Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a 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. Before I begin, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was my privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the Gibraltar national day celebrations last year as a guest of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar. That visit, and my work on the Foreign Affairs Committee, gave me the opportunity to question Ministers, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, opposition politicians and business leaders about the treaty. Those discussions made it clear that the agreement has been shaped by the priorities of Gibraltar itself.

The Brexit deal left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. The treaty finally resolves one of the last outstanding Brexit issues and provides Gibraltar with the certainty it has been seeking ever since the United Kingdom left the European Union. In 2016, 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the European Union; they have had to live with the consequences of a Brexit that they did not vote for. This agreement is about undoing some of the damage caused by a Brexit deal that Boris Johnson called “oven-ready” but in reality was always destined for the bin.

The Chief Minister made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the single most important priority was ensuring that people who live in Spain but work in Gibraltar, particularly in the financial services and gaming sectors, could continue to cross the frontier every day without excessive delays. Without an agreement, Gibraltar would have been required to implement the full Schengen border code, and travellers would have faced European entry and exit systems and, in the future, the ETIAS—European travel information and authorisation system—digital travel authority. Those additional checks would have created significant delays, threatening Gibraltar’s competitiveness and potentially encouraging businesses to relocate. Instead, eligible travellers will enjoy fluid movement comparable with travelling between Schengen countries. Their ability to continue doing so quickly and efficiently underpins Gibraltar’s economy and the public services that Gibraltarians rely on.

But this deal is about more than economics. The Chief Minister reminded the Foreign Affairs Committee that Gibraltar and the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar are communities bound together by families, friendship and shared history. During the closure of the frontier between 1969 and 1982, families were physically separated, forced to wave to one another across a closed border. Nobody wants a future resembling that painful past.

This agreement protects the everyday relationships that exist across the frontier for work, family, education and leisure, and allows those connections to continue. Approximately 96% of Gibraltarian goods arrive through the land frontier with Spain. After Brexit, sanitary and phytosanitary barriers made importing fresh British food significantly more difficult, with products even requiring air freighting during the Christmas period. This treaty offers businesses the certainty they need. Essential food products will be zero-rated under a new transactions tax, and there will be reduced rates on other essential goods.

The Chief Minister also made it clear that Gibraltar rejected any “freedom of establishment” in the treaty. Gibraltar is home to about 38,000 people living within approximately 2.5 square miles; it was never the intention to create unrestricted rights of establishment across a bloc of approximately 480 million people. Instead, the agreement focuses on facilitating movement across the frontier while preserving Gibraltar’s own immigration rules.

Perhaps the greatest misconception about the treaty concerns sovereignty. The Government of Gibraltar state that there are no sovereignty concessions. The British Government state that sovereignty was never on the negotiating table. Article 2 explicitly preserves the position of both the UK and Spain on sovereignty and jurisdiction. Three independent legal opinions commissioned by the Government of Gibraltar conclude unequivocally that the treaty makes no concessions whatsoever to Spain or the European Union.

The agreement also protects Britain’s strategic interests. The operational autonomy of the military base remains entirely unaffected. Protecting unrestricted military access was a red line throughout negotiations, supported fully by the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Secretary. In the highly unlikely event that Spain should ever seek to terminate the agreement, it cannot do so unilaterally. Under article 66, termination would require a qualified majority among European Union member states followed by action by the European Commission. That provides important legal certainty for Gibraltar’s future.

I want to say something briefly about the wider UK-EU relationship. Gibraltar demonstrates something important: where the UK and the EU work together pragmatically, solutions can be found that benefit everyone. It shows that close co-operation with our European neighbours delivers tangible benefits. Britain’s long-term future should lie at the heart of Europe, because our economy, our security and our young people’s opportunities are stronger when we work alongside our closest neighbour and ally.

I praise those who made this agreement possible. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Ministers, the Governor’s Office, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Commission and Spain have spent many years negotiating what the Minister has rightly described as a practical and lasting solution. This treaty will protect Gibraltar’s economy, safeguard British sovereignty, preserve military interests, strengthen regional stability and, above all, respect the democratic wishes of the Gibraltarian people.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

We recognise the strength of feeling among diaspora communities and continue to press the Sri Lankan Government bilaterally and at the United Nations Human Rights Council for meaningful progress to improve the human rights situation. That includes securing truth, justice and accountability for past abuses affecting all communities, including Tamils. We have consistently raised concerns about the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its ongoing use, and we will continue to urge its repeal and replacement, in line with international law.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T4. On 28 May, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered the Israeli military to seize control of 70% of the Gaza strip, in breach of the ceasefire agreement. Some 90% of the homes have now been destroyed, and an estimated $53 billion is required to rebuild the strip. Meanwhile, settlement expansion in the west bank has increased by 80%, with Israeli settlers now comprising one in six of the population. What is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office doing with European allies to help the Palestinian people?

[Yvette Cooper]

I met with European partners and others in Paris on Friday to discuss the importance of providing new energy behind not just the two-state solution but, specifically, the Gaza 20-point plan. That is why we have announced the international peace fund, but we need that new commitment, because there is a serious risk that the 20-point plan is going backwards and into the ground. We need that international commitment.

Summit on Illicit Finance

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I join right hon. and hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this vital and timely debate, as well as for his broader work on illicit finance. I also thank the APPG for its work.

The illicit finance summit 2026 presents a significant opportunity for the United Kingdom to demonstrate leadership in tackling corruption, money laundering and the flow of dirty money around the world. The Government’s decision to delay the summit from June to December has understandably raised concerns and is certainly disappointing. However, we now have a second chance to get it right. The additional time should not be wasted, because illicit finance is not a victimless crime. It funds organised crime, human trafficking, corruption, sanctions evasion and hostile state activity such as Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. It undermines confidence in democratic institutions and deprives countries, particularly developing nations, of resources needed for schools, hospitals and economic growth. As has been widely stated in this debate, recent analysis estimates that up to £788 billion in illicit finance flows through the UK, its overseas territories and Crown dependencies each year. That should concern every Member of the House.

As a Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee I have heard repeatedly that the challenge is now not necessarily the lack of legislation, so the priority must be implementation, enforcement and closure of the remaining loopholes that allow illicit finance to continue to flow through the global financial system. Enforcement remains a particular concern. Despite progress in freezing criminal assets, they are not being recovered at a sufficiently high rate. Current estimates suggest that only £1 in every £4 of frozen criminal assets is ultimately recovered. That is money that should be returned to the public purse, used to compensate victims and reinvested in the fight against organised crime and corruption. The summit must therefore focus on not only identifying illicit wealth, but ensuring that enforcement agencies have the powers, the resources and—importantly—the international co-operation necessary to recover it.

As several hon. Members have highlighted, beneficial ownership transparency is an area where progress is required. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s ambition to improve transparency across the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. We welcome the progress already made in places such as Gibraltar, Montserrat and St Helena. However, more needs to be done. That should not be approached confrontationally. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are valued partners. Many have taken meaningful steps forward. The role of the UK should be to engage constructively, to provide support where needed and to work together to ensure that meaningful access to beneficial ownership and corporate information is in line with international standards. That means achieving transparency that meets, at a minimum, standards comparable to those required under the EU framework. It is also important that we recognise the economic realities faced by some of those jurisdictions. Financial services play a significant role in their economies. If we want proper, lasting reform we must help to support economic diversification and resilience so that transparency and prosperity go hand in hand.

The UK will assume the G20 presidency immediately after the summit takes place. We will also take on the presidency of the Financial Action Task Force, the world’s leading anti-money laundering body. We therefore have a unique opportunity to shape the international agenda. The summit must deliver concrete commitments that include stronger international information sharing, improved asset-recovery arrangements, enhanced co-operation on cryptocurrency regulation, and greater transparency on property ownership. International co-operation will be essential if we are to tackle criminal networks that operate across borders, move assets between jurisdictions and exploit gaps between national regulatory systems.

The summit must also address the growing threat posed by cryptocurrency and other digital assets. We have already seen evidence of cryptoassets being used to evade sanctions and move money across borders beyond the reach of traditional financial controls. Criminal networks and hostile actors adapt quickly; regulators and Governments must do the same. That is another area where international co-operation is indispensable, allowing Governments, regulators and financial institutions to share intelligence rapidly and respond to emerging threats before they become entrenched. The success of the summit will be measured by whether it creates momentum that continues through the UK’s G20 presidency, our leadership of the FATF and beyond.

We must also reflect the priorities of the countries most affected by illicit finance. Too often developing countries lose billions through corruption, tax abuse and illicit financial flows, while also having the fewest resources to tackle those issues. Ultimately, this matter is about more than financial regulation; it is about national security, economic fairness and defending democracy and public trust. It is about ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a leader on the world stage.

The delay of the summit was disappointing, but the Liberal Democrats believe it has created an opportunity and a rare second chance. I hope the Government will use the months ahead wisely.

National Accident Prevention Strategy

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

As the hon. Member will see as I develop my speech, I very much agree with him.

In Birmingham, we have the seventh highest number of accidental deaths in England. Each year, more than 550 families in our city lose a loved one due to a preventable accident. That is more than one death every day. Across the west midlands, more than 2,000 people annually die due to accidents, the equivalent of wiping out a small village year after year. Nationally, there has been an 8% rise in accidental death rates and a 3% increase in hospital admissions in just one year. Over the past decade, accidental death rates have risen by more than 40%. That is not a blip, a statistical anomaly or a short-term fluctuation; it is a serious problem that has been brushed under the carpet for too long.

There is a wider national cost to this issue. Accidents place a significant and growing burden on the national health service. Every preventable injury that results in an emergency admission adds pressure to already stretched A&E departments, ambulance services and hospital wards. We are talking about millions of bed days every year linked to accident-related admissions. Accidents now are believed to cost us at least £6 billion annually in NHS medical care. The impact on NHS staff is also profound. Doctors, nurses, paramedics and support staff are dealing daily with injuries and emergencies that in many cases could have been prevented. That is not only a clinical challenge, but a human one, placing additional strain on a workforce who are already under great pressure.

The burden extends across the economy. When people are injured, they are often unable to work—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. Families lose income; employers lose skilled workers; productivity falls. The country loses millions of working days each year due to accident-related absence. The combined cost to UK business is now estimated at about £6 billion every year.

Taken together, this represents a hidden but substantial cost to the country—to our health service, economy and public finances. The truth is that we can do better. Indeed, we have done better before. We know what works: safer homes, stronger product standards, effective public awareness campaigns, improved design of public spaces, better data collection, and co-ordinated action across Government and local agencies.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Twenty-eight-year-old Benedict Solly was killed on the A37, near Cerne Abbas, at a notorious accident hotspot. Local residents had been calling for interventions to make that junction safe, but part of the problem is that the decision on whether to make an intervention at the junction is based on historical data, which is only recording actual collisions—not near misses, accidents avoided or all those other things. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need a wider dataset in order to inform the interventions that we make to avoid fatal accidents occurring?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and he adds that particular tragedy to the tragedies that I have already mentioned. Of course he is right that, with modern technology racing ahead in so many ways, our data should be better and more effective at informing the decisions that are made. He made that point with great eloquence.

What is currently lacking is a clear, coherent and sustained national strategy to bring these efforts together. At present, responsibility for accident prevention is fragmented across multiple Departments: Health, Transport, Housing, Education and others. The result is a system in which responsibility is dispersed, co-ordination is inconsistent and prevention too often falls through institutional gaps. That is why I believe there is now a compelling case for a national accident prevention strategy. Such a strategy would have benefits across the whole of Government: safer roads for the Department for Transport, reduced pressure on the national health service for the Department of Health and Social Care, less spending on benefits for people unable to work because of accidents for the Department for Work and Pensions and higher productivity for the Treasury. A national accident prevention strategy must therefore be led by the Cabinet Office, which has the oversight necessary to set cross-Government priorities and to co-ordinate and align the activities of different Departments to achieve them.

Becky Hickman and RoSPA should be asked to produce a report for the Government on what such a strategy might look like. It should, in my view, be based on a few clear principles: first, ministerial leadership at the centre of Government, ensuring accountability and direction; secondly, a clear focus on prevention, rather than simply reacting after harm has occurred—the very point that the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) was making just a moment ago.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I am sure I am not alone in having been contacted by constituents trapped in the middle east or by those further afield who were hoping to transfer in the middle east on their way home. I am extremely grateful to all the FCDO staff around the world who are helping them out. It has brought into stark relief the fact that, in an unstable world, diplomacy and our diplomatic footprint has never been more important. The people, embassies, development expertise, aid, investment and political relationships we maintain across the globe are so important for our national security, our economy, the future of our planet and what Britain represents.

The latest funding settlement for the FCDO moves us in the wrong direction. Day-to-day spending is being reduced by £457 million—a 5.3% cut; the second highest cut for any Department, behind only the Home Office. Capital investment is down by £228 million—a 66.6% reduction; again, the second highest cut for any Department, apart from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Demand-led spending is dropping by a further £139 million, or 25.7%. These are sweeping cuts across the board, aimed disproportionately at the FCDO. They are why the FCDO has been forced into a restructuring process that may lead to the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs. These are significant reductions that come at a time when the world is becoming more and more volatile. If we continue in this way, our diplomatic presence will shrink not because of strategy, but because of budget constraints and Treasury spreadsheets.

We are no longer operating in a stable rules-based system dominated by one predictable power. We are moving towards a more fragmented, multipolar world. Middle powers are increasingly working together issue by issue on defence, trade and climate, rather than relying on a single hegemon to set the direction. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in his powerful speech at Davos, middle powers must act together or risk being “on the menu”. For countries like the United Kingdom, the shift is important and it requires huge amounts of diplomacy and the use of our soft power on the world stage. Great powers can act alone. They have the market size and economic leverage to do so. Middle powers cannot. We rely on relationships; we rely on credibility; we rely on co-ordination with those who share our values; and we rely on diplomacy. That is precisely why FCDO funding is so important.

We invested heavily, both politically and financially, in our relationship with the United States, but we should be honest about the returns on our investment when the President does not share our values. When tariffs are imposed on British businesses and working families during a cost of living crisis, when trade decisions affect our farmers and our food standards, when strategic choices are made without our meaningful input, and when economic clout is used as leverage, it is reasonable to ask whether our limited diplomatic resources are being used in the most effective way now that the weakness and fragility of our relationship have been exposed.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really good speech and until a moment ago I agreed with everything he said. Does he not agree that our relationship with the United States goes far beyond any leadership? It goes very deep. During the visits the Foreign Affairs Committee has made, we have met people from many different aspects of the United States. They are good friends of ours and we need to ensure that we keep those relationships close.

[Edward Morello]

I thank the right hon. Member—I have the huge privilege of serving under her chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I do not disagree that the British relationship with the United States goes far beyond the current occupant of the Oval Office. I am extremely grateful for the depth of our relationship, especially on intelligence matters. However, in a situation where funding is constrained, we should focus more clearly on reliable partners, European allies and other middle powers who share our goals on defence, trade, climate and the rule of law.

We are increasing defence spending. It is not as quick or by as much as the Liberal Democrats would like, but there is an increase. It is necessary, but it should not come at the expense of the FCDO. Defence and diplomacy are not alternatives; they are two sides of the same coin. Hard power without strong diplomatic engagement limits our ability to prevent crises before they escalate. The Prime Minister himself said just this week, in his statement on Iran, that we must

“eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation from spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy”

because that is

“the best way to protect British interests and British lives.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 585.]

If diplomacy is the best way to protect British lives, why are we cutting the funding to the very Department charged with delivering it?

We are living in a world where over one weekend global markets and alliances can shift, and energy bills and food prices can skyrocket, all because of the decisions of one person or one social media post. That is why we must stand up for international institutions and co-operation, not cut funding for the Department that facilitates it. In my time on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been consistently struck by the quality of the people who represent us overseas. They are capable, committed and brave, and are often operating in extremely difficult environments. But that capability requires resourcing. If posts are thinned out, if programming is cut back, if estate maintenance is delayed, our ability to influence outcomes diminishes. If we want to secure trade deals that support growth at home, we need negotiators with time and presence to build trust abroad. If we want deeper co-operation with European partners, we need sustained diplomatic engagement. If we want to prevent conflict, we need early intervention, development support and political dialogue through the FCDO.

Our current funding direction risks narrowing our options at precisely the wrong time. If we want Britain to remain a serious influential power, we must fund the diplomatic tools that make that possible.

Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Edward Morello Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I will start by echoing the sentiment expressed by so many hon. and right hon. Members in this debate that any decision on whether to surrender territory is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone. Peace cannot mean carving up a sovereign European state behind closed doors; it cannot mean big powers forcing Ukraine to surrender its land and its people.

We must not accept the principle that borders can be changed by force or by coercion, whether in Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe. It is vital that we stand up for the rules-based international order, even more so because there are those who flaunt it. I do not believe Putin’s vision of peace. I do not believe it is peace at all. It is a pause that will allow Russia to re-group, re-arm and return. We have seen this before in Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas.

Every inch of occupied Ukrainian land matters, whether that be Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. These are sovereign Ukrainian territories occupied illegally under international law. That is why we must finally act on frozen Russian assets. Some £30 billion of Russian assets reside in the UK. Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities are bombed, children are abducted and civilians freeze without power.

In the coming days, temperatures in Kyiv will drop to below minus 20°. Thousands will freeze to death. Russia must be forced to pay for its illegal war of aggression. While our support for Ukraine is unwavering, it cannot be right that British taxpayers pay while oligarchs’ wealth remains untouched. The Liberal Democrats have been consistently clear that the legal and moral case exists, and to delay costs Ukrainian lives.

We in this House discuss the war in Ukraine often, and time and again those debates show that our support for Ukraine is near unanimous. We hear the feelings of those in this House, but the wider public conversation is often missing from those discussions.

Although we are united here, Russia is doing everything it can to divide opinion beyond these walls. It is sowing division through bots, fake accounts and co-ordinated misinformation. It is bribing politicians like Nathan Gill, the former head of Reform in Wales. It is seeking to influence elections, as I saw at first hand during my visit with the Foreign Affairs Committee to Moldova and Romania. It is painting itself as the victim despite being the aggressor, and it is brazenly attempting to rewrite reality in real time. The United States now has a President who openly flirts with the idea of handing Ukrainian land to Russia, and who has repeated Kremlin talking points.

The Minister for the Armed Forces spoke eloquently in the Chamber the other day when he said:

“there may not be a border but there is a frontline.” —[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1036.]

I agree, but I would also go further. Each of us is on that frontline electronically: it is our phones, our social media platforms, our Twitter feeds. Wars are not just fought with weapons; they are fought with misinformation and disinformation, with lies dressed up as common sense and comment sections filled up with bots.

I am sure many of us here have been told in person or online that it was NATO or Ukraine that started this war. That is a lie. It is a lie spread by Russia, but it is a lie that gets repeated. We must speak the truth continually and relentlessly. It was Russia that started this illegal war. It is Ukraine that is defending itself.

Here today, we must reaffirm that non-recognition of occupied territories is not a diplomatic theory. It is a line that protects peace in Europe, because non-recognition does not just happen in this House, in No. 10, in conferences or on international stages—it must happen in people’s lives too. It must happen in what they read and |in what they share.

Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that the Trump Administration have indicated to Ukraine that US security guarantees may be contingent on Kyiv agreeing to cede the Donbas—that Ukraine should withdraw from its own territory as the price of peace. That is an attempt to strong-arm Kyiv into painful concessions that are demanded by Moscow. It is not peace; it is coercion.

Ukraine has been clear: security guarantees must come before any discussion on land. Yet pressure is being applied almost exclusively to Kyiv, not to Moscow. The rules-based international order—the one that many of us learned about in schools and university, and that created stability, prosperity and the possibility of peace—allowed small nations to thrive without fear of invasion. It was imperfect, but it was grounded in rules that we believed applied to everyone.

That order is now being dismantled by messages, tweets and decisions: in the humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval Office; in the threats to invade Greenland; in random tariffs against allies and enemies alike; in the pausing of weapons to Ukraine; and in the quiet adoption of Russian talking points about territory and responsibility. It should deeply concern us that the US national security strategy was welcomed by the Kremlin as “largely consistent” with Russia’s view.

As Prime Minister Carney said in his powerful speech in Davos, middle powers have been quiet for too long—too submissive, too willing to rely on a hegemon that may no longer share our values. The UK must recognise that we are moving towards a multilateral world where co-operation between like-minded democracies matters far more than blind reliance on a single power. We may all agree that we must not recognise Russian-occupied territories, and that Ukraine must decide what happens to its territories, but agreement here is not enough if people outside are being convinced that Ukraine does not matter, that borders do not matter and that this war has nothing to do with them.

During a Foreign Affairs Committee session, I asked Nina Jankowicz, the former director of the US disinformation governance board, about Russian interference in UK politics. She was clear: she pointed to the convergence of Russian rhetoric with that of specific voice here in Britain—their narrative echoed, amplified and normalised. We should not be surprised that the person she mentioned had a show on Russian-sponsored TV. We should not be surprised because he has personal ties to an authoritarian Trump Administration who parrot Russian talking points. We should not be surprised because he said Putin was the leader he admired the most. We should not be surprised that neither he, nor any of his party, is here today condemning Russia.

If we allow misinformation to hollow out public support, our foreign policy becomes brittle. If people stop believing that this matters to their children’s future, Russia succeeds without firing another shot. Yes, we must act abroad with our allies—those who have consistently and constantly shared our values—with weapons, diplomacy and leadership, but we must also act here at home by taking misinformation seriously, defending truth, protecting our elections, and refusing to allow bots and lies to set the terms of any debate. Ukraine must not be forced to give up territory and we must not recognise Russian-occupied land—not in this House, not in the Government and not online. Russia is trying to divide us and, for Ukraine, we must not let it.

Arctic Security

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that my hon. Friend and others have been raising this issue, particularly about the hybrid threats from Russia. There are the direct threats we see in the Arctic, but also broader hybrid threats, which range from sabotage—of undersea cables, for example—to foreign interference, including information interference. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing an important inquiry into this issue, and I look forward to its conclusions, but we have substantially increased UK sanctions to address some of the interference threats.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The post-war world order was based on the premise that like-minded western liberal democracies would stand up for each other, expand democracy wherever we saw it and lower the barriers to free trade, and that through NATO we would engage in collective responsibility—an attack against one was an attack against all. It is clear that the President of the United States does not share those values. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK should be closening our military and economic bonds with the European allies that do share those values?

[Yvette Cooper]

The transatlantic security relationship of North America—the US and Canada—and western Europe, and the whole of Europe working together around security, has been immensely important for a long time. We continue to have shared interests and shared threats—for example, Arctic security is clearly a shared security interest—but we are also strengthening our direct security and defence co-operation with Europe. Central to the EU reset was strengthening defence co-operation with our European allies, with whom we are bound by our close geography, as well as our shared values and interests. We will continue to strengthen those relationships.

Venezuela

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Our country has particularly strong relationships with the Venezuelan Opposition as a result of the work of our chargé d’affaires and our embassy in Venezuela, which we have maintained when other countries have not maintained theirs. As I have said, that puts us in a particularly significant position, in terms of being able to support a transition to democracy, which is what we have always argued for. That is exactly why I have spoken to María Corina today. We will keep in close touch, so that we can recognise, as a first step, their call for an end to political repression in Venezuela, which must happen.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I will not mourn the passing of the Maduro regime, but I will mourn the passing of the rules-based international order. If we accept the premise that a big-power country can do what it wants without any ramifications, anywhere in the world, then we accept the behaviour of Putin over the past two decades, and the behaviour of Xi Jinping in the future. We cannot allow that to stand. It is clear that our future security lies in closer co-operation with our European allies, so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that the UK is in lockstep with those who do share our values?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have strengthened our relationships with our European partners—indeed, I have been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister today on the issues around Greenland—and we will continue to support the rules-based international order, the UN charter and international law. I would warn Members against making equivalence here with what Putin has done in Ukraine; Russia invaded a country led by a democratically elected President Zelensky, and thousands of children have been kidnapped. We should be careful about what we say and its implications.

Sudan: Humanitarian Situation

Edward Morello Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the most horrific element of this conflict. It appears that sexual violence against women and girls, and in some cases boys, is increasingly a part of all conflicts across the globe. We have utterly condemned the significant escalation of conflict-related sexual violence throughout Sudan at the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council and via two joint statements of the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. I would be glad to come and see the exhibition. I have seen some of the imagery and it is genuinely distressing, but it is important that we keep a focus on the Sudanese people, as they are the victims of this horrific conflict.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

As the Minister said, the UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN. There clearly need to be comprehensive arms embargos and sanctions against those actors who are fuelling the violence in Sudan. Given that one of those is Russia, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will the Minister ensure that the Government refer the matter to the General Assembly, where a veto cannot be used?

[Chris Elmore]

I am more than happy to look at any position at a multilateral level that supports the people of Sudan and brings a cessation of violence as quickly as possible, whether at the UN General Assembly, the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, as part of ongoing work across the multilateral space.

Venezuela: US Military

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the experience that the right hon. Member brings to these questions. I want to be absolutely clear about the pre-eminent role of international law and how important that is to this Government and the actions we take. Those are, of course, points that we make to our allies as well.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I say to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that I suspect he grants President Trump far too much credit when it comes to understanding the Munroe doctrine—but that is an aside.

What legal advice have the Government received or obtained in regard to the legality or possible legal implications of support for the US, albeit through intelligence sharing, for any potential strikes on Venezuela?

[Mr Falconer]

As the House will know, Ministers receive legal advice on a range of matters relating to foreign policy, and that advice is subject to legal and professional privilege.