with our European neighbours—something I have spent a lot of time trying to fashion over the past few months. That would involve entry into the single market and a relationship with the EU’s customs union, which would restore and revive our relationship and solve many of the challenges that we have spoken about in the debate. I welcome this agreement, which protects sovereignty, Gibraltar’s economy and British strategic interests, and, above all, respects the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: Sudan

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I believe that this might be the first occasion on which I have done so. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, not untypically, asked the right question with the deep care and compassion that always moves us. He was kind enough to reference the fact that I was in Sudan in 2022, so I speak from some limited personal experience in these matters; I will reflect on that shortly.

It is important to acknowledge from the outset, though, that the conflict in Sudan today is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. It is a catastrophe unfolding before our eyes—and what is so disappointing at times is that we do not seem to see it, to hear it or to read about it. As we focus on other events around the world, those terrible atrocities in Sudan fall away from the public gaze. That is deeply regrettable, because of the appalling tragedies that are unfolding there, which the hon. Member for Strangford has just spoken about: millions of people enduring unimaginable suffering, families are being forced from their homes, communities being shattered and many now facing starvation.

I was in Sudan in 2022 working on an academic project. We were tracing the border between Sudan and Egypt—a British creation. There are two different borders constantly under negotiation, drawn at the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, leaving a curious geographical anomaly called Bir Tawil between them. We started our journey in Khartoum, working alongside Sudanese guides, who were extraordinary in their care, service and hospitality.

As we travelled north through the Nubian desert, we came across one of the key actors that has driven the conflict to where it is today. Just outside one of the stations on the old British railway that used to run from Wadi Halfa down to Khartoum, we came across the Wagner Group, the Russian paramilitary organisation. They were stationed in the Nubian desert, extracting tons of gold from the sands—transporting it back to Russia to fuel the war in eastern Europe—and training Sudanese paramilitaries at the same time.

We were warned by local members of the Ababda tribe, who inscribed the symbol of the skull and crossbones—the symbol of the Wagner Group—into the sand, that we should not proceed any further along that particular wadi. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, there are forces internal and external to Sudan who are driving this conflict. He has mentioned the United Arab Emirates, which I will talk about, but we should not forget the malign forces of the likes of Russia and its proxies, including the Wagner Group.

The scale of the violence we are seeing today is truly horrifying. Across the country, civilians are living in fear, insecurity and hardship every single day. Amidst this devastating conflict, fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are increasingly under threat. At a time when the very concept of human rights is under sustained threat globally, some might find it controversial to suggest that freedom of religion or belief is indeed a universal human right. The truth is that it should not be a controversial concept or principle, and we should continue to hold on to it. Every individual should be free to practise the faith of their choice, change their beliefs or hold no religious belief at all, without fear of discrimination, persecution or violence.

However, reports from Sudan paint a deeply troubling picture. Religious minorities have faced discrimination and intimidation, places of worship have come under attack, and restrictions on religious practice have affected people from a wide range of faith communities and backgrounds. Those abuses are unacceptable and must not be ignored. The international community has so far failed to do enough. More must be done to safeguard religious freedoms, protect vulnerable minorities and uphold the basic rights and dignity of all Sudanese people.

To make one party political reference, in our 2024 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our commitment to protecting, defending and promoting human rights, including the rights of those persecuted because of religious or other faith-based beliefs. An unwavering commitment to human rights and the rule of law is frankly why I am a Liberal Democrat, but I also recognise that those commitments have long defined who we are as a nation and a people, and there is no better place to express them than in this Chamber.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the appointment of an ambassador-level champion for freedom of religion or belief, ensuring that those issues remain a priority in British foreign policy. We continue to support a robust, rights-based approach to tackling the persecution of religious minorities around the world, and that means applying diplomatic pressure where necessary, strengthening protections for those seeking asylum, supporting international accountability mechanisms and backing civil society organisations that work tirelessly to defend religious freedom.

In Sudan, that begins with the UK Government working more closely with international partners to protect religious rights and challenge those—both indigenous and exogenous to Sudan—who are responsible for persecution and violence. It must include a clear commitment to upholding article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which guarantees

“the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the United Kingdom has a particular responsibility in this area as the United Nations Security Council penholder on Sudan. Therefore, it is uniquely placed to lead international efforts on this crisis. I encourage the Government to use that position to work with allies and partners to push for a ceasefire and prevent further loss of life.

The Liberal Democrats have also called for stronger international action to establish a Sudan-wide arms embargo to stem the flow of weapons that continue to fuel this conflict. Alongside that, the Government might usefully redouble their efforts to establish a multilateral contact group capable of co-ordinating the international response and building consensus among key partners. The international community must resist attempts to legitimise those driving the conflict within and outwith Sudan. It must ensure that individuals responsible for war crimes and serious human rights abuses are held accountable.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the United Arab Emirates, and it is important that we do, because the role it plays in Sudan has often gone unmentioned in this place. I hope the Minister will offer some comments and reflections on what can be done to ensure that its deeply toxic relationship with Sudan is affected by British diplomacy.

Sudan’s future should be determined by civilian leadership, not by armed forces. At home, the Government should do more to raise public awareness of the crisis and work closely with the Disasters Emergency Committee to support a nationwide humanitarian appeal. Humanitarian workers continue to risk their lives delivering aid to those in the most desperate need, yet they are too often targeted by attacks and reprisals from the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces. The UK should work with international and regional partners to secure guarantees for their protection, and should press all parties to allow safe and unrestricted humanitarian access across Sudan.

We must also take stronger action against the smuggling networks that sustain the conflict and prolong the suffering of ordinary Sudanese people. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the humanitarian catastrophe. The United Nations appeal and the regional refugee response must be properly funded. The Government should reverse their plans to cut official development assistance and should set out a clear pathway towards restoring aid spending. Particular attention must be given to Sudanese children, who have borne a disproportionate share of the conflict’s consequences. Millions have been denied access to education, healthcare and basic security; an entire generation has been placed at risk.

Individuals and entities responsible for perpetrating, providing arms for or enabling serious human rights abuses in Sudan already face sanctions from the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and others. Those measures should remain under constant review and should be strengthened where necessary. I would go as far as to say that they should be expanded to include the role of the United Arab Emirates.

The people of Sudan deserve peace, dignity and the freedom to live according to their beliefs, without fear. The international community, and the United Kingdom in particular, must not look away. We must act with urgency, defend human rights, uphold freedom of religion and belief, and stand alongside the people of Sudan in their time of greatest need.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I genuinely thank the Minister for his statement, for advance sight of it, and for his long engagement with me on these issues.

The process for negotiating this treaty has been, I am sorry to say, utterly shambolic, from its beginning under the previous Government to its demise under this one. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, an hon. and gallant Gentleman says, “Why did we finish it?” I am sorry to tell him that they did not. There is no evidence at all that this statement was finished by the previous Government.

As this Government shelve the legislation, they must now reckon with the litany of failures that have plagued the process, specifically their inability to secure fundamental legal guarantees from the US through the necessary exchange of letters; their reluctance to adopt measures that would enable genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the planned vast sums of money that would be sent to the Government of Mauritius; and their wilful reluctance to work with or to secure the rights of Chagossians, including but not limited to the right of return to the Chagos islands.

Aside from the Government’s apparent ignorance of the legal prerequisites for the passage of the treaty, the most objectionable aspect of the process has been the woeful engagement with the Chagossian community. The British state has long denied Chagossians a meaningful say in their own future. The provisions of this treaty, shamefully, failed again to affirm those rights, so if the treaty ever does return to this House, the Government would do well to observe and understand the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the other place to secure genuine rights for Chagossians and help to buck the historical trend of that community being left out of decisions about its own future.

I have one very simple question for the Minister. Given that the Government have now abandoned their proposed deal with Mauritius over the Chagos islands, can the Foreign Secretary set out what this means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians? Will the Government now commit to supporting resettlement under continued UK sovereignty? If so, how does the Minister assess the implications of that return for the evidential and legal basis underpinning the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion?

In conclusion, British citizens physically located on the islands would constitute a resident population who would be—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister.

Middle East

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is abundantly clear to any fair-minded geopolitical observer that the US-Israeli actions in Iran were commenced without the cover of law and without a plan to follow the initial impulse of kinetic violence. But it is equally clear that the United Kingdom was caught short in our responsiveness and preparedness, particularly in relation to the island of Cyprus. Following the drone attack on that particular hangar, the Cypriot Government expressed disappointment in the UK, and the Cypriot Foreign Secretary has openly speculated about the future of our sovereign base areas. What work has the Foreign Secretary or her ministerial colleagues done to repair the damage with Cyprus, which is, after all, an incredibly valuable diplomatic and defence ally?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is because regional instability increased in the early part of this year that, since January, we have been pre-deploying additional jets to Cyprus—to the sovereign base—exactly to provide additional protection for Cyprus, including additional air defence and radar capabilities. We took that issue very seriously and continue to do so. I have spoken with the Cypriot Foreign Minister on a series of occasions, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Defence Secretary has not only visited the sovereign base in Cyprus but met the Cypriot Government. We take our partnership with the Cypriot Government, and the defence of operations around Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean, immensely seriously.

Strait of Hormuz

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will know that it is not for me to answer at the Dispatch Box about US operational matters. He has just had a chance to ask the Defence Secretary questions on detailed UK operational matters. I will not go into the details of specific deployments —where they may or may not be or timelines—because that simply would not be appropriate. This is an extraordinarily complex situation. What we need is a credible and viable plan.

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

Given the vital role of Lloyd’s of London in underwriting global trade and providing war risk cover to vessels currently stuck in the Persian gulf, what conversations has the Minister had—or what conversations is he aware of—with Lloyd’s to ensure that its extraordinary expertise in this area is factored into the Government’s developing thinking? What conversations have been had across Government to protect and defend the reputation of Lloyd’s against shameful attacks from the MAGA movement in the United States?

[Stephen Doughty]

I recently met the chair of Lloyd’s on wider insurance issues in relation to Ukraine and other matters in which I am sure the hon. Member shares my interest. I do not have the detail of what conversations have gone on in recent days, but I will happily get one of my ministerial colleagues to write to him on the issue.

UK-German Relations

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important and timely debate.

The Liberal Democrats believe that we are stronger, safer and more prosperous when we build serious, long-term partnerships with our European allies and colleagues. UK-German relations are a litmus test of our wider relationship with Europe. In an age of instability, we face an unpredictable US Administration, as we have already heard, and we have seen rising interference from the likes of China and continued Russian aggression. In that environment, defence and economic security become even more inseparable than they already were. That is why a closer and more pragmatic, productive and co-operative relationship with Germany is strategically imperative to us all.

Germany is Europe’s largest economy and one of the EU’s most influential states. Trade between the UK and Germany accounts for about 8.5% of UK trade, and supports nearly half a million jobs. I am lucky to have the UK headquarters of multiple offshoots of German companies in my Surrey Heath constituency, such as Stihl, the German manufacturer of chainsaws. My wife’s job is one of those nearly half a million jobs that I mentioned, working as she does for BMW in the neighbouring constituency of North East Hampshire. That is not intended to be a declaration of interest—it is merely a statement of fact—but I am very grateful to BMW for the electric Mini, which I am lucky enough to occasionally be allowed to drive.

The Kensington treaty, signed in July 2025, established a comprehensive framework for UK-German co-operation across defence, trade, climate, education and science, and that is undoubtedly the right direction of travel. However, a treaty is only as meaningful as its delivery.

Let me first turn to defence. At the Munich security conference, the Prime Minister called for deeper economic and security co-operation between the UK and the EU, and for a stronger expression of European hard power. At a time of heightened geopolitical tension, nobody can doubt that strengthening co-operation with Europe is firmly in Britain’s national interest. Securing full participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund would undoubtedly support UK defence manufacturers and strengthen collective rearmament. Our partnership with Germany should support Ukraine’s recovery and deepen collaboration through the Trinity House agreement, with joint exercises, industrial co-ordination and capability development. If Britain wants influence over Europe’s defence architecture, it must be present where capability priorities are shaped.

On the economy, in 2015 the UK was Germany’s fifth largest trading partner, but by 2022 we had sadly fallen to 11th, reflecting the growing trade frictions between our two economies. In 2025, the Financial Times reported that German car manufacturer BMW had paused its £600 million investment in electric vehicles in Oxford. When advanced manufacturing decisions are finely balanced, as they so often are, added trade friction and regulatory divergence make the United Kingdom a less certain destination for investment.

The British Chamber of Commerce in Germany echoed those sentiments by warning that post-Brexit paperwork and border delays are pushing UK firms away from their largest export markets, with some customers turning to EU-based suppliers instead. If we are serious about restoring competitiveness, we must build trust and reduce those trade barriers. A bespoke EU-UK customs union might just stand a chance of easing some of those rules of origin burdens, lowering border costs and providing manufacturers with the certainty that they need.

Finally on cultural exchange—a topic that has frequently been raised in this debate—the Kensington treaty recognises that relationships are built not only by Governments but by young people and communities. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned town twinning. Not wanting to be left out of the excitement, I am very pleased to say that my Surrey Heath constituency is twinned with Bietigheim-Bissingen in Germany, and that our main popular shopping street is named Bietigheim Way, in reference to the historical connections between our two parts of the world. A UK-Germany youth summit and cross-border volunteering partnerships are absolutely critical, but so many of these programmes are vital for building long-term trust between our communities.

Three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to remain in the European Union in 2016, yet they are bearing many of the mobility costs that Brexit has imposed. They lost the freedom to study and work easily across Europe, including by participating in Erasmus, so we fundamentally welcome the UK rejoining the Erasmus scheme as a step towards rebuilding educational co-operation with Germany and across the rest of the EU. We are also calling for negotiations on a reciprocal EU youth mobility scheme with an age limit of 35, no visa fees and visas extended to three years to further and deepen that co-operation.

I again thank the hon. Member for Preston and other hon. Members for invoking the spirit of the UK-German relationship so effectively. We fundamentally believe that a closer relationship with Germany will strengthen our defence, support our economy and deepen cultural exchange.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed.

However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless.

What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that he will understand why I will leave that to the Minister responsible for conducting the Bill through the House. On his question about the status of the negotiations, as I said, this is going through Parliament in the normal way. We are pausing for discussions with the United States, and those discussions continue.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

What we have witnessed in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. It has been a catastrophe both for the hostages who have endured Hamas’s brutal captivity and for the millions of Palestinian civilians whose lives, homes and communities have been devastated by Israel’s military offensive, so let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear about the Liberal Democrat position. Alongside global NGOs, aid organisations, Israeli human rights organisations and the UN commission of inquiry, we consider there to be credible evidence that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza during the military campaign have amounted to genocide. For the avoidance of any doubt, Hamas are a terrorist organisation whose crimes on 7 October were acts of mass human atrocity that we continue to utterly and categorically condemn.

Given that reality, what matters now is accountability on all sides, which is why access to Gaza for journalists and human rights organisations is so fundamentally important. I am reminded that British journalist Ed Vulliamy exposed the existence and brutality of Serb- run detention camps in Bosnia. His reporting later contributed to the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, forming part of the evidentiary record for prosecutions that included findings of genocide. It is imperative, therefore, that we do not allow evidence in Gaza to disappear, damage to be cleared away or truth to be lost before accountability can be pursued.

However, accountability in itself is not enough, and that must sharpen our focus on what is required to move beyond the repeated cycles of violence. Only genuine progress towards a two-state solution can deliver lasting security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis, so the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to rule out ever participating in Trump’s board of peace. Reconstruction must be co-ordinated by the United Nations with the involvement of the Palestinians, who have been excluded from Trump’s proposals. Aid must be allowed in at scale and rapidly. Hamas must be disarmed; there is no place for a genocidal terror group to take part in Palestine’s future. The UK should ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Finally, the UK must deepen its engagement with the Palestinian Authority following the recognition of the state of Palestine.

International law underpins our shared liberal values and, indeed, our British values. It exists to constrain power, uphold accountability and protect civilians across the world. I urge the Government to act now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Sudan

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because sexual violence in conflict has too often been ignored, and it has been too easy to turn away from the women and children who are victims of these truly horrendous crimes. We are determined to ensure that that is not the case. I also visited, in both Ethiopia and Chad, some of the clinics and support services for victims of sexual violence, as well as some of the other services for which the UK continues to provide support and funding. We need to ensure that those services can also be provided to the victims in Sudan.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. Nobody could fail to be moved by the horrific tales from Adré. As she has said, accountability is crucial, and a future ICC court case will rely on incredibly hard work being done now to secure witness statements, preserve digital files, build structured casework and put in place strict and disciplined chain-of-custody mechanisms. All of that requires skill and expertise on the frontline. What is the UK doing to support the international effort to preserve and verify now, so that a future court case is possible and the perpetrators of these appalling crimes can be truly held accountable?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s incredibly important question. This is exactly why in November, at the Human Rights Council, the UK led on a resolution to establish a fact-finding mission into El Fasher. Teams have been sent to pursue and gather exactly that kind of evidence, and we are expecting their fact-finding report before the end of the month. While we continue to hold the chair of the UN Security Council, that report will inform our discussions. I do not yet know what it will have found or how much progress they will have managed to make, but from everything we have seen so far, I fear that its conclusions are likely to be truly damning and disturbing.