Strait of Hormuz

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps she is taking to secure the reopening of the strait of Hormuz.

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

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her question. I should say that the Foreign Secretary will provide a wider update to the House tomorrow morning on the UK’s approach to the situation in the middle east, including the conflict in Iran, escalation in Lebanon, our consular response and her diplomatic engagement, including her recent visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend, which will provide the possibility for further questions on a much wider range of issues.

Let me turn to the right hon. Lady’s question. Iran’s reckless actions in the strait of Hormuz are having damaging consequences for the global economy and putting the lives of those aboard civilian vessels in danger. Iran has struck several commercial ships in the last few days, and its actions have put a fifth of the world’s oil supply effectively on hold. A ministerial colleague will shortly update the House on the steps that this Government are taking to provide help to those affected in the UK who most need it.

Last week, we joined 31 other countries and the International Energy Agency in agreeing a co-ordinated release of 400 million barrels of oil, including 13.5 million barrels from the UK, which is the biggest-ever release in the IEA’s history. As the Prime Minister said this morning, we are working with all our allies and partners, including our European partners, on how we can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible and ease the economic impacts. That is not a simple task, but we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market.

The Prime Minister spoke with President Trump yesterday on the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz. The Foreign Secretary was in Riyadh in recent days, showing support for our partners across the region who face continuing strikes. She discussed the impact of Iran’s actions with Gulf Co-operation Council Foreign Ministers and the importance of maintaining energy security and supply. As we speak, she is on a call with Secretary of State Rubio on this very crisis, and the Defence Secretary has just been answering questions on these issues.

I assure you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House that the Government will continue to work towards a swift resolution of the situation in the middle east to protect our people and our allies and to reduce the cost of living for working people in this country.

[Priti Patel]

This is a moment for Britain to stand tall and work intensively with our allies. With the despotic Iranian regime continuing to attack international shipping in the strait of Hormuz, urgent action is required to reopen safe shipping routes, protect lives and support trade and economic stability.

We all feel the economic cost of Iran’s actions. This morning, the Prime Minister told the press, not the House:

“We are working with all our allies…to bring together a viable collective plan that can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible.”

I recognise that this is not straightforward, but where is that plan? What measures are being considered? The British public need to know what the Government are doing to protect our economic and national security.

There are currently no destroyers in the middle east. They can operate at a very long range and can take down projectiles, and they can also provide cover for minehunter vessels. When will the Government send one?

Under this Government, there are no minehunters at our naval base in Bahrain—a base designed to host a fleet of minehunters. Are the Government working urgently to bring minehunters back to Bahrain to strengthen capacity and capabilities at that base and in the region?

Are the Government working with our allies to assess the viability of striking targets that threaten international shipping, just as happened against the Houthi targets in Yemen?

What action is being taken to protect critics of the Iranian regime and journalists from acts of transnational repression by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

Will the Government lead a diplomatic effort to ensure that Russia does not profit from this crisis? Will the Minister reaffirm that Britain will continue going further in its actions on Russia and oil refineries fuelling the war?

With our friends in the Gulf being so brazenly under attack from Iran, what assurances did the Foreign Secretary give them during her visit about Britain’s presence in the region and actions to protect our bases? Did she make any progress on increasing the number of British nationals who can return home, bearing in mind the disruption to flights that has taken place today?

This is a hugely consequential moment for the world. Britain cannot stand by and sit on the fence.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Lady asks very important questions about the safety of British nationals, our allies and others, and about the economic impact. She has also rightly raised the issue of Russia and Ukraine. We cannot allow this situation to in any way become a bonanza for Putin in his war against Ukraine. I can assure her that we are absolutely committed to continuing our economic pressure on Russia. I spoke to my Ukrainian counterpart just last week to reassure him of that.

The Prime Minister has set out very clearly that the strait of Hormuz is vital, both to the international economy and to security. We are in continued conversations with European allies and with the United States. These questions are very complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations as possible taking part. I am not going to get into detailed discussions in the Chamber, but the Defence Secretary has already spoken about the resources that we prepositioned in the region—the Prime Minister has been clear about that, as have the Foreign Secretary and I. There are capabilities, such as autonomous minehunting, and we have been taking substantial actions to support allies and partners. After the GCC’s meeting with the Foreign Secretary, it set out very clearly that it thanked the UK for our solidarity with the countries in the GCC and our strong and long-standing commitment to their security, stability and territorial integrity. That was in the statement issued by Ministers after they met the Foreign Secretary at the weekend.

We have been very clear about our objectives. The first of those is to protect our people in the region. Secondly, while taking the actions necessary to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war. We will continue working towards a swift resolution that brings security and stability back to the region, but crucially also stops the Iranian threat to its neighbours. We all want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the worse it is for the cost of living back home. That is exactly why the Prime Minister has set out decisive action today.

We are taking measures to support UK citizens who will be affected by energy prices, whether on heating oil—which a ministerial colleague will speak about shortly—the energy price cap, or our continued investment in energy security and capability in the UK. We cannot allow our energy security to be at the whims of the ayatollahs, Vladimir Putin or anyone else. As I have set out, we have acted alongside other countries to release emergency oil stocks at a level that is completely unprecedented, but ultimately we must reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market. That is not a simple task, so I repeat that we will work with allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Joint Maritime Security Centre has designated the Persian gulf situation as critical, and Nautilus International, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the UK Chamber of Shipping have designated the strait of Hormuz, the Persian gulf and the gulf of Oman as a warlike area way into next month. Protecting the safety of seafarers and UK-flagged vessels is paramount, so will the Minister continue to commit to upholding the international convention for the safety of life at sea?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these issues. The extraordinary, reckless actions that Iran has been taking threaten not only those international shipping routes but the crews serving on board those vessels, who should be foremost in all our minds. Coming from a city with a proud merchant navy tradition, I am only too aware of the sacrifices made across multiple generations. I have been speaking closely with a range of partners in recent days, including across the Mediterranean—with our partners in Malta, Cyprus, Greece and elsewhere—and we are working very closely through the Department for Transport and other agencies to ensure that the safety and security of shipping is maintained and restored.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Households across the UK are fearful of rising prices at the pumps and for heating their homes. The closure of the strait of Hormuz by Iran will worsen the serious situation, yet it should have come as no surprise. In response, President Trump’s position is both irresponsible and inconsistent. One week, he says that he has no need for UK warships to support his unilateral action, because he has already won; the next, he says that we must send ships. One day, he suspends sanctions on Russian oil in a desperate, dangerous attempt to bring down oil prices; the next, he says that he might bomb the Iranian facility at Kharg island “for fun”. The UK should be leading on the world stage at a time like this, not following Trump like a poodle, or succumbing to his bullying, as the Conservatives and the Reform party have advocated. Can the Minister state what specific actions the UK is taking with our reliable allies to press the US, Israel and Iran to scale back hostilities? Will the Minister commit to seeking agreement at the UN Security Council on a collective approach to open the strait?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly set out his concerns. The Prime Minister has taken a clear and level-headed approach, in Britain’s national interest, to this crisis, taking each decision as it comes and always prioritising the protection of our people, our allies and our interests. That is the approach he will continue to take in this crisis. He has been clear that we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has set out, but that is no simple task. That is why we are working with all our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation.

The hon. Gentleman raises issues relating to Ukraine, as did the shadow Foreign Secretary. I need to be clear that decisions made by the United States about its own sanctions are a matter for the US. We are clear that we will continue to ratchet up our own measures to put pressure on the Kremlin to change course and to support Ukraine in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. To be clear, the US has announced a temporary waiver of some sanctions on Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil, but the US Treasury Secretary made clear that that licence was deliberately short term. Matters for the US are obviously for the US. We will continue to strengthen our measures.

With regard to the impact on people here at home, the Prime Minister has announced the capping of energy bills until the end of June, the extension of the fuel duty cut and the £53 million of support we are giving to rural communities with the cost of heating oil. We are continuing to invest in our energy security, which is crucial.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Given Iran’s reckless behaviour, it is of course right that the Prime Minister has made sure that our brave forces are protecting our allies and our people, and that UK bases are used for defensive operations. With regard to the strait of Hormuz and any further action that we may or may not take, can the Minister confirm that we will not get drawn into a wider conflict that we did not start?

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply refer my hon. Friend to the comments that the Prime Minister made on this very issue this morning. He said that we will not get drawn into a wider war, but we want to see the strait of Hormuz reopened. We will work with our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to do that, but I will not hypothesise about that today.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

For centuries, the United Kingdom has been willing to commit its naval resources to defend free movement on the seas. Does the Minister agree that now is another such occasion when we should do so, and that if we fail to do so, we will pay the price here in higher oil prices and overseas in terms of the perception of the United Kingdom being willing to stand up for the interests of its friends and allies in the Gulf? Furthermore, can he assure the House that this will be considered by the Government as a totally separate question from the United Kingdom’s participation in Operation Epic Fury?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Prime Minister set out clearly this morning the approach that he will take to this issue, and the Defence Secretary has just been answering questions on these matters. The Prime Minister set out clearly what steps we are taking to mitigate the impact on UK citizens and the steps we are taking globally. We all want to see the strait reopened, but we must have a viable plan, and we will work with allies on that.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed responses. He will know, as many of us in the Chamber do, that many residents across our country are really concerned about the conflict in the Persian gulf. Can he reassure me and the House that discussions are ongoing with the Department and Cabinet colleagues in assessing the different scenarios of the conflict?

[Stephen Doughty]

I entirely understand the concern that is felt by my hon. Friend’s constituents, and indeed many other constituents up and down the country, including my own. That is exactly why the Prime Minister has set out the decisive action that we are taking in relation to energy bills, fuel duty, support on heating oil and, of course, our continued investment in energy security in this country. Iran could of course stop its reckless and dangerous attacks on shipping and reopen the strait of Hormuz, and we will continue to engage with allies on what we can do.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Do the Government not realise that this nation is already at war? Iran is firing on sovereign British territory, and Russia has already proclaimed that it is at war with the United Kingdom. Is it not time to put the whole Government on to a war footing, because otherwise we will carry on running behind the curve as we have over this recent matter of the strait of Hormuz?

[Stephen Doughty]

I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that we have been running behind the curve. We have set out in the House on a number of occasions the measures that we took before this conflict happened and the resources that were pre-deployed to the region, in the defence of Cyprus and other key allies and partners. The Prime Minister has described very clearly all the support that we are putting in place, whether it is our Typhoons, our F-35s, our anti-drone measures or our air defence systems. That is why, speaking to the Foreign Secretary at the weekend, the GCC welcomed the support and solidarity that we have shown, and it is why we continue to work with allies and partners on a daily basis.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister was right when he said today that

“we will not be drawn into the wider war”.

But the US President is now requesting UK military assets to police the strait of Hormuz. This is exactly the sort of mission creep that many have warned against. Discussing NATO this morning, General Sir Nick Carter said that it was

“not…for one of the allies to go on a war of choice and then oblige everybody else to follow.”

Can the Minister confirm that the UK will not provide further military assets for this US war, on which President Trump did not consult the UK and which the UK public do not support, or that the House will be able to vote on any such proposal?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Prime Minister has set out very clearly the decision-making process that he and the Cabinet have been through. He has been very clear about the need for us to defend our allies and partners, but he has also been clear about the fact that, in relation to the strait of Hormuz, this is not a simple task. We will be working with allies, including European partners, to bring forward a viable and collective plan.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Given the fate of the Russian Black sea fleet from maritime drones and that of ground forces from first-person view drones, does the Minister agree that there is unlikely to be a military solution to reopen the confined waters of Hormuz, and that we therefore need to find a diplomatic solution as quickly as possible?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree that we need further diplomatic action, and that is exactly what the Foreign Secretary and others, including the Minister for the middle east—my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and me, have been engaged in during recent days and weeks. The hon. Gentleman raised the importance of different drone capabilities; when it comes to the wider situation and the threat that we face from drones, we work with partners, such as those I saw in Latvia just a few weeks ago, to develop the very best in capability and to learn the important lessons of Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

As has been said, Trump and Netanyahu launched this war without consultation. They did it unilaterally, and recklessly and irresponsibly, and it was absolutely predictable that the strait would be threatened in this way. Yet some shipping is moving, is it not? Some shipping is going to our ally, India, because it is not engaged in the war, because it is at peace with Iran. Does that not teach us the lesson that we need to bring about peace, that that should be our main and prime purpose in negotiating a peaceful settlement, and that the first step towards that is de-escalation?

[Stephen Doughty]

Let me first make it absolutely clear that Iran’s regime has been appalling, and that what it has done to its own citizens has been reckless. It cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Its reckless attacks, not only on shipping but on civilians, and on our allies and partners across the Gulf, and indeed across the wider region, are absolutely appalling. It could stop this right now. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear about the fact that our decisions—the decisions of the United Kingdom—will be based on a calm and level-headed assessment of the British national interest at every stage.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What is the Minister’s latest assessment of the threat of transnational oppression carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am obviously not going to get into a detailed assessment on the Floor of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have faced transnational repression threats, not only from Iran but from other countries. The Security Minister, other colleagues and I are absolutely united in doing everything we can to defend the UK against that. We cannot allow Iran, or indeed other hostile states that seek to do harm outside their borders, to operate on our streets in this way.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

This Government are absolutely right to refuse to take part in the war being waged by the United States and Israel. Will the Minister confirm to the House that we are going to put British interests first in everything we do? That includes protecting the global economy, and protecting all our constituents’ energy bills.

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend on that. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has set out today: not only how we will take these decisions in the British interest, but the measures we are taking to meet the needs of the British people, who are particularly affected by the energy consequences of this war.

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

The Government previously said that the United States could use UK airfields only for the specific and limited purposes of defending against Iran’s reckless attacks, yet we know that RAF Fairford has been used by the United States to launch B-52 bombers carrying up to 24 cruise missiles at a time. Given President Trump’s reckless and dangerous language about Kharg island at the weekend, when he said that

“we may hit it a few more times just for fun”,

what guarantees can the Minister give this House that none of the missions coming from the UK will target civilians or civilian infrastructure?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am simply not going to get into hypotheticals on the Floor of the House. What I can say is that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prime Minister has been very clear about the principles on which he took the first decision and the principles on which he took the second decision. He has been very, very clear about that.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

A number of Arab ambassadors attended a meeting in the House of Commons last week. They were clear that the military action undertaken by Israel and the US emanated from the action that we have seen over more than two years in Gaza, and that the solution needed meaningful peace in the area. What are Ministers doing specifically about Palestine, given its importance in securing a lasting peace in the region as a whole?

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to engage closely with the Palestinian authorities and, of course, with the Palestinian ambassador here in the UK. As I said, the Foreign Secretary was in the region at the weekend and engaged closely with Foreign Ministers from across the region. We will continue to work with all partners in the pursuit of stability, security and peace across the whole region.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Closing the strait of Hormuz is Iran’s most predictable threat, yet it appears that no plan to reopen it was ready to be enacted. Equally, on Cyprus, it appears that there was either an intelligence or a planning failure, which underestimated Iran’s intent or capability. Will the Government review whether adequate planning and assessments are taking place, and will the Minister give a firm commitment that direct representations will be made to both the US and Israel to make sure that no action takes place around Evin prison? The Foremans and other British nationals are still being held hostage there, and we have heard nothing from the Government on making sure that they are protected—unlike the action last summer, when Evin prison was bombed.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady will know that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), spoke about the case of the Foremans the other day, and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will do so tomorrow if she is asked about it. I have been very clear about the importance of protecting not only our interests and bases in Cyprus, but the defence and security of Cyprus, and I am in regular contact with Foreign Minister Kombos and colleagues in Cyprus. Just for the record, I can confirm that the sovereign base areas on the island of Cyprus are not being used, and have not been used, by US bombers for strikes on Iran, but we will continue to work with partners across the region. It is simply not correct to say that we were not prepared. We had resources and capability in place, and we have provided further capability and resources in recent days.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Rather than adopting the Conservatives’ hokey-cokey, in-out policy on this conflict, does the Minister agree that any commitments to UK military support in the strait of Hormuz must be subject to time-bound operational objectives? Can he confirm that the clarification of such time-bound operational objectives for this conflict is being pursued with the US Department of War?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will obviously not go into the detail of specific conversations, but I can say that the Prime Minister has been very clear about the way he approaches these issues. He does so in a way that is in the British national interest—in a calm, level-headed and lawful way that is in the interests of our people and our allies. The Opposition have been all over the place on this. As for the Reform party, its Members are again conspicuous by their absence; they are not even in the Chamber.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The US President has suggested that the future of NATO may depend on countries falling into line with him, and supporting him on reopening this shipping channel. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable for that type of pressure to be applied to sovereign nations, when there is still no evidence that this war has a legal basis, or that there is a plan for it?

[Stephen Doughty]

This country remains absolutely committed to NATO—we have a NATO-first policy—and the President has made very clear his commitment to article 5 and to NATO; that is not in any doubt. As I have said, we continue to engage with allies, including European partners, on viable and credible options for reopening the strait of Hormuz, but I will not go into further details at this time.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The reality is that Trump’s warmongering and illegal war not only risk plunging the middle east into a dangerous conflict, but are now impacting people here at home. Does the Minister accept that the only lasting and right way forward is to continue to push for de-escalation and an immediate end to this illegal war?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a swift resolution. We all want peace, stability and security in the region. Of course, Iran could end this by ending its reckless attacks on shipping, on allies in the region and on civilians, and it could do that right now.

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

Surely the problem we have is that the Government, having decided not to be involved in this, and then literally a day later deciding that they would be involved by granting America the use of our bases, have brought us into a war. Like it or not, that is where we are. I do not understand what “the wider war” means, when we are in the war; that is what is happening with the strait of Hormuz right now. The Government are playing with words in a sort of tautological tap dance because they have no idea what they should be doing, as they did not want to be here in the first place, but they are. The Minister should be honest: we are in the war. The question for him really is: what are we going to do about the strait of Hormuz, and what assets will we put there?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear: we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market, but that is not a simple task. To suggest that it is simple would not be doing it justice. [Interruption.] No, I mean the tenor of the questions that have been asked. As I have said, we are working with all our allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable, collective plan.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

The shadow Foreign Secretary said that this was “a moment for Britain to stand tall”, and I agree with her, which is why I was pleased to see the Prime Minister and this Government stand strong, instead of running blindly into another middle east war with no clear plan. Can the Minister assure me and the House that we will continue to act in the British national interest, and the interests of British nationals in the region?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely can assure my hon. Friend of that. I must say that I thought the shadow Foreign Secretary asked some very reasonable questions, but I have been surprised by some of the tone and commentary coming from the Opposition Benches and the media. At times like these, when we have British armed forces bravely defending allies and taking action, I would hope to see more unity and coming together on such a crucial issue. These are complex and difficult issues, and to suggest otherwise, or engage in party political point scoring, is not the right way forward.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Minister and the Prime Minister have talked about the UK being willing to participate in a “viable, collective plan” to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but does the Minister really think that President Trump has a viable plan, given that he had no plan for the illegal war, nor any legal justification for the war he has launched? Given that, will the UK be absolutely unequivocal that we will not give in to Trump’s bullying demands, but will instead stand up for British interests, and will we make it absolutely clear that we will not be dragged into a catastrophic, illegal war in the middle east?

[Stephen Doughty]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could tell us how her party would defend the British national interest without spending money on defence, or indeed by leaving NATO—absolutely crackers.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

My constituents consistently say to me that they support the Prime Minister’s decision not to take us into this war. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with our brave service people who are stationed in the middle east and across the Mediterranean. Will the Minister please update the House on discussions he has been having with his Cypriot counterpart on the defence of the Akrotiri base and the wider island?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think all our thoughts are not only with our brave armed forces personnel in action in defence of allies and our interests, but their families and all those affected, including British civilians who remain in the middle east, and merchant shipping crews. She is absolutely right to ask about Cyprus. I am in regular contact with Foreign Minister Kombos and the Cypriot Government. I am also in regular contact with our administrator of the sovereign base areas. I can absolutely assure her that the protection of our bases, and the defence and security of Cyprus, are foremost in my mind and that of the Government.

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

Some things never change in naval warfare, and one of the things that never change is the unsuitability of surface vessels for forcing a way through narrow, contested straits. Over 100 years ago, the French and the British learned that when, between them, they lost three battleships in an afternoon to a single German submarine in the Dardanelles. Will the Minister therefore advise President Trump that while we would like to help him reopen the strait of Hormuz, the way to do it is not with a billion-pound warship escorting vulnerable tankers, but with counter-drone technology of the sort that Ukraine can help him to supply, providing he has the decency to ask President Zelensky for some help?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a question with his usual thoughtfulness and experience, and he rightly sets out the complexity of the situation. That is exactly why we must approach this issue with a credible and viable plan. We all have a shared objective; we need to see the strait reopened, and we are engaging with allies, including European partners, on that very issue.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Following on from the question by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), what discussions is the Foreign Secretary having in the Gulf on the future viability of convoys, and on other actions? Can the Minister assure me and the House that plans will be put in place for such convoys, when it is safe to do so?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not get into specific hypothetical scenarios, but we are engaged with a wide range of partners across the region. That is why the Foreign Secretary was speaking with Gulf partners this week at the Gulf Co-operation Council. She was engaged with Saudi counterparts and Foreign Ministers. They expressed their thanks for Britain’s solidarity and engagement on these crucial issues, which have an impact on their economies, and on the wider defence and security needs across the Gulf.

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

Since there is no plan to reopen the strait, it seems that the price of fertiliser will skyrocket. What advice does the Minister have for farmers in the northern hemisphere who would normally be buying fertiliser at this time to support spring plantings? Many are making a decision on whether to go ahead with those plantings. He will know that if they do not, that will have dire implications for food prices and the cost of living.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly sets out a very important issue for rural communities across this country. If I may, Mr Speaker, I will get one of my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him with the detail. The issue is not only the direct impact on oil and gas prices, but the impact on inflation, fertiliser and supply chains more generally. He is right to raise those issues, and I will come back to him with further details.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Israel and the US started this illegal war, but Trump is now demanding that NATO allies support him in opening up this critical waterway. European countries are not bending. Can the Minister give an assurance that this country will not bend, and that we will be given a vote on any military action?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Prime Minister set out the clear, calm and logical approach that he has taken in all the decisions that he has had to take on these important issues, and I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that approach will continue. We all want to see the strait reopened to ensure stability in the market, but for the reasons that were just expressed, that is not a simple task. That is why we are working with all our allies, including our European partners, on this issue.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Given that the British public abhor the idea of being drawn into another war, and that some Members of this House are already calling for an escalation into military involvement without addressing the potentially catastrophic consequences, will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will prioritise diplomacy and de-escalation over drawing this country into deeper military involvement?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard quite clearly what the Prime Minister had to say on these issues this morning.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that alongside the escalation of closing the strait, the repressive regime in Iran continues to target female activists relentlessly. Will he ensure that the work being spearheaded by the Foreign Secretary in the Foreign Office to tackle violence against women and girls globally includes specific initiatives to support the brave women and girls of Iran?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the absolutely horrific circumstances for women and girls in Iran; this has, of course, been going on for many years. He knows the priority that the Foreign Secretary, and indeed all Ministers, give to this issue. The situation inside Iran is obviously extraordinarily difficult, and we do not have a full picture of what is happening there, but I can assure him that this will continue to be a priority.

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

It is a known known that the Iranian regime will close down the strait of Hormuz in a period of conflict. Back in June 2025, I asked the former Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, what contingencies we had in place to offset against that happening. He responded:

“I assure the hon. Member that these issues are of course under consideration,”

and that—this is the key part—

“All contingencies are in place.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 842.]

I have listened to the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the FCDO Minister, and those remarks just do not add up. What has changed?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear today, as has the Prime Minister. We have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market. That is not a simple task, as the hon. Gentleman will know well, given his experience. That is why we are engaged with our allies on forming credible and viable plans.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Fresh from the doorsteps of Arthurs Hill, West Denton and Blakelaw, I can confirm that this is an issue of real concern and some fear across Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, and that there is overwhelming support for the Government’s decision not to join Israel and the US in initiating an un-thought-through war in one of the world’s most complex and unstable regions. The Foreign Secretary has emphasised how closely Iran and Russia are allied; Iran provides the drones for Russia to use in Ukraine. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the US lessening sanctions on Russia on Russia’s ability to support its ally Iran?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the connections between Russia and Iran; having been in Kyiv when bombardments, likely from Iranian-made drones, were going on, and having seen the devastation that they cause, I think it is clear that that alliance has been in place for some time. It is causing devastation not just in Ukraine, but now across the Gulf. What Iran has been doing is appalling. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to put maximum pressure on Russia economically—I spoke to my Ukrainian counterpart about this just last week. Obviously, US sanctions are a matter for the US, but I have set out that the Treasury Secretary has announced that the measures in question were temporary and related to oil that was already at sea.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Contrary to what some less well-informed voices from the Conservative Benches have been saying, short of putting ground troops into Iran, there is no military solution that enables us to open the strait of Hormuz. The Iranians are effectively placing civilian shipping at risk with missiles, drones, subs and fast boats; it is very difficult to come up with a military solution to that problem, and Iran can therefore decide whether it wants to reopen the strait. Will the Minister tell the House whether we are getting together with our European allies to deliver a message to the Americans that they need to step down and step away from this to enable Iran to reopen the strait?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman sets out the complexity of the challenge. It is why we need a calm and level-headed approach, which is exactly the approach that the Prime Minister is taking. We are in conversations with European partners on that point and with partners across the Gulf, and as I said, the Foreign Secretary has been speaking to Secretary Rubio while I have been answering this urgent question.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Government have learned from the missteps of Iraq, whereas the Conservatives and Reform would repeat them. The Prime Minister is de-escalating in line with the national interest, whereas the Conservatives and Reform would blindly follow President Trump into a war of choice. Will the Minister state for my constituents that he will continue to de-escalate this conflict and to bring down the cost of living, and that he will do that by keeping to the path that the Government have set, which has brought inflation down from 3.4% to 3% and put it on track to hit 2%?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, I have been baffled at times by the position of the Conservatives, let alone Reform, who yet again are not here in the Chamber. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is focused not only on the international aspects but on the domestic aspects. That is why he set out very clearly today the measures to support British people who are worried about their energy bills. Whether it is the energy price cap, addressing the heating oil issue, investment in energy security in this country or fuel duty cuts, the Prime Minister set out very clearly what we are doing to support people here at home.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister has insisted that he does not want to get drawn into a wider war, but with the targeting of our civilians and bases and our economy being strangled, how much wider could the war get? Does he not recognise that Iran has been able to close off the strait of Hormuz as and when it wants to, using its proxies and its geographical position? It is only once Iran learns the lesson that that tactic will not be accepted and that blackmail will not be accepted that that will not be repeated. What is this reluctance? Is it because we do not have the ability or we just do not have the political will?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting our policy should be, but I can tell him that the Prime Minister has been very clear about the decisions he has made. The defence of our allies and our interests will always be at the forefront of his mind, as indeed will measures to support citizens who are affected by these issues, including those in Northern Ireland and those who are reliant on heating oil.

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

I thank the Minister for his detailed responses on an issue that we are all, across the House, keen to get resolved. On the issue of British nationals returning to the UK—I am pleased to say that those I made representations about to the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago have been safely returned to my constituency—will the Minister outline what work the Government are doing to support the British airline industry to ensure that all UK citizens are returned home? Last week I had conversations with representatives of the Manchester Airports Group about that.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am glad that the situation that my hon. Friend raised on behalf of his constituents has been resolved, and I can absolutely assure him that we remain focused on bringing British nationals home. Yesterday, 35 flights arrived back in the UK carrying more than 8,000 British nationals from the region. More than 92,000 British nationals have returned since the start of the war. We have chartered six flights from Muscat and Dubai and we continue to work with airlines, as my hon. Friend requests, to ensure that people can be brought home safely and quickly.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The strait of Hormuz is a narrow body of water, but so is the Red sea. The Houthis have previously set ballistic missiles and drones on commercial ships and caused a lot of damage and disruption, which again has an impact on the global economy. Thus far in the current conflict, the Houthis have been on the sidelines, but that could easily and readily change. What are the Government doing in anticipation of the Houthis getting involved, and what naval assets are in the region or could be deployed to the region quickly in order that there is not a repeat of what we saw with HMS Dragon? If the strait of Hormuz is closed, and then the Red sea is closed, we are going to see a double crisis.

[Stephen Doughty]

I can assure the right hon. Member that we keep a range of threats and risks under close monitoring. We will always take the steps that we can to protect shipping and our interests and allies in the region, but I am not going to get into the specifics of any individual location.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Over the weekend, France and Italy opened talks with Iran to allow their ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz. France has limited America’s use of its bases to non-combat missions only; Italy has refused to help altogether. With this Labour Government giving a licence to American assets on British bases, there is no hope of our striking a similar deal to let our ships through at present. Will the Government confirm that they will keep all options on the table—including suspending American military operations from our bases—because British citizens must come first, and they must be shielded from bearing the brunt of America and Israel’s illegal war?

[Stephen Doughty]

British citizens do come first. The Prime Minister has set out clearly the basis for the decisions he has made, which includes, of course, the defence of our allies and partners in the Gulf, which I am sure the hon. Member would agree is important, and indeed British citizens and interests in the Gulf. Again, I am not exactly sure what policy he is suggesting we should follow. The Prime Minister will continue to approach this in a calm and level-headed way in the British national interest.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

In January, with impeccable timing, the US withdrew its Avenger class minesweepers from the Arabian gulf and replaced them with littoral combat ships; at roughly the same time, we withdrew HMS Middleton, our last minehunter in the region. As of yesterday, two of those littoral combat ships were seen in Malaysia, several thousand miles away, leaving only one, the USS Canberra, which potentially has the ability to deploy autonomous vehicles. This morning, the Prime Minister said that we would deploy autonomous ships to help clear the minefields, but HMS Stirling Castle—potentially the support ship for that—left Portsmouth only this morning, so it is three weeks away. What is the earliest date when the Minister thinks the strait of Hormuz could begin to be cleared, irrespective of the conversations he is currently having with our allies?

[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.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

The Iranian regime will be carefully studying our actions here in the UK. Only last month, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials attended an Iran national day celebration hosted in London by the Iranian embassy. That was at precisely the same time that thousands of Iranians were being slaughtered on their own streets. Why were officials permitted to go to such an event? Who authorised it? Will officials be allowed to go to such events in the future?

[Stephen Doughty]

It is my understanding that Ministers were not consulted or indeed advised on that attendance. The issue has been ongoing since, I think, 2015, and was likely to have been under the previous Government as well.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister has come here to give us a pretty vague response of, “We’re in discussions with allies about making a plan,” and does not want to give us any more detail than that; I can potentially see why. When he has those discussions with allies, will he please remember that the British taxpayer kindly gifted two Sandown class minehunters to the Ukrainian navy and that we have trained up their crews, who are now at a NATO standard? The Defence Committee visited them in Portsmouth, and they were proud of those credentials. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that Ukraine seems to be leaning into supporting allies in the Gulf. Therefore, when the Minister is having discussions with allies about making a plan, will he bear that in mind? Of course, those craft cannot deploy back to the Black sea because of the Montreux convention, and I believe the crews are there and ready to operate.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. I am not, for obvious reasons, going to get into the detail of individual pieces of kit and equipment, but I welcome the fact that Ukraine has engaged with Gulf partners on the lessons it has learned, particularly in relation to drone technology. That is important. It is, of course, absolutely right that Ukraine’s focus remains on its needs and defending itself against Russia’s barbarous aggression, and I can assure him that our commitments to Ukraine remain absolutely iron-clad in that regard, but I do not want to get into commenting on individual pieces of kit and equipment.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Listening to some hon. Members this afternoon, one is left wondering whether President Trump or Iran is the enemy. The truth is that our bases have been attacked. Are we not, therefore, inevitably already involved in this conflict? The Government seem not to want to face up to that reality. When it comes to the strait of Hormuz, does it therefore follow that we are simply going to rely on the USA to open it? Have we any plan?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman’s characterisation of our response. We have British Typhoon and F-35 jets flying in defence of British people, bases and partners, including Qatar, Cyprus, UAE, Jordan and Bahrain. We have had multiple F-35s, Typhoon jets and ground-based defences shooting down drones. The Defence Secretary has just set out the operational hours and sorties that our brave crews have been flying. We also have HMS Dragon on her way to the eastern Mediterranean, and RFA Lyme Bay has sailed from Gibraltar and is also available for maritime tasks. We also have helicopters and other assets in place, so I simply do not recognise his characterisation.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is suspected that AI systems have been used to target and murder 165 schoolchildren and their teachers using US-made Tomahawks, with further double-tap attacks falling on survivors 40 minutes later. This Government say that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority, but in failing to call out this clear war crime, those words mean nothing as the bodies of children get buried. Will the Minister explain what the UK Government are doing to hold America and Israel to account for these war crimes, and does he share my concerns about the use of AI to kill?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Defence Secretary has set out our position in relation to autonomous systems and AI, and that is not for me to comment on as a Foreign Office Minister, but it is my understanding that investigations into the incident the hon. Gentleman refers to are ongoing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers, for his tone and for his careful use of words. I am very clear on my stance on the principle of the war against the terrorist regime in Iran, but this is not about principle; it is about practicality. Some of my constituents are on the poverty line, and the wages of those who work and are not entitled to Government help no longer cover the bills that they covered three years ago. For those people, the Government must make the right decision and secure the shipping channel. Doing so would not enter us into a war but it would protect our constituents. Will the Minister determine to act in the British interest and work with our allies to secure this essential route?

[Stephen Doughty]

As always, the hon. Gentleman rightly speaks up for his constituents in Strangford. We all want to see the strait reopened, and it is important that we have conversations with allies on credible and viable ways to do that, but it is also important that we take action here at home. That is why the Prime Minister has acted on the energy price cap, on the fuel duty cuts and on the heating oil support, which I think will be of particular benefit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. That is on top of the warm home discount and the investment that we are putting into energy security in this country, and I hope that helps his constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

4. What discussions she has had with her US counterpart on tariffs.

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

The UK-United States relationship has been a cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it. The Foreign Secretary and I have regular and wide-ranging discussions with our counterparts. Indeed, in the past week, we have discussed economic ties with governors from across the United States. The Business and Trade Secretary speaks regularly with his US counterparts—including, most recently, the trade representative—to reinforce the importance of delivering on our economic prosperity deal.

[Blake Stephenson]

Given that the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran without British involvement, and that this Government seem increasingly at odds with the US in relation to Diego Garcia, can the Minister assure me that the Government’s actions are not damaging the special relationship and increasing the likelihood that further tariffs will be imposed on the UK, driving up costs for the Great British public?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our relationship with the United States is strong; it has endured, continues to endure, and will endure into the future on the economic and security fronts. We were the first to strike a deal with the US Administration, which removed tariffs on UK aerospace exports and secured reduced tariffs for cars. That saved manufacturers hundreds of millions and protected jobs across this country.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the human rights situation in Hong Kong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

8. What steps she is taking to ensure greater financial transparency in the British overseas territories.

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

I welcome the progress that many overseas territories have made on financial transparency. St Helena, Montserrat and Gibraltar now have fully public registers of beneficial ownership, while the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have implemented legitimate interest access registers. However, I have also been clear with those overseas territories where progress has not been quick or comprehensive enough, including the British Virgin Islands, and at the joint ministerial council in November, I pressed for further progress, and agreed to provide technical-level support for that work. We will reconvene later this month to assess the latest position, and we reserve the right to consider all options, if progress is not made. Of course, we prefer to work in constructive co-operation, recognising the wide range of constitutional arrangements, but there are crucial issues here for tackling illicit finance, and for our national security.

[Steff Aquarone]

Perhaps I can help with that assessment. Transparency International uncovered at least 160 cases since 2022 of luxury yachts being transferred into or out of Russia that were registered to companies in British overseas territories. While the brave Ukrainians are defending their country from a brutal invasion, Putin’s cronies are joyriding their multimillion-pound yachts, enabled by the likes of the BVI. Does this sicken the Foreign Secretary and the Minister as much as it sickens me, and can the Minister tell certain overseas territories that we are fed up with their excuses and their shielding of evil regimes and tax dodgers, and that they must deliver transparency now?

[Stephen Doughty]

I welcome the work of Transparency International and others in shedding light on these issues. Those are exactly the concerns that I have raised directly with overseas territories’ Governments and have expressed in this place, and we will work to ensure rapid progress on these issues.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to support children in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

T7. At the Munich security conference, the Prime Minister rightly said that we must do more to work with our allies to build our collective European security. Given that moral imperative, is there an ambition for the UK and the EU to reopen negotiations on UK access to the EU SAFE—security action for Europe—defence mechanism?

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

My hon. Friend asks an important question. We are absolutely committed to strengthening our defence co-operation with the EU and European partners, but with NATO of course as the bedrock. We negotiated in good faith on SAFE, but the terms were not in the UK’s national interest, but we will continue to engage constructively across a range of areas of co-operation.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T3. The Foreign Secretary obviously faces real problems with the settlement she has received from the Chancellor, who is sitting next to her, but given that the last 20 years have led to the near eradication of polio and excellent work on malaria, will she prioritise those programmes to ensure we do not go backwards and once again release polio and malaria across the globe?

Gibraltar Treaty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I wish to make a statement on the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar. First, I welcome the presence in the Gallery of His Majesty’s Governor of Gibraltar, His Excellency Lieutenant-General Sir Ben Bathurst. Given his previous commands, I also take the opportunity to wish him a very happy St David’s day in advance—dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus—which I share with all the House and, indeed, with the people of Gibraltar. It is also a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, given your own strong support for and associations with Gibraltar, not least in relation to the university.

After five years of tireless and complex work and dozens of rounds of negotiations, I am pleased to inform the House that we have published a draft version of the treaty. I am depositing a copy of the draft treaty in the Library of each House, together with an accompanying summary document. I am delighted that we have reached this moment, which heralds a new era of security, prosperity and stability for Gibraltar and the surrounding region and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.

For more than 300 years, the Rock has been a hugely important part of the British family. Its people are British citizens, and our commitment to them remains absolute. This Government have taken seriously their responsibility to protect Gibraltar’s unique position and to secure post-Brexit arrangements that deliver on that responsibility. This draft treaty protects jobs and livelihoods for the people of Gibraltar and offers a stable framework for their relationship with the European Union, removing the uncertainty they have faced since Brexit. In short, it shows what real diplomacy and co-operation can achieve. It is the result of sustained and effective efforts on the part of the United Kingdom, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain.

His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar have been at the table at every stage of the negotiations; nothing has been agreed without their full support. I place on the record my appreciation for the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their teams, who played vital roles in securing the best outcome. I also pay tribute to UK negotiators, including our teams in Brussels, Madrid, London and Gibraltar. Their diligence and diplomatic skill have ensured that this treaty protects UK sovereignty and delivers practical outcomes for citizens and businesses on both sides of the border.

Now let me reflect on some of the detail. Around 15,000 people cross the land border between Spain and Gibraltar every day—half of Gibraltar’s workforce. The treaty removes all checks on people and goods at that border; instead, dual immigration checks will take place at Gibraltar’s airport, with Gibraltar conducting its own controls and Spain, as the neighbouring Schengen state, conducting checks on behalf of the European Union, in a model similar to the French police operating at St Pancras.

Let me be clear: Gibraltar is not joining Schengen. Immigration, policing and justice remain the responsibility of its own authorities. British sovereignty over Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, is fully upheld and explicitly protected. Crucially, the United Kingdom’s military facilities and operations on the Rock remain under full UK control. The treaty also establishes a bespoke customs model that removes the need for routine goods checks at the land border and strengthens co-operation between customs authorities.

Gibraltar will align its import duty rates on goods with EU rates. That will allow people to cross the border with everyday goods, such as shopping, without declarations or additional charges, bringing an end to long queues for workers, businesses and visitors. Having been in those queues myself, I know that that will make a substantial difference. To be clear, Gibraltar will not apply VAT or any other sales tax, and its vital services industry will not be affected.

The result is a pragmatic agreement and arrangement that protects Gibraltar’s way of life, supports its economy and strengthens cross-border co-operation, while safe- guarding the United Kingdom’s sovereignty position. It also gives businesses the certainty that they have sought for many years, allowing them to plan and invest with confidence. The conclusion of the negotiations also reflects the wider, transformed change in tone and trust that this Government have rebuilt with our European and EU partners, including Spain—a crucial NATO ally and economic partner. It represents a new era of co-operation and delivery for growth and security.

As with the UK-EU summit last year, the agreement shows that a constructive, problem-solving relationship with the European Union can deliver real benefits for British citizens. We are publishing the draft treaty alongside the European Union while legal teams complete final checks and translations, so that all Parliaments with an interest can have access to it on the same timeline.

The publication of the draft today marks a milestone, but it is not the formal end of the process; the final version of the treaty will be laid in the UK Parliament for scrutiny before ratification, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We will continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the European Union and Spain as we move towards signature and implementation, and I will update the House as that work progresses.

In conclusion, this is a significant achievement for Britain, for Gibraltar and for our wider European partnerships. It shows this Government’s commitment to fixing problems, supporting our overseas territories, and defending Britain’s interests with clarity and confidence. With this treaty, Gibraltar can look to the future with certainty. Its people can be reassured that their way of life is protected. To quote the Chief Minister today, the treaty

“provides a springboard to stability, certainty and a modern partnership with the EU. And it does so without affecting our fundamental, inalienable right to remain British in every respect. Indeed, the Agreement makes absolutely clear that nothing in the Agreement or any supplementing arrangements shall affect sovereignty.”

In the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, our commitment to Gibraltar remains, as ever, as solid as the Rock. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this statement to the House and for allowing me to have advance sight of it, but let me be clear: Parliament is reacting to events, rather than being respected as part of the process.

For weeks, detailed provisions of the treaty have circulated in the press before Members of this place have been permitted to see any legal text. That is not how serious constitutional business should be conducted. Now that we have the text, proper scrutiny must follow in this place and in Gibraltar. As we have consistently said, this must be a deal that the Government, the Parliament and, above all, the people of Gibraltar are comfortable with. It is right that the democratically elected Government of Gibraltar have led negotiations and prioritised a free-flowing border, but trade-offs come with that, and it is our duty to examine them carefully.

The sovereignty clause states that nothing in the treaty alters the respective legal positions of the UK or Spain, but sovereignty is not simply about words; it is about how arrangements operate in practice. What recourse does the United Kingdom have if there is an operational overreach by Spain, including in the exercise of border control powers within Gibraltar’s port and airport? Will British citizens be subject to the 90-day Schengen rule in Gibraltar? What is the reciprocal position for Spanish citizens, and what protections exist for British nationals with long-standing ties to Gibraltar who do not hold Gibraltar ID cards? What mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes when asymmetric decisions are taken at the border?

On customs, processing at EU-designated points in Spain and Portugal raises practical and constitutional questions. What oversight will the UK have, and what recourse exists if those arrangements fail to operate effectively? What protections are there for imports of British goods and for Gibraltar’s distinct economic model, particularly its financial services sector? Have the Government’s impact assessments fully examined UK-Gibraltar trade flows and potential adverse effects?

We must also address dynamic alignment. The treaty does not merely apply a fixed list of EU laws; it provides for future EU Acts listed in the annexes to be adopted and implemented, with serious consequences if they are not. Can the Minister explain clearly how this mechanism will operate, and how Gibraltar and the UK will avoid becoming subject to ongoing EU rule-taking without meaningful political control?

The treaty requires consistent interpretation of applicable Union law in line with case law of the European Court of Justice. In which precise areas will EU law bind Gibraltar’s domestic arrangements? What assessment has been made of the implications of future rulings for Britain’s national interest?

I must also draw attention to article 25 and its reference to the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister clarify how that provision operates within the treaty framework, and does adherence to the ECHR form a continuing condition of the agreement? No international agreement should pre-empt or constrain the sovereign right of this Parliament to determine the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Will the Minister confirm that under this treaty an EU national may have access to Gibraltar through the land border without restrictions, but a British national travelling from the UK could be banned from entering at the airport, including on the say of those carrying out Spanish border checks? More broadly, what domestic legislation will be required to give effect to the treaty, and will Parliament have the opportunity to amend it in the normal way?

On national security, Gibraltar’s naval base is of immense strategic importance. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that nothing in this agreement—now or through future implementation —can directly or indirectly impact the operations, freedom of action, access arrangements or security of the UK’s naval base in any way whatsoever?

Finally, process matters. Given the scale of the agreement, it is not possible to cover all its implications in this short exchange today. There are serious questions about the operation of the border and dual checks, the role of Spanish authorities at the airport, customs and taxation arrangements, business impacts, the adoption of future EU Acts listed in the annexes, ECJ interpretation and the domestic legislation required to implement the treaty. The Minister has said that it is a draft, so when does he expect it to be finalised? When will the CRaG process begin? There has been talk of early implementation, with Gibraltar suggesting 10 April. Can the Minister please clarify that? There must be time for the CRaG process, and it must be meaningful. Provisional application on 10 April must not reduce parliamentary scrutiny to merely a rubber stamp. Gibraltar has stood resolutely British since 1713, and its people have repeatedly affirmed that choice. Any treaty must be examined line by line by this Parliament.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. I have to say that I have been rather disappointed by the tone today, and indeed the tone taken in the media over the last few days on these issues, not least as I provided a very full briefing to the shadow Foreign Secretary in advance. The idea that we have not been communicating about this treaty is simply not correct. In a spirit of generosity, I am happy to offer further briefings for the shadow Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary in order to go through any detail in the treaty they would like. There is nothing to hide. We welcome their scrutiny, and we welcome the scrutiny of this House.

The shadow Minister asked about the timeline. Of course, there is a process in this place, but there are also processes in the EU. We are committed to that and to laying the finalised text after signature of the treaty, which we expect to take place next month. Of course, it will then go through the appropriate processes in relation to CRaG.

The shadow Minister asked about sovereignty and about recourse and dispute mechanisms. First, I need to make it absolutely clear that sovereignty was never on the table in these negotiations. It is not in doubt. That is an absolute, and this agreement safeguards that. There is a range of recourse and dispute resolution mechanisms attached to the treaty. She is welcome to go through those; I am happy to explain them in more detail. We have very much kept to the double lock, which we set out at the start of the process.

The shadow Minister asked about the 90-day rule. British citizens are not free at the moment just to turn up in Gibraltar without going through immigration checks; they are already subject to a 90-day rule. That is important to clarify, because there seem to have been some misunderstandings of that in relation to all our overseas territories recently. There is not an automatic right, and Gibraltar of course maintains immigration and security checks.

The shadow Minister asked about customs. Gibraltar is not joining the customs union, but it is entering into a bespoke customs arrangement with the EU to ensure, crucially, the fluidity of goods. It has chosen to enter into those arrangements, and it is obviously for it to decide what alignment it needs for that. Again, I think that reflects a wider challenge: the Opposition would rather stick with the ideology of the Brexit years than make pragmatic arrangements that deliver for the people of Gibraltar or indeed the people of this country. Crucially, the agreement is about facilitating trade. It is about facilitating the flow of goods and removing the checks and delays that have caused such frustration in the past.

The shadow Minister asked about the ECJ. I am happy to speak to her further about that. There is full detail in the treaty. She asked about the ECHR. Of course, we comply with the ECHR, as does Gibraltar and, indeed, Spain and the EU. We do not shy away from that, notwithstanding the reforms that we are seeking in the wider debates going on outside this place.

The shadow Minister asked for an absolute assurance about our military activities at Gibraltar. I can absolutely assure her that nothing, either now or in the future, will fetter our ability to operate unimpeded in the way that we, and indeed our allies, have done from the base. That was an absolute condition that we set. I am pleased with Spain’s very co-operative approach. It is a key NATO ally, and we co-operate with it in the defence and security of Europe. I am glad that we now have a co-operative and positive spirit of engagement not only with Spain, but with the EU and a range of partners.

Fundamentally, this agreement is good for Gibraltar, it is good for stability, it is good for prosperity and it is good for security. It is supported by the Government of Gibraltar, which was our primary concern throughout this process as well as protecting UK interests. I think we should all respect and get behind the Government of Gibraltar in support of this agreement.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I welcome this statement and place on record my strong support for the ratification of the treaty. This agreement represents a practical, well balanced and forward-looking settlement for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and our European partners. Crucially, the deal has the clear backing of the Government and the people of Gibraltar, and that point should carry significant weight across this House. We should be guided not by abstract political positioning, but by the lived reality of the community whose prosperity and security are directly affected. The treaty protects United Kingdom’s red lines. Sovereignty remains unchanged and was never in question. British jurisdiction is respected and Gibraltar—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think the question is done. I call the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with eloquence and expertise on these issues as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. She is a staunch defender of the people of Gibraltar, and of their rights, sovereignty and future prosperity. Like many Members of the House, she has visited Gibraltar with me. She has seen the reality on the ground, the difficulties resulting from the current arrangements, and the fears for the future. She is absolutely right that this Government are supported by Gibraltar. The treaty is good for the people of Gibraltar. I welcome her support and that of the all-party group on this matter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for contact about it in the preceding days.

The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. That was a shameful dereliction of their duty to protect Gibraltarians and the business community there. Now that we have a draft deal in place, we look forward to full scrutiny of the treaty in this House. It must meet a number of key tests.

The first of those tests is the question of sovereignty. The new agreement must leave no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty in Gibraltar. That is vital, given that we know from past experience that the Spanish Government are willing to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of any future possible unilateral action, giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Will the Minister confirm that the deal includes provisions for the agreement’s termination in the event that the UK and Gibraltarians view it as no longer being in our shared interest, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?

The second test is whether the deal gives genuine effect to the self-determination of the Gibraltarian community. Nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians, so will the Minister confirm that the Gibraltarian Government have led the negotiations and that their interests have been front and centre in them?

The final test is whether the deal actually works for the Gibraltarian economy. It must support jobs and economic growth in the territory. Will the Minister make available to the House the Government’s impact assessment of how the deal will support economic growth and jobs there?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his constructive approach and support. He is absolutely right to set out concerns in those three areas. I can absolutely assure him on all three points. I have been very clear about the sovereignty provisions. They are there in the explanatory documents, explaining that the deal does not affect our position on sovereignty. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected. There are dispute resolution mechanisms and termination provisions, and I am very happy to brief him and other Members further on them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about self-determination and the principle of nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. I can absolutely assure him that that is the case. Gibraltar was at the table throughout the negotiations. We have had a very constructive engagement with the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their whole team throughout the process. We were very clear that we would not enter into an agreement that did not have their full support. That is a very significant matter for the whole House to consider as we move forward.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the deal working for Gibraltar’s economy and growth. I can absolutely assure him that it does, with very pragmatic changes that will deliver for businesses. They will deliver for the free movement of goods, they will ensure that Gibraltar’s important services sector can continue to thrive without impediment, and, crucially, there will be the mobility of individuals across the border. Indeed, there is also an important provision on the ability for—subject to commercial decisions—flights to arrive from inside the EU into Gibraltar airport, which they are currently unable to do. That will be good for jobs, tourism and growth in the whole region.

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on impact statements. They will undoubtedly be in the purview of the Government of Gibraltar to do those assessments, but I will happily provide him with further information.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I put on record that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Spain. I congratulate the Government on this significant agreement. Can the Minister confirm that it provides additional safeguards to Gibraltar’s sovereignty, while creating new economic opportunities? I think he was alluding to that with the airport. I thank him for the hard work he and colleagues have done in rejuvenating our important relationship with Spain, which is a key NATO ally and our seventh-largest trading partner.

While I am speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for her commitment to the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar? For my part, when I visited Gibraltar last year and met community leaders, including senior business leaders, I was very struck by how low the stock of the Conservatives had fallen with the people of Gibraltar. I think the Conservatives have some bridges to mend.

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Spain. He is right that we have entered into a new era of co-operation with our friends in Spain on prosperity, on security and in many other areas. That in no way affects our commitment to stand by our red lines and principles in these negotiations. It shows that when things are approached with trust and respect, we can achieve what we need for the people of Gibraltar and the people of the United Kingdom, and see a flourishing relationship with our friends in Spain and, indeed, the European Union.

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

As a former Royal Marine, Gibraltar has a special place in my heart—we have “Gibraltar” emblazoned above our globe and laurel crest for the valiant efforts of former bootnecks in 1704. Having transferred seamlessly through Gibraltar on previous operations, I know how important it is to be able to transfer kit and equipment. The agreement seems to indicate that Gibraltar will be subject to Spanish export controls relating to defence equipment and dual-use technologies. Prior to agreeing the text, did the Minister consult the armed forces leadership in Gibraltar to ensure that service personnel can still carry on their duties, with kit not subject to Spanish export controls?

[Stephen Doughty]

I assure the hon. Member that we have worked closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I thank him for his previous service and indeed that proud history in relation to Gibraltar. I once saw the original reports from Trafalgar in an old edition of the Gibraltar Chronicle when I was in the Garrison library in Gibraltar. We are all well aware of that incredible history.

I assure the hon. Member that nothing in the agreement will fetter any ability of UK military forces to conduct operations; I assure him about those interests. I will not go into detail at the Dispatch Box, for obvious reasons, but I will be happy to explain to him privately some of the important provisions that we have in place to ensure that can continue.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

The people of Gibraltar have had 10 years of uncertainty since the Brexit vote, so I congratulate His Majesty’s Government, and indeed the Government of Gibraltar, on working so hard to get the treaty over the line. When I visited Gibraltar last year as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I was really impressed by our military personnel there. I was glad to hear what the Minister said about making sure none of that will be affected.

As I passed through, I also saw the fairly new airport and how empty it was. I was therefore glad to hear the Minister talk about the possibility of more flights coming through. Can he say more about how travel will be improved for the people of Gibraltar, and indeed for people across Europe—including our country—coming to visit Gibraltar?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said, I can assure my hon. Friend on the important provisions we have in place in relation to our military facilities. He rightly asked about transport and travel. The immediate benefit will be the end to the huge queues we have previously seen across Gibraltar’s border with Spain. That will be good for the whole region, and for economic benefits for the whole region.

My hon. Friend specifically asked about the airport. He knows that for years there has been a block on flights between Gibraltar and the EU. The treaty will now enable commercial flights—obviously subject to commercial decisions—between Gibraltar and EU member states, which will enhance Gibraltar’s status as a tourist destination and boost prosperity and opportunities across the whole region.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I hope the Minister will forgive me for not having read the tome that he has next to him. I want to probe him further on dispute resolution. A lot of hassle—criminality, really—happens in the Gibraltar seas. What co-operation may be in place between the Spanish Government and the Gibraltarian Government if resolutions cannot be found on the laws of the sea for some of the things that happen? The Minister spoke about resolutions in the treaty between Spain and Britain, but what will be the processes if the Gibraltarian Government do not feel that criminality is being acted on with appropriate speed?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Member asks an important question. The security of not only Gibraltar but the whole region is important to both the people of Gibraltar and the people of Spain. We have close co-operation between the Royal Gibraltar police and authorities and Spanish law enforcement, and this agreement will strengthen that co-operation. The Royal Gibraltar police will continue to be responsible for the safety and security of Gibraltar, but there are a range of provisions, including in relation to co-operation in the maritime domain and the safety and security of the whole region, that I am confident will improve co-operation on law enforcement, again to the benefit of residents on both sides of the border.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. What role will Parliaments have in the ongoing oversight and scrutiny of the operation and implementation of the Gibraltar agreement? Will the Government commit to having a vote in both the UK Parliament and the Gibraltarian Parliament?

[Stephen Doughty]

Matters for Gibraltar’s Parliament are obviously matters for that Parliament, but I can assure the hon. Lady that this treaty will go through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process in the normal way in this place. I wanted to take the important step of coming here to make a statement today, even with the draft treaty, to ensure that there was full scrutiny and that we get away from some of the nonsense that we have seen in the media about us somehow hiding this process from Parliament.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I was honoured to represent Gibraltar during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament, so I know how important their British identity is to our fellow citizens living there. I am pleased that the treaty was negotiated with and agreed by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, but can the Minister confirm that Gibraltar’s Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty and that we will have the opportunity to know that Parliament’s views before we vote in this House?

[Stephen Doughty]

It is my understanding that there will be a scrutiny process in the Gibraltar Parliament, although ultimately that is a matter for that Parliament. I know that this treaty has enjoyed lengthy discussion in Gibraltar. We have certainly worked closely with His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar at every stage of the process, and it is for them to go through their processes there—I understand that the Chief Minister has been making statements today. I am sure that we will have the chance to consider what the Gibraltar Parliament says. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that I have also met the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, and we engage across the political spectrum there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only apologise for being a naughty boy.

Hon. Members will remember that in 2001 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, entered into negotiations with Spain over a joint sovereignty agreement with Gibraltar, which resulted in a referendum in which 98.5% of Gibraltarians rejected that deal. Although the Government of Gibraltar welcome today’s treaty, which I am sure is well intentioned, the Minister will no doubt understand that there may be some concern with that history and the involvement of Spain in the operation and governance of Gibraltar. Can he therefore reassure the House, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarian people that any future changes to the current treaty and any further alignment with the EU will be done only with the agreement of the people of Gibraltar?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that. We were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Gibraltarian people were not content with. That is the principle of the double lock, which we have stuck to throughout this process. It is 2026, not 2001. We are confident that this deal protects our interests and the interests of the people of Gibraltar.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for his strong words. I am reminded of a wee saying that my mother used to use when I was young: once bitten, twice shy. With that in mind, I must ask the Minister a question. As a nation, Northern Ireland finds itself a slave to European diktats, with our state aid hampered, our trade disrupted and our democratic rights to representation withheld. I am therefore concerned for the Gibraltarian people, who are good friends of Northern Ireland—we have had a relationship over many years. I understand the difficulties they could face while the agreement does not make certain things clear. Will the cold hand of EU back-door unification come first before the Gibraltarian people? Their sovereignty must be able to stand against any EU aggression. I seek an assurance from the Minister—an honourable man who is much liked by everyone in the House, and by me in particular—that British citizens in Gibraltar can stand against EU back-door control of Gibraltarians, as indeed the EU has already done against us in Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that he is hugely respected, by me and others in this House. I can assure him that we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. Obviously, it is for them to decide the arrangements that they want to put in place to ensure their prosperity going forward. They are fully supportive of this agreement, which we think will be good for jobs and business in Gibraltar, good for the people of Gibraltar and, indeed, good for the prosperity of the whole region. I think it reflects a spirit of pragmatic co-operation with the EU, which we strongly welcome.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he reassure the House that the team who have negotiated the draft treaty that he has brought before us today have had nothing to do with the team that negotiated the disastrous Chagos deal? That deal is, I believe, as of yesterday, on pause, although No. 10 appears to be gainsaying that slightly now.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered many questions in this place on Chagos, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that read-across between these processes is completely erroneous. This is an agreement that is good for Gibraltar. It has been agreed by the Government of Gibraltar, and we have worked closely with the EU to ensure that it works for the prosperity and security of the people of Gibraltar. As I have said many times, it is hugely unhelpful to draw false comparisons between Chagos and the British Indian Ocean Territory, and indeed other overseas territories. Indeed, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has specifically cautioned against doing so—the hon. Gentleman might want to listen to him.

NPT Review Cycle: United Kingdom National Report

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Written Statements

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

Today the Government are publishing the United Kingdom’s updated national report under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The report reviews the UK’s progress against the treaty’s three mutually reinforcing pillars—disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy—and demonstrates our commitment to fulfil our obligations under the treaty.

The UK’s enduring commitment to the NPT

The UK was an original signatory of, and remains committed to, the NPT. We reaffirm our obligations under the treaty, including our undertaking—shared by the other NPT nuclear weapon states—to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament, consistent with the maintenance of international peace and security, always guided by the UK’s national interests and defence and security.

A more contested and volatile world

Russia’s aggression, strategic competition among major powers, advances in disruptive technologies, and challenges to the multilateral system have sharpened nuclear risks and made deterrence, defence and resilience ever more important for our national security. The 2025 strategic defence review and the national security strategy provided a comprehensive review of the strategic environment and the adaptations the UK must make to safeguard our national security.

Disarmament, transparency and risk reduction

The UK remains committed to the ultimate, long-term goal of multilateral disarmament, which we believe can best be achieved by a step-by-step, verifiable approach to disarmament consistent with the global security environment. This includes practical work on nuclear disarmament verification, risk reduction and transparency where it supports stability. Nuclear deterrence will remain the bedrock of our national security as we are confronted by more serious and less predictable threats.

Non-proliferation and safeguards

The International Atomic Energy Agency has a more important role than ever to ensure states can take advantage of the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear technology and prevent its misuse. This balance is delivered by adherence to the IAEA’s system of comprehensive safeguards agreements and the additional protocol, strengthened export controls and assistance to enhance the security of nuclear materials worldwide.

Peaceful uses and nuclear responsibility

The UK will continue to advance the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology—in medicine, agriculture, food security, climate change mitigation, adaptation and civil nuclear power—consistent with the NPT and in close co-operation with the IAEA and international partners. Access to the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies is a benefit that should be afforded sufficient importance, attention and resource.

Conclusion

The Government will work constructively with all NPT states parties ahead of the next NPT review conference to ensure the treaty endures as the irreplaceable foundation of the global nuclear order—reinforcing non-proliferation, enabling the responsible, peaceful uses of nuclear technology for the benefit of all and supporting disarmament progress where conditions allow. The UK national report is available on gov.uk, and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1368]

Ukraine

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate, particularly those who have recently returned from Ukraine, bringing powerful testimony. I have visited Ukraine three times since the start of what was rightly described as this phase of Russia’s illegal invasion, and I have had similar experiences; they have shown me the tenacity and courage of Ukrainians, which should inspire not only this country, but the whole world. I do not feel any surprise about that, because I have known Ukrainians for 30 years, often through their ties with south Wales. Cardiff, in my constituency, was twinned with Luhansk. It was Welsh people who helped found the industries in the Donbas and Donetsk. We have a Sebastopol in the south Wales valleys because of British and French troops fighting in the Crimean war in 1855.

We have very powerful Ukrainian communities locally—many Members have said that they do, too—and it was an honour in recent weeks to join my constituents who have reached out with their homes and their hearts to Ukrainians, as have the constituents of so many Members across this House. Just the other night, we celebrated the contribution of Ukrainian women through an incredible piece of theatre around motanka dolls, which, as some will know, are a very important part of Ukrainian culture.

Of course, women and girls and civilians have suffered terribly at the hands of Russia’s barbaric attacks, and we must show our continued support and solidarity every single day. I am glad that we have seen that support on both sides of the House. I do not want to sound a discordant note, because there is much unity in this House today and among most of the British people, but as the shadow Minister said, yet again we see one party absent, and absence speaks volumes. That is before we get on to their spouting of Kremlin narratives, or the activities of their former leader in Wales—and we need to speak about that, because it is a very serious issue, especially when we see the unity in the rest of this House. But I am very glad that we have signalled once again that we will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for years to come.

[Mr Francois]

We would all be intrigued to know who Reform’s defence spokesperson is, so if the Minister picks up any hints about that, perhaps he could give me a ring.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, that speaks volumes about where those Members of this House stand, but that is for them to explain.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

On the subject of Ukrainians living in the valleys, I was visiting some Ukrainians who are on the Homes for Ukraine scheme in Dawlish in my constituency, and I met a senior Ukrainian naval officer who was extremely grateful and very relieved that his family were safe and secure in Dawlish. I thank the Government for extending the Homes for Ukraine permission scheme by two years last summer, and I thank them again for this week enabling those on the scheme to apply for a visa extension within 90 days of the end of the visa, as opposed 28 days, as it was. That is a big relief to the Ukrainians in my constituency, and indeed to Ukrainian officers. What does the Minister think about the future for people from Ukraine who are in the UK?

[Stephen Doughty]

People from Ukraine are very welcome here, as has been shown by communities up and down the country, and indeed by many Members today, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the important change that we made this week; it was a point raised by many in the debate.

[David Taylor]

The Minister noted the absence of Reform from this debate. I also note the absence of the Green party. Perhaps they are too busy spreading sectarian hate up in Gorton and Denton, or undermining NATO at every corner. Does he agree?

[Stephen Doughty]

It speaks volumes, and it is not the first time. Frankly, the Greens’ comments on defence and NATO in the last few weeks have been shocking, and I said the other day that they should make those comments to people in Ukraine or the Baltics. Those were absolutely extraordinary comments, but they speak for themselves.

I, too, have made a long journey to be here. I have come directly from the United Nations Security Council, where yesterday I had the honour of chairing the session on Ukraine, and of speaking to the United Nations General Assembly. We joined Ukraine and more than 107 countries in voting for a resolution reaffirming support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. It was a powerful show of global support, but I also had to listen again and again to the abject lies of the Russian representatives. We all have a job to do in this place, in our communities and in international forums—whether the UN, the Council of Europe, which was mentioned, or the OSCE—to speak the truth and expose Russian lies, including in countries around the world where Russia is spreading disinformation and division.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend will know, our hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has done a lot of work on the stolen children. She said that the Minister had mentioned the issue in New York, and she was very touched by that. Does he agree that the work she has been doing, in the face of a horrendous situation, is fantastic?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely do. Like so many Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). She has just sent me a picture of her award from President Zelensky. She absolutely deserves that. She has spoken powerfully on these issues. That is why I wanted to communicate what she and so many others have been saying, and, most importantly, to give a voice to the Ukrainian children—I have met them through her work—who escaped that heinous activity. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for all the work that she has done. She has travelled to Ukraine on a number of occasions, and she always speaks up on these issues powerfully.

I was very clear at the United Nations that we need to keep up the pressure on Russia to engage meaningfully in the peace process. I was also clear about what peace requires: a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire; a settlement resulting in a secure, sovereign and independent Ukraine; stolen children and prisoners of war returned; and, crucially, justice for the crimes committed by Russia, including horrific sexual violence against men, women and children, as reported by the United Nations. As I said in New York, that is what every Ukrainian deserves, and what the world deserves.

As was pointed out, while I was in New York, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was demonstrating our solidarity with Ukraine on the ground in Kyiv. She announced: £30 million in additional funding to strengthen Ukrainian energy resilience and support recovery, taking total UK support to £21.8 billion since the start of the war; £25 million to help repair damaged energy infrastructure, and support the men, women and children whose lives continue to be uprooted by Russia’s aggression; and £5 million to support crucial justice and accountability for victims of alleged Russian war crimes.

The Foreign Secretary also announced our largest Russia sanctions package since 2022, with nearly 300 new sanctions against Russia, targeting its key revenue streams, critical military goods supply chains, and systems that have been set up, as has been pointed out, to undermine existing sanctions. There are now over 1,200 sanctions against individuals, entities and ships in the shadow fleet, which has been mentioned. Those sanctions are working. Russia’s federal oil and gas revenues fell 50% in the 12 months from January last year. Western sanctions have denied Russia access to at least $450 billion since February 2022, which is more than two years-worth of funding for its war machine against Ukraine.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response, and for his words of encouragement for us MPs, and for those outside who are watching. Earlier, I referred to Bucha, where the war crimes were unbelievable. I am very keen to ensure accountability and justice in the process, as we all are. What are the UK Government and the Minister—I know he is committed to this—doing to ensure that the evidential base is gathered to catch the people who carried out those crimes and make them accountable? They will be accountable in the next world; let us make sure that they are accountable in this, as well.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. A key part of the funding that the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday was for that, but there is also the work that we have done to support the judicial system and investigations in Ukraine, our work at the International Criminal Court, the work we are doing around a special tribunal on the crime of aggression, and the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. There are many different ways in which we will seek justice and accountability.

The hon. Gentleman references Bucha; I have heard of some most horrific things happening there, in particular regarding the treatment and killings of priests and religious figures. I spoke about that yesterday at the United Nations. There is a very serious situation in the temporarily occupied territories as regards freedom of religion and attacks on religious figures. I spoke about that with our colleagues in the United States while I was in Washington DC, just before I was at the United Nations.

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way again once briefly, but then I will respond to the points made in the debate.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry to hammer the nail on the point about insurance; I do not expect the Minister to make policy on the hoof, but so many of the Ukrainians we spoke to were so hard over on the point about insurance in London for the shadow fleet. Could the Minister at least give the House a commitment now that he will go away and work with ministerial colleagues to see what more can be done in this area? So many Ukrainians are asking for exactly that.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a very important point. I have had many conversations with the insurance industry over the past year and a half, and we continue to look at all the ways to choke off the energy revenues to Russia. I am not going to pre-announce decisions that we might make, but we have been very clear about what we see as the track on this. A substantial number of measures were announced yesterday, including on illicit oil trading networks, which were at the heart of some of the sanctions we announced. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to catch up; I am happy to offer further briefings on that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will respond to the points that were made in the debate, but I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman if we have time at the end.

Many Members raised issues around the deportation of children, which, having met some of those children, is a personal passion of mine. The work of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has been mentioned already. I held a meeting yesterday in New York with a number of European and other countries, including Canada, as well as Mariana Betsa, the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister, to discuss our work together on this issue specifically. We are working closely with the United States, the EU, Canada, as chair of the coalition, and of course with Ukraine directly.

We have committed more than £2.8 million to support efforts to facilitate return and reintegration. Since September, the pilot tracing mechanism that we have been working on with Ukraine has identified more than 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated within temporarily occupied territories. We are working with a number of non-governmental organisations and others on this matter, too. I can assure the House that we continue to see this as a major priority. We are most focused on the measures that work and can actually identify, trace, return, reintegrate and support those who have been affected. We also sanctioned 11 more perpetrators of Russia’s heinous policy in this area in September.

On overall financial support, I remind the House that we have committed up to £21.8 billion for Ukraine—that is £13 billion in military support, which the Defence Secretary spoke about, including our £2.26 billion ERA loan contribution, and up to £5.3 billion in non-military support, as well as export finance cover via UK Export Finance, which has been crucial for reconstruction and defence projects. We are continuing to get that money out of the door and to the Ukrainians. We will continue to look at all the ways in which we can enhance our programmes. I have worked particularly with our fantastic teams who work on the official development assistance budget for Ukraine to ensure that we are focusing in on support for the energy system and the long-term reconstruction work that will be needed.

Members have raised points about Russian sovereign assets. We were always clear that we would move in parallel with international partners on this, and, in the light of the EU decision, which some people will be aware of, we will nevertheless continue to work with the G7 and the EU to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs and that Russia will ultimately pay for the damage it has caused. We welcome the agreement of the European Council to provide this new €90 billion loan, and the Prime Minister has welcomed the steps that could allow the UK to take part in that loan to Ukraine, too. We will explore all opportunities to get Ukraine what it needs.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way; had I got here a little earlier, I would have tried to make my own speech.

We brought back three home truths from Ukraine. First, we were asked so often, “Why do all these rich western European countries only give us enough to continue fighting but not enough to win?” Unless we change that, we are just offering a recipe for a continuing war.

Secondly, Members should have no doubt that the Ukrainian Government are resolved to carry on fighting in the absence of an acceptable peace settlement. If that means planning for the next two or three years, that is what they are talking about. They are not talking about collapsing at all, and that will never happen—I make that forecast.

Finally, Ukrainians are grateful for the coalition of the willing initiative, but they are very disappointed that the United Kingdom and France were the only two countries to sign the memorandum at the end of that meeting. Nothing has really happened since. They are also very concerned about the lack of war readiness among NATO forces. Given how utterly transformed Ukrainian forces are in terms of their capability to fight the Russians, what are we doing to transform our armed forces so that, with limited manpower, like the Ukrainians, we can hold back a Russian advance and ultimately protect NATO?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been clear, as has the Defence Secretary, about our commitments on military and non-military support, which endure and will continue to endure. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. As was brought up several times in the debate, we are also ensuring that we are learning. This is a two-way process and we are learning from Ukraine as well.

On the preparation for our own defences, just three weeks ago I went to Latvia to see the incredible work we do in the Baltics. I saw the incredible work of the drone coalition, not only to support Ukraine with the Octopus drones, but in learning for ourselves the tactics and techniques that are being used. I assure the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and other Members that that work is going on.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way, but I want to respond to some more points first, including on the moneys from the sale of Chelsea football club. Let me be clear to the House again: the Government are giving Mr Abramovich the last chance to do the right thing and donate the £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea FC to support the people of Ukraine, as was committed to back in 2022. The House will know that in December we issued the licence that permits the transfer of the funding into a new foundation. We have strived to find a way forward with Mr Abramovich. We would have preferred for him to have taken that action, with the co-operation of him and his company Fordstam. We are now urging him to honour that commitment, but if he fails to act quickly, we are fully prepared to go to court to enforce it if necessary. We are working with international partners to ensure that proceeds reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible.

A number of Members mentioned refined oil products, wider maritime services and an LNG ban. We have announced our intention to ban imports of oil products refined in third countries from Russian-origin crude oil. I very much recognise the points that were raised. We also intend to introduce a maritime services ban on liquefied natural gas, phased in over 2026 in lockstep with the EU, which will restrict Russia’s ability to export.

Members raised the issue of imports and exports to the UK. I have some updated figures, which we can provide, but the most recent data shows that UK imports from and exports to Russia dropped by 99.6% and 87.6% respectively, compared with 2021, so there has been a substantial change.

On the wider Russian energy sector, along with the designation we made yesterday, we have designated Russia’s four largest oil majors: Gazprom Neft and PJSC Surgutneftegas on 10 January, and Rosneft and Lukoil on 15 October. That is already having a clear impact. Chinese state oil majors are reportedly suspending purchases, Indian refiners are reportedly pausing new orders, and Russia’s federal oil and gas revenues fell 50% year on year in January 2026. This is having a material impact on Russia’s ability to wage war.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. While we were in Ukraine we also met the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who had led a delegation of physiotherapists who were working with the Ukrainians.

Another ask that we perhaps did not expect to hear was that, as far as the Ukrainians were concerned, there were not enough British businesses coming out to do business—not so much to do good, but to do business and to integrate our trade. They felt that there was greater commercial engagement from other countries than from the UK, which they saw as a particularly good ally. Could the Minister say whether, through the Department for Business and Trade, we can do more, such as taking more trade delegations, and really lean in to support trade in both directions?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, on which our trade envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), is doing excellent work. We are looking at all opportunities to engage UK businesses in a range of sectors. Again, it is a two-way process. Our partnership with Ukraine is for 100 years. This is not just about the support that we offer Ukraine now; it is about the opportunities for the future in a peaceful, secure and sovereign Ukraine. I think the UK and Ukraine working together are going to be a powerful force in the world to come.

Ukrainians in the UK were mentioned on a number of occasions. We are very proud of what people across this country have done to support Ukrainians. Over 300,000 Ukrainians and their families have been supported. Ukrainians living in the UK can now apply to stay for an additional 18 months, and as of yesterday Ukrainians wishing to extend their stay in the UK will be able to apply up to 90 days before their current permission expires, which is treble the current 28 days. We will continue to listen to Ukrainian communities and give families a greater sense of security about their future.

Members asked questions about the multinational force. I am not, for obvious reasons, going to get into details on this, because it would be irresponsible to share operational details prematurely, but we are very clear that this will be a visible and tangible international support for Ukraine’s return to peace. It will regenerate Ukraine’s land forces and establish and maintain safe skies, safe seas and strong borders. It is not just about the contribution we will make directly to that, which the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister have spoken about; it is about training and equipping Ukraine’s armed forces, as we have done for so long.

We will continue to support a range of other projects in humanitarian energy stabilisation, reform, recovery and reconstruction. We are working through British International Investment, and we are using every channel, every sinew and every way that we can to stand with Ukraine—not just through words but in practical terms.

Many very helpful points were made by Members today. We will continue to offer briefings to Members of the House and, as ever, my door remains open for those who have specific concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and others raised some particular concerns that I am happy to take away. I am also happy to offer briefings with officials on the specific technical topics that were raised.

[Richard Foord]

My specific concern is about the maritime services ban for the transport of Russian liquefied natural gas. It was announced by the Foreign Secretary last November, but it is not due to come into effect until the end of this calendar year. It is looking like it will take more than a whole year. Can the Minister explain why it needs to take so long?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I set out a moment ago, it is our intention to introduce the ban, and we are working at pace. The hon. Member will appreciate that these are extremely complicated measures, both legally and in terms of the procedures that need to be in place. It also requires a substantial amount of international co-ordination to have effect and to not have loopholes. We have to work very closely with other partners on this.

I can assure the hon. Member that I am personally working very hard to accelerate the ban as fast as we can. We need to do everything we can to choke off the revenues that are fuelling the war machine, and it is a personal mission of mine to do that. I am very happy to give him further briefings on this matter outside the Chamber.

Let me conclude by reiterating that Ukraine’s victory is essential not only for Ukraine but for Europe’s future and the future of this country. A secure, independent Ukraine strengthens Europe and Britain. It reinforces the message we took to the United Nations yesterday that borders cannot be changed by force and that democratic nations will stand together against authoritarian pressure and barbarism. As Ukraine enters its fifth year of this phase of the invasion, we will continue alongside international partners to sustain the support that Ukraine needs today.

I pay tribute to the incredible work of our teams at the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the team in Kyiv and at our new office in Lviv, and the country-based staff. They are enduring the same as Ukrainians in terms of blackouts, attacks and winter conditions, yet they do their work with dedication and absolute professionalism. The spirit that is exemplified in this House today is being exemplified on the ground by them. I am delighted that Members here have been able to meet them.

I end by again paying tribute to the Ukrainian people. I say to those fighting on the frontlines, to the families that are separated and to the civilians who are enduring hardship with extraordinary dignity, we will continue to stand with you and support you every step of the way, because we know that your struggle is a reminder of what is at stake: freedom, self-determination and a rules-based order that protects us all. We will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

Ukraine: British Embassy Office in Lviv

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce to the House that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office formally launched a permanent British embassy office in Lviv, Ukraine, on 12 February 2026. The office, headed by a member of country-based staff, represents the UK in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, Volyn, Rivne, Zakarpattia, Khmelnytskyi and Chernivtsi regions.

The British embassy office in Lviv was established in 2023 as a temporary measure in the uncertain aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Its transition to a permanent British presence in western Ukraine is a firm demonstration of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership in action. Signed on 16 January 2025 by UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and President of Ukraine Volodomyr Zelensky, the 100-year partnership is an investment in our two countries for the next century, bringing together technology development, scientific advances and cultural exchanges, and harnessing the phenomenal innovation shown by Ukraine in recent years for generations to come. Core to that partnership is enhanced collaboration between regions and local administrations across the UK and Ukraine.

Lviv is a critical hub for the UK’s presence in Ukraine, serving as a centre of governance, diplomacy and humanitarian co-ordination in the west of the country. Lviv serves as Ukraine’s western gateway to the EU and NATO. It is a vital corridor for trade, humanitarian aid, military logistics and diplomatic engagement. Since the full-scale invasion, Lviv and other regions in the west of Ukraine have become a humanitarian hub, attracting displaced civilians, non-governmental organisations and international missions.

Lviv is also one of the most dynamic economic regions of Ukraine: Lviv’s IT cluster is Ukraine’s largest association of tech companies, universities and other organisations, working to transform Lviv into a global innovation and investment hub. The region’s tech sector, alongside energy, transport and defence, is central to Ukraine’s efforts against Russian aggression, and provides significant growth opportunities for British companies.

The office was formally opened by His Majesty’s ambassador to Ukraine, Neil Crompton CBE, alongside the governor of Lviv region, Maksym Kozytskyy, and mayor of Lviv, Andriy Sadovyi. This was then formally announced by the Foreign Secretary at the Munich Security Conference on Sunday 15 February who said:

“The formal opening of our office in Lviv is a symbol of our enduring commitment to Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine until it is victorious against Putin’s invasion—and we want to increase trade and cultural links with the whole of Ukraine.

Our formal presence in Western Ukraine will allow us to do just that, benefiting Ukrainian businesses and supporting its reconstruction.”

[HCWS1344]

Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and indeed it was a pleasure to see Sir Jeremy in the Chair before you. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for all his work on Ukraine, not just in leading this debate, but as envoy and, indeed, in chairing the APPG. I see many friends around the room—steadfast friends of Ukraine through many years, including some whom I have travelled with to Ukraine, where we saw at first hand the barbarity of what Russia has done there.

Given that the subject has been raised, I have to ask: where are Reform Members today? They are Putin’s admirers, and Members from across the House have set out their record. I also have to ask: where are the Green party Members? This week, apparently, they were saying that we do not need to spend money on defence. I ask them to tell that to the people of the Baltic countries, or indeed the people of Ukraine, because it is foolish and deeply naive.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Minister mentioned the Baltic states. On Monday, 26 January, the Government published a strategy, in which 14 Baltic and North sea states are involved, to tackle the Russian shadow fleet. Would he reflect on the fact that that is an excellent lever to put pressure on the economy of Russia, so that Russia is less likely to make demands, and end the war? Equally, will he advise us what teeth the new strategy to tackle the shadow fleet will have?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Helpfully, I have just come back from the Baltic states; I have been in Lithuania and Latvia for the last two days. It is very clear that in tackling the shadow fleet and Russian aggression, not only against Ukraine, on which we stand in solidarity with one another and with Ukraine, but in defending Europe as key NATO allies, we are working very closely with our Baltic partners.

Members made many important points about the history in relation to this very specific issue. Just yesterday, I was honoured to share with my Latvian counterparts that, of course, Britain did not recognise the occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union throughout all that time, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who is a former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, set out. That was a very important signal, which is hugely recognised and absolutely crucial. Similarly, we do not and we will not recognise Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine; for that reason, they have rightly been described as “temporarily occupied”. Internationally recognised borders cannot be changed by force.

In the Baltic states, I saw the reality of what we are discussing today. Just two days ago, I walked around a former KGB prison in Vilnius, as well as seeing the Holocaust memorial and recognising what we have been recognising today and all this week, but also the brutality of the Soviet regime and of Russian imperialism more generally. I heard tragic historical accounts of poisonings, killings, detentions, show trials, and the murder of priests and others.

This is all from the same playbook, and we know that President Putin and his regime continue to go by it. The Baltic states know that, we know it, Ukraine knows it, and Members were absolutely right to highlight the appalling atrocities against people in the temporarily occupied areas.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I, too, have been to the Museum of Occupations in Vilnius. It is a remarkable fact that it is in the building that was occupied by the Gestapo, which was then simply taken over by the KGB, who continued to murder people in the basement. That tells us something about the similarity between the atrocities carried out by the Nazis and those carried out under communism.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member. It is a very powerful place to visit to see that reality.

Like many colleagues in the House, I have been in Kyiv when the city has been under attack. It is important to recognise the particular brutality of attacks in recent days and the loss of life. There have been attacks on trains, civilians, kindergartens and schools, leaving families not only in the cold but without access to water and without light. As part of our school twinning programme, I spoke just the other day with young children in a school in Kyiv that is twinned with a school here in the UK. Luckily, they had power at that time and could do the link-up, but there had been a major attack nearby. That reality should sit starkly in all our minds.

Of course, there is a proud link between my part of the United Kingdom and the temporarily occupied territories: Cardiff was twinned with Luhansk, and Donetsk was founded by a Welshman. We also have many links with Crimea: Welsh troops fought in the Crimean war, and that is why we have a Sebastopol in the south Wales valleys. These things echo down our history, and we stand with Ukraine today and will continue to do so into the future.

We will stand by Ukraine’s side until peace comes, and until those territories are returned. In the meantime, we welcome the continued US-led peace efforts, including last week’s trilateral talks. Let us be clear: Ukraine is the one showing its commitment to peace and to agreeing a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and Russia is stalling, repeating maximalist demands and continuing to carry out vicious strikes against Ukraine’s civilian population, plunging families into freezing conditions and starving them of necessities.

Next month marks a solemn milestone: four difficult years since the full-scale invasion. Soon after that, it will be 12 years since the occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea. As Members have rightly highlighted, Russia’s occupation has always been rooted in repression, including systematic human rights abuses, the suppression of Ukrainian culture, language and independent media, and the deportation and attempts at the Russification of children. Schools have been forced to follow Kremlin curriculums, residents have been pushed to use the rouble and obtain Russian passports, and Russia has attempted to absorb the occupied regions into its legal system. That is not governance; it is despotism, and we should see it for what it is.

The humanitarian situation in the occupied territories is extreme. Medical facilities are overstretched, and often prioritise the Russian military’s needs over those of civilians. Civilians face arbitrary detention, deportation and strict movement controls, with independent monitoring simply impossible; I am glad that Members have raised individual cases today. We have spoken many times about the appalling and heinous crime of the forced deportation of Ukrainian children and their attempted indoctrination in so-called patriotism camps with military-style training. We stand with the children of Ukraine and all those seeking to return, identify and trace them. I pay tribute to the cross-party work that has gone on around that, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who is not in her place.

We have announced additional support in recent weeks to respond to humanitarian concerns, particularly on energy, including an additional £20 million for energy security and resilience to keep lights on and homes warm when civilians need it most. We will also be expanding our school twinning scheme, building resilience between our peoples, and ensuring that we continue to provide support for reconstruction and the development of Ukraine’s economy. We look to a time when there will hopefully be peace, when Ukraine can be reconstructed and we can get back to a situation where its people are able to thrive independently—and with hope—as Ukrainians in the future.

Accountability has rightly been raised many times today. Just before Christmas, I was proud to sign a treaty in The Hague that established a claims commission for Ukraine, providing a route for accountability and reparation, including for the families of illegally deported children. Last week, registered claims reached 100,000, with more categories to follow. That sends a clear message that violations of international law will not go unanswered, and we will continue to support the commission’s work, building on our role chairing the register of damage.

Sanctions were rightly raised, and we continue to increase the economic pressure on Putin. We have sanctioned more than 900 individuals, entities and ships, including 520 oil tankers. We are working with partners to counter the shadow fleet through further sanctions. We will also—although I will not comment on future designations—look at those who have been involved in the commission of atrocities, and of course Members rightly mentioned those who have been involved in the deportation of children. These measures are making a tangible difference: Russian oil revenues are at a four-year low and Russia’s economy is in its weakest position since the start of the full-scale invasion.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and positive responses to questions. In a recent debate, I made a point about accountability for those who have committed massacres, persecution, rape and sexual abuse. It is very important that those who think they have got away with it do not get away with it. Is that part of the accountability process?

[Stephen Doughty]

It absolutely is. We are supporting the Ukrainian authorities with their own domestic accountability processes and through our work with the International Criminal Court, the special tribunal and the claims commission for the damage that Russia has done.

Our work through the coalition of the willing, which was raised by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), is unwavering, because Russia’s aggression threatens not only Ukraine, but Europe and all of us here in the UK. The coalition of the willing is committed to delivering robust security guarantees. Importantly, the Paris meeting delivered a declaration of intent to deploy a multinational force and a vision for a multi-layered package of security guarantees supported by the United States. For obvious reasons, I will not get into specific operational details; the Opposition have asked us a number of times, but I do not think that would be helpful at this stage. However, Members can be assured that that declaration, as well as the additional support for training and equipping Ukrainian forces so that they can defend their country and deter against future aggression—Interflex, Orbital and other things were mentioned—is crucial.

Many different points were raised, and I will happily come back to Members on specific questions if I have not covered them. We are deeply concerned about the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which was mentioned, and have consistently underlined that the only way to ensure nuclear safety and security at Zaporizhzhia is for the plant to be returned to Ukraine. We continue to invest a huge amount in military support. We have invested £600 million in drones alone and delivered 65,000 military drones to Ukraine in just six months. We have invested £13 billion in total in military support. Many Members have rightly made it clear that they speak on behalf of their constituents who want to stand with the people of Ukraine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made that very clear.

The Government will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We will continue working with our partners to hold Russia to account. Internationally agreed borders cannot be changed by force. Attempts to impose an Administration on Ukrainian territory will never legitimise any false claims by Russia. We will never waver in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine will endure and we will be by its side.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s plans for the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

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

I hope that you make a swift recovery, Mr Speaker—having injured my ankle just before Christmas, I know how painful it can be.

On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base, as I have said in the House many times, is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, including the United States. It is essential to keeping British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership, because it enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including threats from terrorism and hostile states. Its unique strategic location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific. The facility has also helped the collection of data used to support counter-terrorism operations against, for instance, high-value Islamic State targets in recent years.

As we have made clear many times in the House, the UK will never compromise on our national security, and, as we have been repeatedly making clear, the agreement that we have struck is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is vital for both the UK and the United States, which had been under threat, as the Opposition fully understood and on which they were briefed. The deal secures the operations of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia for generations. It was publicly welcomed by the United States, Australia and all other Five Eyes partners, as well as key international partners, including India, Japan and South Korea.

Just last week, the House spent two hours debating the Lords amendments to the Bill. The Opposition will know, of course, that the programming of business in the other place is a matter for the other place and not for us. However, the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments has been delayed because the Opposition tabled a wrecking amendment hours before the other place rose—[Interruption]—I think this just shows the measure of them, Mr Speaker—and a day before a scheduled debate. This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the official Opposition in the second House, using programming tactics to frustrate the implementation of a treaty on a critical national security matter.

I have to say that stands in stark contrast to the reasoned and constructive criticisms, questions and suggestions from Members in other parties, and indeed from Cross Benchers. We have engaged with those in good faith at every stage, and we will continue to do so. This is on the official Opposition, because their amendment is not only unnecessary; it is toying with our national security. It is only right that we take time to consider the next steps on programming, because we remain confident that this treaty is the best way forward.

The Lords will consider the Commons amendments in due course, and that will be announced in the usual way. The Government are committed to the deal that protects the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Some have sought to sabotage the process through procedural motions and parliamentary stunts. We, instead, are focused on delivering this Bill to protect our national security.

[Priti Patel]

Labour’s Chagos surrender humiliation continues. Today the Government were hoping to force through their surrender Bill in the House of Lords—giving away territory, handing over £35 billion to a foreign Government allied to China, and betraying the Chagossians. But after the Conservatives pointed out how their surrender would violate our existing international obligations and challenged the Government, the Government pulled the Bill from the House of Lords Order Paper to avoid being defeated.

In its rush to appease left-wing lawyer friends, Labour overlooked the 1966 treaty between the UK and the US. I have a copy in front of me for the Minister to read. It states that the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under the United Kingdom’s sovereignty.”

Does the Minister accept that the Bill and the treaty with Mauritius violate the 1966 treaty with the US? Following the US President saying that the UK is giving away the Chagos Islands

“FOR NO REASON WHATSOVER…There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness…The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”,

can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the US Administration in the last few days and whether they have communicated that they are now reviewing the deal?

Britain’s weak Prime Minister seemed to suggest in the House last week that he was being bullied by the President, which is quite a personal statement. Has the Prime Minister had a direct discussion with the President about Chagos in the last week, and can the Minister confirm that any changes to our 1966 treaty with the US will undergo parliamentary scrutiny under the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process, with time given for debates and votes? Does he accept that it would be logical for this House to consider amendments to the 1996 treaty with the US before proceeding with the Bill? Can the Minister confirm that upon appointment as the British Indian Ocean Territory envoy and before becoming National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations with Mauritius to surrender the Chagos Islands? It is time Labour saw sense, scrapped this treaty and stood up for Britain.

[Stephen Doughty]

I did think that perhaps the right hon. Lady might have something more, but the tone, the braying and the noise reflect a simple political stunt from the Conservatives, which is deeply regretful when we are talking about such important matters of national security.

The right hon. Lady asks specifically about the US-UK exchange of notes. I am genuinely surprised about that, because we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration.

Perhaps the Conservatives have only just clocked on to the need to update the UK-US agreement, but the Minister in the other place answered the noble Lord Callanan’s question on 22 December:

“Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters on the operation of the Diego Garcia Base.”

We have been clear about that throughout, so presenting this as some sort of gotcha and saying that we have not looked at the law is absolute nonsense. Frankly, it is deeply, deeply irresponsible.

We have made excellent progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement. For the record—because the Conservatives will not have looked at any of the history of this—the UK-US agreement was updated in 1972 and 1976, twice in 1987, and in 1999, so this is a regular process. We have had to update it, for a range of reasons, in the past. We were always clear about the need to put in place the necessary domestic and international legal processes to deal with this matter. The idea that this is something new, or some sort of gotcha, is simply for the birds.

The right hon. Lady asks about the contact with the United States. We remain engaged with the United States on a daily basis on matters relating to our national security. We will continue to engage with it on this important matter and on the importance of the deal to secure US and UK interests, and allay any concerns, as we have done throughout this process. There is nothing new in that, and it is absolutely right that we do so.

The right hon. Lady’s claims about China were simply rubbish. I am really surprised that the Conservatives continue to play these shocking party political games.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I am sorry that I am the only Labour Back Bencher who wants to speak. I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, and I fear that I am not going to say anything he particularly likes. I have followed this matter as closely as possible, and I have gone along with the Government up to this point, but it has been against my instincts. I still cannot understand exactly what we are doing here. International agreements do not protect us against our enemies or our allies; sovereignty does. I genuinely think that the people we represent will be asking, “Why can the Prime Minister not step forward, assert sovereignty over these islands, and make it clear that we have the military defence to defend them?”

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend has perhaps not been in for some of the previous debates on this, but I have set out why on a number of occasions. [Interruption.] Again, there is a lot of noise from the Conservatives, but they knew the problem here. They knew the risk to the operations of the base, which is why they engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations. I say again that the operations of this base were under threat, and we are not willing to play roulette with our national security. We therefore put in place the necessary steps to protect—and this is the crucial thing—the operations of that base, and our ability to carry them out fully in the way they are today, from the threats to it that existed. They put our national security—

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

What threats?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member asks what the threats are. I have set those out on many occasions in this House. What is more, we have secured better protections in this deal than the Conservatives attempted to negotiate, including the buffer zone and the protections in relation to foreign forces on the outer islands. The priority for us has been securing our national security and the operation of this base for us and our allies.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Liberal Democrats have argued consistently that the Chagossians’ right to self-determination should be honoured, so even at this eleventh hour I ask the Government to reconsider their obstinate refusal to give Chagossians a voice over the homeland from which they were shamefully and violently removed. Will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place that seeks to secure binding guarantees from the Government of Mauritius? The Government have also failed to address the concerns shared across this House about the vast sums of public money due to be sent to the Government of Mauritius over the lifetime of this agreement. We should not sign 99 cheques today that Mauritius can cash over the next century, so will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place to give Parliament annual scrutiny of the payments made to Mauritius? In the light of the shifting US position, I encourage the Minister to consider soberly the approach the Government are taking, and I urge him to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place for a pause while the US position is clarified.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the other place have given serious and considered reflections on this Bill a number of times. We have discussed them privately and responded to them in the other place, and I will certainly listen very closely to what he has said on a number of issues. Those include continuing to update both Houses on the cost issues and other matters, although I am sure he agrees that some of the wild figures we have heard quoted are simply not accurate or based in any kind of fact.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the Chagossians. He knows that I and others have engaged with Chagossian communities on a number of occasions, and a wide range of views have of course been expressed by Chagossian communities. He knows that a referendum would not have resolved this long-standing issue between the UK and Mauritius, which required state-to-state negotiations. Indeed, the courts here, noting the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritians rather than of Chagossians, and that remains the fact.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about Chagossian communities. He knows my commitment to them, to listening to the range of views and to trying to do the right thing, including acknowledging the deep wrongs of the past. We will continue to engage with him and his colleagues, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the amendments in the other place.

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

The Minister is keeping up a brave face in public, but when he goes back to his colleagues he will have to tell them that the only contribution from his own Back Benches was to disagree with the Government’s position, and to do so bravely and articulately.

Does the Minister accept that the reason that this Bill may not go through is the work of the Conservative Opposition in both Houses of Parliament and the words of the leader of the Reform party in Mr Trump’s ear? Does that not show what can be achieved when two parties make common cause in a very worthwhile aim to achieve a vital objective?

[Stephen Doughty]

That comment speaks for itself, but I must say that I am absolutely astonished. Perhaps the right hon. Member is next on the defection list.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Oh, grow up, you silly little man!

[Stephen Doughty]

Those are absolutely extraordinary comments. We have made very clear how this deal supports our national security interests and those of the US—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the right hon. Member will want to withdraw that comment.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I withdraw it, Sir.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I think the tone of Opposition Members tells everybody—it tells the public—exactly what is going on here, which is political game playing. There were hundreds of votes the other day for ensuring that the Bill went through, because it has the consent of this House, and it is deeply irresponsible for Opposition Lords to be playing reckless games with our national security in the other place.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I will tell the Minister what is deeply irresponsible, and that is to give away our national sovereignty and damage our national security interests. That is what is deeply irresponsible, and thank heavens the US Administration have now realised that they were deliberately misled by our National Security Adviser and the Foreign Office—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker is listening intently. The National Security Adviser deliberately misled the American Administration, and they are angry. They are furious at what has gone on, and that is why they have changed their tune. Will the Minister confirm that if the Americans will not sign the update to this agreement, it is dead and buried? And who will resign?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not going to take any lessons in national security from the fake patriots over there on the Opposition Benches and a party whose leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to promote narratives from the Kremlin. I think Conservative Members ought to be very careful about who they associate with.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The Minister, who is normally a reasonable fellow, always makes the point that the last Conservative Government started the negotiations. Does he now understand that, first, we were unable to conclude them and that, secondly, we would never have agreed or concluded the very one-sided deal that he and his colleagues have so naively and mistakenly agreed?

[Stephen Doughty]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to publish what costs the then Government were willing to pay for this deal.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

In answer to a recent written question, a Defence Minister confirmed that

“all decisions on whether to approve foreign nations’ use of military bases in the UK for operational purposes considers the legal basis and policy rationale for any proposed activity.”

Can the Minister confirm that this commitment on the use of military bases in the UK by allies such as the US also applies to the military base at Diego Garcia?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am afraid that I might need to write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail on that very specific point, but I can assure him that our operation of military bases, whether alone or with allies, is always in accordance with international law. That is why we have followed the process that we have in updating the different pieces of legislation and other agreements that need to be updated.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

When did the Minister first learn that the United States could effectively veto this agreement with Mauritius?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not really understand the premise of the question. We have always been clear that we would work closely with our key defence and security ally the United States in securing the base on Diego Garcia. We have set out on a number of occasions the processes by which we would need to bring this treaty into force. There is simply no gotcha moment here. This has been clear, and it was made clear to those in the other place, but perhaps Members have not been reading the answers to the questions.

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

Is it not clear that the Minister, who is normally very benign, is now rather tetchy? If he was so sure of what he says, why did he not make a statement rather than be dragged to the Floor of the House by the Opposition? When the previous Foreign Secretary made the clear statement that, if the US says no, this deal is off, was he referring to the 1966 arrangements or was he just doing it off the cuff?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have always been clear that we would work closely with the United States to put in place the agreements to protect our national security and the operations on Diego Garcia. That is exactly what we have done. That is exactly what this Bill and this deal secures. I have set out clearly the importance of updating the exchange of notes. That has been clear throughout and it was made clear in the other place before Christmas. It has been made clear on a number of occasions. Really, there is nothing new here.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that, ever since the brutal removal of Chagossians from their homes in the 1970s and 1980s, their one unifying factor has been their determination and desire to return? Will he also confirm that international law indicates that the Chagos islands—both the archipelago and Diego Garcia—should be, under decolonisation statute, handed over to Mauritius, and that the only way of guaranteeing the right of return of Chagos islanders is for the House to accept the treaty that the Government have negotiated, which is supported by the Chagos Refugees Group, largely based in Mauritius and the Seychelles, and some of the Chagos islanders who live in this country. [Interruption.] Of course there is debate—nothing wrong with that—but this guarantees a right of return.

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been clear about that on a number of occasions. The right hon. Gentleman sets out very many important aspects of the history of this matter, and importantly puts on record the views of a range of other Chagossian groups who speak in support of the treaty and in support of the deal, primarily because it gives them the best chance to be able to resettle on the outer islands. We continue to support them on that measure, and we will continue to engage with all Chagossian communities—even, of course, those who disagree with the deal—to ensure that their needs and concerns are heard both in this country and internationally. That is also why we are capitalising the Chagossian trust fund.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I think it is unprecedented at such an event for only one Government Back Bencher to speak, and the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) very bravely spoke against the deal. It is very important that the sovereignty of these islands remains British. That was highlighted in the Labour manifesto, which stated:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories…Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”

May I suggest a gentle down ramp for the Minister, for whom I have a lot of admiration, which is simply to just not find the time in the other place to progress things and allow Prorogation to gently wash this particular piece of proposed legislation out to sea?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been clear throughout that the national security of our country comes first—and the national security of our allies and partners—which is why the previous Government were engaging to do a deal. They recognised the threat to the operations of the base. We concluded that deal. We have a deal that secures the future operations on Diego Garcia well into the next century. That is the most important thing in this whole process.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Unusually, the Minister has resorted to bluster today, accusing those of us who are opposed to the treaty of being “irresponsible” and “toying with” the security of the country. Does he not accept that it is the Government who are toying with the security of this country by ignoring the views of the Americans who use the Diego Garcia base, the fears of the Chagossians and the drain on public finances? Are the Government not using their majority and their Members as pawns to push through a deal that they know is wrong, unfair and dangerous for the country?

[Stephen Doughty]

I should clarify that I was referring not to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the irresponsible procedural game playing by Opposition peers in the other place. Many people, including those who oppose the Bill, have raised serious, considered comments on and criticisms of the Bill which we have tried to engage with in good faith. I do not recognise his comments about the cost. This is a priceless national security asset, and the deal compares well with what other countries pay for their bases, such as France’s base in Djibouti. This is a crucial deal for the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies. We will never compromise on national security and on protecting this country from terrorism and hostile states. That is absolutely crucial. That is why we are doing this deal.

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

May I first express my respect for the Minister’s ability to consistently defend the indefensible? An absolute masterclass! Is it not the case that the President of the United States now has our Prime Minister completely over a barrel after his incautious and unhelpful remarks over Greenland? Would it not have been better, along the lines of “The Art of the Deal”, to have dealt with this before the Government signed the surrender treaty, and not after?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a link with the discussions on Greenland in recent weeks. We have been absolutely clear that we will always work with the United States on the treaty: we will always allay any concerns they have, and we have engaged with them every single day throughout the process. The deal was welcomed by Secretary Rubio, the US Administration, Secretary Hegseth and across the United States system, and very much so because—I will make this point, Mr Speaker—we secured a deal that, crucially, secures the operations that we and the United States conduct at the base, and that has additional protections that the previous Government did not get into place.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

When the historians write about this period of British history, those who have engineered this betrayal of British sovereignty over the King’s islands, along with the complete betrayal of the loyal British-Chagossian people, will not come out of it too well. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to review this shameful policy and give the Chagossian people—whom he did not even mention in his reply to the shadow Foreign Secretary—the same right of self-determination that we afford to all other British overseas territories. Why are the Chagossians treated differently to everybody else?

[Stephen Doughty]

With the greatest of respect, as the hon. Member well knows, I have regularly referred to Chagossian communities, and I have engaged with and met them on many occasions—even in opposition, before I became a Minister. I have deep respect for them, including those members of the communities who disagree with me. I simply cannot take anything seriously from the hon. Member, when he has joined a party that had such links to Russian money coming into its leader in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Last time I checked, there were 404 Labour MPs. Why does the Minister think that his Whips could not come up with a single Back Bencher to come to the Chamber and support his position today?

[Stephen Doughty]

Because they see this for what it is, which is simply party political game playing. Games are being played with our national security in the other place in a way that is deeply reckless and irresponsible.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Minister did not answer the question that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked, but it is inconceivable that Foreign Office Ministers will not have had discussions with their American counterparts about this issue over the last week. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still the Government’s position that US opposition to the treaty is purely about Greenland?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said many times, we continue to engage with the United States every day, as we have throughout the process, and that will continue.

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

It is a surprise to see the Minister so ratty and full of bluster, so I am going to ask him a technical question that I would appreciate his answer to. We have talked about the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes; the question is whether the Government can go ahead with the Chagos deal without the US. Where do the Government stand? Does the deal have to have the US’s blessing, or can the Government do it without that blessing, and with no change or negotiation of the 1966 contract?

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I am slightly baffled by the question, because I answered it right at the beginning when the shadow Foreign Secretary asked me. I will read out my answer again. I said that we had been consistently clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. Indeed, that was very much the tenor of the answer that was given to Lord Callanan in the other place.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Last week we had a discussion about the cost of this deal, and I asked the Minister whether he would confirm the figure of £34.7 billion from the Government Actuary’s Department. He did not give me a direct answer, but later in the debate he confirmed that it was a nominal amount, not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. With that in mind, will the Minister give the House the most accurate assessment he can of the true figure for the total cost of the deal, adjusted for inflation and the social time preference rate?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member asks an important question. The Government were clear about the forecast costs when they signed the deal, which were that the average cost per year was £101 million and the net present value was £3.4 billion. As I made clear the other day, forecast costs are, of course, forecasts; we expect any number to change over time, in particular to reflect things such as the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast inflation rate, which was updated in November 2025. I mentioned that the Treasury was updating the methodology for the social time preference rate. We are not going to keep recalculating every day, but at the time when the treaty was published we were very clear and gave a lot of information; we have given answers on this issue on many occasions and will continue to keep the House updated in the usual way.

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

The former Foreign Secretary said very explicitly last year that if the United States does not like this deal, it will not go ahead. The US does not like this deal; it has been very explicit on that. Can the Minister tell us whether the now Deputy Prime Minister was telling the truth when he made those comments?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been very clear that the agreement we have struck is vital for protecting our national security and guaranteeing the long-term future of this vital base for both the United Kingdom and the United States, which had been under threat. I have referenced the many comments from across the United States Administration. We continue to engage with the United States every day, making clear the very important parts of the deal that protect its security and ours, and we will continue to have such conversations.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I hold in my hand the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill. There are extensive sections on historical background and legal background. Nowhere within those sections is there any reference to the 1966 treaty. Why is that? I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that the 1966 treaty—or notes, as he calls it—is extant? Secondly, is it capable of being altered unilaterally?

[Stephen Doughty]

Of course it is extant, Mr Speaker. It is an arrangement between ourselves and the United States. It has been updated on a number of occasions, which I have listed. As I have said, we have been clear that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US agreement, and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. I am staggered that some on the Opposition Benches have only just clocked this; we have been aware of it and we engage with the United States every single day. That was made clear even before Christmas to the noble Lord Callanan in response to the question he asked my noble Friend Baroness Chapman. Again, this deal secures the base for the operations of ourselves and the United States, and we will continue to engage with the United States on a daily basis on it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. He and I share concerns on the issue on human rights, and I want to ask a question about that. As the chairperson of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I am very aware of the human rights concerns that exist, including on the repression of personal expression, and reports of concerns for the rights of children and minorities. This leads me to again ask the Government to reconsider their strategy, not simply because our national security is at risk, the partnership with our closest allies is being strained and Chagossian citizens are expressing their opposition, but owing to the fact that we are handing over these people to be ruled under a cloud. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have fully considered the human rights concerns involving the Mauritian Government and are content to continue despite those worrying reports?

[Stephen Doughty]

As always, I have deep respect for the issues the hon. Gentleman raises in this place, particularly when it comes to individuals’ human rights and liberties. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities and have heard a range of views. There are a number of groups that are very strongly in favour of this deal and some that are opposed to it. I respect that; there will always be disagreements on this issue. We have worked very closely to ensure that their needs are at the heart of this deal, whether that is through the trust fund or the clarificatory statements we have been able to secure from the Mauritian Government on the way the trust fund will operate to support Chagossian communities here. The hon. Gentleman can absolutely be assured that I remain seized of these issues, as do other Ministers, and they will continue to form a part of our engagement as the deal goes forward.

International Day of Education

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate ahead of the UN’s International Day of Education. It is a topic close to my heart, as the son of a primary school teacher and a youth worker, and having engaged in a number of educational initiatives myself over many years, including teaching English one summer in Ukraine, which I will come back to. I thank hon. Members for their sincere and passionate contributions on this crucial issue.

Of course, education is also important to us all in our own constituencies. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), spoke of a number of the issues around education in the UK. While I am, of course, hugely proud of schools and educational institutions in my own communities in Cardiff South and Penarth, and of the investment from the Welsh Labour Government into new schools and a new further education college there—and proud of many other aspects—we are largely talking today about international efforts on education.

Such efforts include the very powerful examples that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) just raised. I visited Afghanistan at the very same time that he was serving gallantly there—I thank him for his service at that time—because, under the last Labour Government, I served as an adviser in the former Department for International Development and worked on Afghanistan policy. Indeed, I worked on many of those issues, including the ways that we tried to support girls’ education in Afghanistan in particular back then, and I have been to many of the places that the hon. Gentleman described.

I also thought about that context today, not only for the people of Afghanistan, tragically, and particularly those young girls, but for the young people I engaged with just last week, in a live video conference linking up Stratford Manor primary school in east London with a school in Kyiv. That was part of the school twinning programme under the 100-year partnership, which is now reaching up to 300 schools. It was really powerful to speak to those young children live on camera with the children in London. They told us about the massive bombardment they had faced the night before in and around their schools and homes in Kyiv, thanks to Russia’s barbarism. They were lucky to be able to join us at that moment because most of the time they have no electricity or heating at their school. The stark challenges faced around the world by children who deserve education are very clear to me, whether that is in Gaza, Sudan or many of the other locations that have been mentioned.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make some progress, then potentially take some interventions later.

I previously worked in the international development sector for a Christian international development charity, World Vision, and for Oxfam, and have engaged with many educational programmes around the world. I have seen the real difference made by not only UK assistance, but international organisations and the United Nations, and the excellent charities that we have here in this country.

Many Members reflected on the important work of the British Council and our scholarship programmes. I have done a lot of work with Chevening scholars and Marshall scholars, among others, as well as Commonwealth scholars, of course. I am really proud that this Government have taken us back into the Erasmus+ programme and its opportunities for international exchange and engagement. It is crucial for young people in Britain, but also for those long-standing partnerships that make us strong and understood, and speak to our values in the world.

As advocates for global education, the Members present know all too well that the system is in serious crisis. UNESCO estimates that every $1 invested in education and youth skills in developing countries generates $10 to $15 in economic growth. Education has also been central to reducing inequality and empowering women and girls. We know its impact, yet 272 million children are out of school globally and 70% of children in lower-middle-income countries are unable to read and understand a basic text by 10. That figure rises to 90% in sub-Saharan Africa. That has to change.

With better research and evidence on what works, a range of different interventions and partners and countries working together, we can make a difference, particularly through taking on board new technologies and new ways of accessing the curriculum and learning. We are part of that effort, building modern and respectful partnerships, as well as shifting from being a direct donor in many circumstances to acting as an investor and an adviser and convenor.

We will always retain our focus on reaching the most marginalised children who need and deserve quality education. For example, in Sierra Leone, we are working with the Government to build gender-based violence prevention and response, especially with regard to children with disabilities who face gender-based violence. We are helping partner Governments to finance and manage their own education systems more effectively, and we are using world-class evidence to improve teaching in the classroom to ensure that children are learning.

Our people and our expertise and the great strength we have in education in this country means that we are trusted advisers to partner Governments. We have funded pioneering research, particularly on the issue of foundational learning referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others. We are a founding partner of the global Coalition for Foundational Learning, working closely with UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation and other Governments. We are a founding member of the Global Partnership for Education. We were at the forefront of setting up Education Cannot Wait, which has done important work. We are continuing to deliver through a range of multilateral investments.

We have had to take tough decisions, which have been referenced by a number of Members. We took the tough decision to reduce our official development assistance spending to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 so that we could respond to pressing security challenges and geopolitical circumstances with which Members are only too familiar. With less funding, we need to do things differently. We have to focus on the greatest impact and we need to target funding on the people who need it the most.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not, if that is okay.

We are focusing on five areas: first, improving learning outcomes for all children, particularly targeting girls and the most disadvantaged; secondly, helping partner Governments to strengthen their education systems; thirdly, increasing the scale and sources of financing, so that Governments can access financing to fund education reforms; fourthly, safeguarding education in emergencies and protracted crises, including those affected by conflict and climate change; and finally, driving the reform of multilateral education organisations. I will say a little more about that conflict work in a moment.

We are leading on our own strategy. On 20 January, the Government announced our new international education strategy, which builds on our strong leadership, skills and expertise. Education already contributes more than £32 billion a year to the UK economy. Our strategy sets out a plan to increase that to £40 billion by 2030, generating jobs and skills here in the UK as well. We have expertise, leadership and commitment. I think Members understand that we are in a different circumstance with regard to the funding, but we will continue to remain focused on these issues.

In my last few minutes, I want to turn to some of the points that hon. Members raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others asked about work in emergencies and protracted crises. We recognise that that is a huge challenge, and of course we are continuing to focus on it. We have committed a further £10 million for strategic partnerships on education in emergencies. We are of course the largest bilateral donor to the Global Partnership for Education, £5.6 million of which is earmarked for education and psychosocial support in Gaza and the west bank.

The situation in Afghanistan is of course absolutely tragic, but even there we continue to support the delivery of education through UNICEF, the International Rescue Committee and other partners, including the Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund. We are continuing to try to work in those incredibly difficult circumstances, which are a tragedy for girls, in particular.

My hon. Friend raised foundational learning and asked about the Future of Development conference in May this year. The agenda is still being finalised for that, but we will update him and the House in due course. We are of course looking at new ways to generate resource in straitened circumstances. For example, our support for the International Finance Facility for Education has already unlocked $1 billion in additional education finance from multilateral development banks. That is very good value for money for the UK taxpayer, because $1 of cash invested there generally leverages in $7 of additional concessional finance.

I absolutely assure Members that we will continue to stay focused on the education of girls and those who are most marginalised and least likely to go to school. I agree that the British Council is an important partner, and it will of course help to deliver the international education strategy. I visited the British Council team in Kyiv—tragically, their offices were hit by one of the Russian strikes. Our funding to the British Council is still under discussion.

Of course, that international commitment is matched by our commitment to young people in this country. I mentioned the investment that we are putting in and the Government’s focus on this issue. It is not just about schools, in terms of teaching, facilities and curricula; it is also about ensuring that young people are in the best place to learn. That is why we have put 750 primary breakfast clubs in place and extended free school meals to half a million more children. I am incredibly proud of that work, which draws on the lessons we have learned from Wales.

We are proud of what we are doing on education in this country and internationally. These are changed financial circumstances, but we will continue to focus resource where we think it makes the biggest difference for the most marginalised communities, and we will leverage in support from other donors. I thank all Members for the sincerity of the points that they made today.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 4.

[Stephen Doughty]

National security must always be the first priority of any Government, and that is all the more important during these uncertain times. This Government have always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal and why we need to pass the Bill, so the treaty can come into effect. The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability, and that of our allies.

As part of this agreement, the Government have negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection the base gives to both the United Kingdom and the United States.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make progress and then I will take some interventions—certainly from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell).

The UK will never compromise on our national security, and as we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we struck is vital for protecting it; it guarantees the long-term future of a base that is vital for the United Kingdom and the United States and our allies, and which had been under threat. Crucially, the deal secures the operations of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has been publicly welcomed by key allies, including our Five Eyes partners, and key international partners including India, Japan and South Korea.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has prayed in aid the support of the United States of America and the wider Five Eyes community. This morning the President of the United States dropped what could be described as a depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. What are the House and the Government to read of what the Minister says was the American position on the Bill and what it appears that its commander-in-chief is saying today?

[Stephen Doughty]

We engage with the United States—our closest defence and security partner—on a range of issues, including this one, every single day, and we continue to do so. The hon. Member asks an important question. The United States and President Trump welcomed this deal in the spring, and when we discussed in detail why the agreement was needed, the strong protections that it includes and the vital security it provides for Diego Garcia, the Administration endorsed the agreement as a “monumental achievement” following a thorough inter-agency process in the United States. The hon. Member will know how serious that is.

In May the United States Secretary of State said,

“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.

We will of course have discussions with the Administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal and how it secures the base for the United Kingdom and the United States. We will continue those discussions on many levels.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), does the Minister realise that the President of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? Does he therefore understand why the last Conservative Government, of which I was a part—indeed, doing the job the Minister is doing now—would never ever have got this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said in this House many times, the last Government—the right hon. Gentleman knows this, as he was part of that Government—started this deal because they recognised that there was a serious challenge to the operation of the base, which is critical for our national security. [Interruption.] No, we have heard that claim made multiple times, but it is clear from the record of the Government of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), that they continued those negotiations right into the run-up to the general election in 2024. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised, as did we, the very serious risks to the operation of that base.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Doughty]

I will happily give way to the former Cabinet Office Minister.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The Minister makes an important point. The key thing about the negotiations is that they were predicated on the United States’ concern about the continuing operation of the base in the context of concerns around international law. The position set out by the President of the United States last night is that he is not concerned about this—in fact, he is concerned about the deal the other way around. Moreover, I do not think that any of us would think that there is a concern around international law vis-à-vis the President of the United States. We are talking about two material changes. Surely in the face of these material changes, now is the time to pause and reconsider the implementation of the treaty. The circumstances have changed.

[Stephen Doughty]

The circumstances have not changed. Again, we see this collective amnesia on behalf of former Cabinet Ministers on the other side, who, I remind the right hon. Member, engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations. They did that because they knew of the very serious security and operational reasons affecting the base. I refer him to the Secretary of War, who said at the time:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident that the base is protected for many years ahead.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Doughty]

I have taken a number of interventions, so I will move on.

The deal had to be done because the base was under threat. Courts had already begun making decisions that weakened our position, and without the deal, as I have said many times, we faced the prospect of further wide-ranging litigation that could have rendered the base inoperable. Let me be clear, as I have been on many occasions: this is not just about the legal position; it is about the operation of the base.

Without a treaty and a secure footing, legally binding provisional measures could have been imposed within weeks that would have undermined base operations. Our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, to ensure access to the base by air and sea and to patrol the area around the base would have been eroded, and everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors could have been affected. That would have driven costs through the roof, deterred future investment and degraded the facility, and our adversaries would have jumped at the chance to disrupt the base—for example, by establishing outposts on the outer islands—with a guise of legality on their side. It is for all those reasons that the previous Government, many of whose former Cabinet Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, undertook 11 rounds of detailed negotiations. It is also why they made critical concessions on the principles of sovereignty and direct payment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Doughty]

I have taken a number of interventions, so I would like to make some progress. I will happily take further interventions later.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?

[Stephen Doughty]

We will not pause in defending our national security interests and those of our allies. We will do the right things to keep our national security and the operations of the base working as they have done for many decades. Despite the claims from the Opposition Benches, I reiterate that it is a matter of public record that, on February 2024, the former Prime Minister spoke with his Mauritian counterpart to confirm his commitment to negotiations, which continued until the general election. It was simply not credible to try to hang on, hope for the best and endanger an asset that is vital to our national security. The reality is that the previous Government failed to secure a deal. They failed to secure protections for the outer islands, for example. When it came to a matter of critical security, they did not deliver, so I am proud that we have secured a deal that is able to do those very things.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; every time he comes to the House, he is most courteous. He mentioned the example of the former Prime Minister, but the former Prime Minister stated very clearly that the negotiations had to result in a “mutually beneficial” agreement. That did not happen, and therefore the Government ended those negotiations. Today, this Government are expecting us to vote on Third Reading for a deal that our greatest ally—an ally that the Minister has advocated for through this whole process—has turned its back on. How can he expect the House to do that when the circumstances have fundamentally changed?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have explained the comments of the US Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the US Government, as well as the President’s previous comments. This is about our Five Eyes partners as well; it is about Canada, Australia, New Zealand and our other key partners. They all understand the critical national security capabilities that the base provides. It is also about Japan and the Republic of Korea. The deal has also been welcomed by a number of our other overseas territories. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would discount their views, but we are not willing to do that. We are willing to deliver national security and the capabilities that our Five Eyes partners need.

Let me turn to the issue referenced in the Lords amendments. I want to answer the many genuine questions that have been asked by a number of hon. and right hon. Members on behalf of the Chagossians. We have secured a deal that protects the interests of the Chagossians. I know that there are a number of Members of this House who rightly care deeply about this issue and have done so for many years, but I am afraid to say that there are others who have picked up the mantle for pure political game playing and who fail to recognise that there is a genuine range of opinions within Chagossian communities; there are some who oppose this deal and there are many who support it, and that simply has not been recognised by many. We deeply regret—I reiterate this—the way in which Chagossians have been treated by successive Governments in the past. That is why we are committed to a future relationship that is built on trust.

The treaty provides the only viable path to resettlement on the outer islands of the archipelago. We know that that is a matter of critical importance to many Chagossians. Following the Government’s efforts, Mauritius has confirmed that all Chagossians who were born on the archipelago and their children will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship and for participation in a future resettlement programme, regardless of where they live. The Bill also preserves current British and British overseas territory citizenship, and the pathway to British citizenship for Chagossians, meaning that they will be able to hold both British nationality and Mauritian citizenship. In fact, as of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also have Mauritian citizenship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I give way on this issue to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

[Sir John Hayes]

On that point, the Minister will be aware that the matter was debated at length in the Lords. Indeed, one of the amendments that we are considering deals precisely with the entitlements of the Chagossians. They were not involved in the negotiations at any stage, and they have made that clear. Why on earth would the Minister reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should have a defining say in their own future?

[Stephen Doughty]

With respect—Madam Deputy Speaker, you can correct me if I am wrong—it is a decision in relation to the engagement of financial privilege and the Standing Orders that means that those amendments are not for debate and will be disagreed with. That has been made clear by the Chair.

Working with Mauritius, we have also agreed the parameters for the operation of a Chagossian trust fund. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved legislation to establish the trust fund. That confirms, again, in response to many reasonable opinions expressed both in the other place and by those on the Opposition Benches—

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair made it clear at the outset that the amendments that deal with matters of finance were inappropriate to be considered here, for obvious reasons. I understood, however, that the amendments that we were debating, including those that reference the Chagossians, do not concern finance in particular. Can you clarify the matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before me read out the statement, and I will do so again for clarity. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not yet been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.

We cannot keep having the same discussion again and again. This is a very substantial debate and many people hope to speak, so let us proceed as fast as we can.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In parallel with the other measures, we have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and we are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to do in the other place. Thanks to the work we have done and the reasonable concerns raised across the House, the Chagossian trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. There will be a Chagossian majority on the board, which will include a UK-based representative and a Chagossian chair. Those reasonable concerns have been raised in the course of the debates and we are trying to address them.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I need to make progress, as Madam Deputy Speaker has asked me to be conscious of time. I will come back for further interventions.

Before moving on to discuss the specific amendments, I express my thanks to the noble Lords for their tireless efforts and to the many noble peers who scrutinised and supported the Bill. Lords amendment 4 was tabled by the Government, and I thank Lord Lansley for his helpful conversation and collaboration on the topic. The amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause 6. With that amendment, all instruments made using that power will be subject to the negative procedure. Previously, no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under them. The amendment makes it clear that the Government are prepared to work with those who engage in genuine, constructive dialogue, rather than those who rely on political point scoring, to achieve meaningful compromise.

Turning to the other amendments made in the other place, I make it clear that the Government are thankful for all the scrutiny and are willing to engage with challenge. However, the other amendments are either already provided for or not necessary, or they simply make political points and play games with our national security, so we cannot accept them.

Lords amendment 1 would amend clause 1 to prevent the Bill and the treaty from entering into force until the Government had sought to renegotiate the termination clauses to include the base becoming unusable due to environmental degradation. That is unnecessary and I shall set out why. First, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the United States, which has invested heavily in the base. In line with the United States’ wishes, the previous Conservative Government agreed to limit termination to two grounds, both of which are in UK control, and this Government have secured that—

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will if the intervention is on this point.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister mentions the United States’ wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position that it was in previously, despite what President Trump said last night. The Deputy Prime Minister said in February:

“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”.

Last night, President Trump said that he did not like the deal. Is it still going forward, or is the Minister suggesting that President Trump did not mean what he said last night?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have already answered that point. As I said, discussions will continue with the US Administration in the coming days, as they have done throughout the process. We will remind them of the strength of this deal, allay concerns and, of course, emphasise how it secures the base for both the United Kingdom and the United States. We work together on these matters. As the Speaker of the House of Representatives set out this morning, it is important that we work together on all matters of national security.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

Let me make some progress on the issue of termination.

As I have said, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the US. The Government have secured that procedure.

Secondly, I reassure the House that, given the importance of the base, we are taking necessary steps to protect it from environmental damage. Working with the United States, again in partnership, we already have extensive measures in place, such as the coastal erosion programme, and scientific studies show that natural land loss over the past 50 years has been less than 1%. That said, we recognise the concerns of Lord Craig and Lord Houghton, and I would like to reassure them and Members of this House that the international law of treaties allows for the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for a treaty to be performed as a result of

“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.

Baroness Chapman set out the legal position clearly in the other place.

For further reassurance, since that debate we have consulted Mauritius to verify that it shares our assessment. I am happy to update the House that this has been confirmed in writing to the Government. Mauritius is clear on the point, both as a matter of international law and in its domestic law. We welcome that confirmation by Mauritius and trust that it will assure Members in this House and in the other place who share this concern that such an amendment is unnecessary.

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

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I give way to the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The Minister seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian Government. They are a close ally of China, which, he might remember, gave us cast-iron guarantees about the future of the Hongkongers once the lease on Hong Kong was given up. I gently remind him that the 2024 Labour manifesto, entitled “Change”, stated:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”

Can he look the Chagossians in the Gallery in the eye and tell them that that is what the Government are now doing?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his role, and we have had many good conversations, but it is extremely unhelpful to, and unwanted by, residents in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this false comparison keeps being made—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is in your manifesto.

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, and we stand by that commitment to defend the Falklands and Gibraltar. That is exactly what we have been doing and will continue to do. I gently say that I fully recognise and respect the fact that there are many Chagossian groups who disagree with this deal as well as many who agree with it. Unfortunately, some of the comments in this place have represented only one side of that argument. It is our duty as a Government to listen to all those groups and to engage appropriately with them.

Lords Amendments 5 and 6 both relate to the costs of the treaty—

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment. I need to make some progress.

Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish the total real-terms costs of payments made under the treaty, including the methodology used by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Treasury. I confess that it brings me some satisfaction to learn that the Opposition have eventually accepted the importance of quoting financial figures for a 99-year treaty in real terms. They have always known that it is misleading to ignore the impact of inflation—a pound today is not worth the same as a pound in 99 years’ time—and now at long last they seem to have seen the light. Let us see whether, in today’s debate, we can do away with the deliberately and misleadingly inflated figures that have been bandied about again by the shadow Foreign Secretary during questions today, and start discussing the financial elements of the treaty with accuracy and transparency.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Doughty]

I will carry on, and then I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who has raised these issues before.

For all the good intentions, I am afraid that Lords amendment 5 is unnecessary. We have been clear about the costs of the deal from the moment of signature. We published full details of the financial arrangements the very same day the treaty was signed, including in the financial exchange of letters and the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament. If Opposition Members are having difficulty finding where that is, it is on pages 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum. The documents set out the payment schedule and the confirmed amounts at that time.

The methodology is clear: the average annual payment has been calculated using forecast inflation figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility. We used the forecast GDP deflator, which is published regularly. That generated the real value of the payments, which is the valueusb adjusted for inflation to create a fair comparison with other costs. Members will recall that this equates to less than a quarter of 1% of the Defence budget and compares favourably to the cost of comparable overseas facilities. I have mentioned the facility that France pays for in Djibouti. This is an immensely more valuable facility. It is priceless for our defence capabilities and those of our allies.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the deal provides certainty and full operational use of the base for 99 years?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, I can confirm that the deal secures the base for us and our allies. It secures the crucial capabilities that benefit ourselves, the United States and, indeed, all our allies.

I am happy to further canter through the calculations. The net present value was established by discounting the real value of the sums due to be paid over the duration of the treaty using the social time preference rate, as set out in the Green Book. That adjusts for social time preference, which is a reflection of the value society attaches to present, as opposed to future, consumption. That has been used in the UK by Governments of all flavours since 2003.

Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a review of the social time preference rate shortly before Christmas. That follows a review of the Green Book last year. I do not know how that review will conclude, but I know that the Government used the correct methodology when the figures were published, and were clear and transparent in doing so, and we will continue to do so whichever way the review comes out.

[Esther McVey]

This evening, the Minister is trying to convince us to vote for this Chagos deal. The President of the United States says that the Government are handing over the island “FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER”, so can he give us some reasons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Lady, I do not think she has been present in many of the other debates on this issue—she popped up here today to make these points. I have been clear and answered the question already, so I will not do so again.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his detailed explanation of how the calculations have been made. The Government Actuary’s Department clearly stated that this deal would cost £34.7 billion. That figure was then confirmed by his colleague, the Minister for the Middle East, who said that all the figures had been ratified by the Government Actuary’s Department, but his colleague sitting next to him, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, told me that that figure was inaccurate. Will the Minister therefore clarify how much this deal costs?

[Stephen Doughty]

We set out the costs clearly at the time, as I have done for the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber a number of times. What I will confirm is that they have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library has been through them and reached the same conclusion. The Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed the Government’s approach and said that it is in line with intelligent transparency, and the Office for Budget Responsibility also confirmed separately to it that the discount rates were correct. I have given the hon. Gentleman four good reasons and the costs. However much Opposition Members bandy about the costs, it is simply unhelpful.

I will move on to the other amendments. Lords amendment 6 would introduce an ongoing estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure under the treaty, including parliamentary approval for future payments and supplementary estimates. The agreement has undergone intense scrutiny, and the treaty provides robust mechanisms for dispute resolution under article 14. It is normal practice for payments under treaties to be made under the prerogative power and charged on the Consolidated Fund under the authority of the Supply Acts. Furthermore, the amendment would infringe on the financial privilege of the Commons and affect the Commons’ arrangements for authorising expenditure. These are long-standing practices that members of the former Government will know. The same applied under them, and it applies under this Government, too.

Finally, subsection (4) would infringe on the prerogative power to make and unmake treaties. It is not wise to impose any immovable requirements about a hypothetical set of circumstances that might arise in the future. This provision risks requiring the Government to breach the UK’s obligations under a treaty. It is clearly preferable for all options to be open to a future Government, so that they can deal with whatever the future may bring and act in the UK’s best interests, taking into account all the circumstances.

I am conscious of your exhortations about time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. The previous Government recognised that there was a problem. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations, but failed to reach a deal that was in our interests and those of the United States. We secured this deal. It protects the base, and the interests of the United States and our Five Eyes partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct the record? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) says that there are not any veterans. I have served this country as an Army reservist, and I am very proud to have done so. We have many other Labour Members who have served and are veterans; they absolutely defend the national security of this country and have done so at many different stages. That comment is not accurate and needs to be corrected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

With the leave of the House, I will close the debate. Hon. and right hon. Members have raised important questions and points during the debate. Once again, I must reiterate that for those who engage in genuine and constructive debate, the Government are willing to find compromise where that is reasonable and proper, and that debate is welcome, as it has been in the other place.

The deal sits at the cornerstone of the defence and security of both the United Kingdom and the United States. It plays a crucial role in defending our interests, our countries and our people and ensures that we remain equipped to face an increasingly complex and dangerous world.

I have to challenge one of the points that has been made repeatedly and falsely throughout the debate. We have heard the same nonsense that this deal puts the base at threat from Chinese interference. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There appear to be many side conversations taking place. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the Minister is saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was referring to the claims about Chinese interference. I doubt that those on the Opposition Benches have actually seen or read the op-ed by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius on 14 January criticising the Chagos deal, which again very much underlines the point that I have been repeatedly making.

Just last week, the United States military signed a new contract worth $85 million for base operating support services. Before the treaty was signed, it had been rolling over previous contracts due to the uncertainty, but because of the certainty provided by this deal, it has now entered into a new long-term contract, which delivers strength and certainty for the United States, the United Kingdom and our allies, because national security is the priority for all of us.

While securing our national security, we have taken steps throughout the Bill to ensure that we have the measures in place, including the full control of Diego Garcia; the 24-mile nautical buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without our consent, meaning that we can protect our interests; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands—some over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military, without UK consent; and a binding obligation to ensure that the base is never undermined. These are robust provisions, and they defend the national security of ourselves and our allies, including the United States.

Many important points have been raised about the Chagossian community. I absolutely acknowledge and respect the Chagossians who are here today. I also acknowledge and respect that there are many views within the Chagossian community. I was disappointed by the tone of the remarks from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who I have good engagement with. I can tell her that I met Chagossians on 30 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. On 22 May 2025, she claimed that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), had not met the Chagossians; in fact, he met them with me. On 2 September 2025, I was at the first meeting of the Chagossian contact group. Officials regularly engage with Chagossians. Indeed, I engaged with Chagossians long before I took this position as a Minister and did so in opposition, along with many hon. and right hon. Members, to listen to the range of views.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I will not give way. I am conscious of time—I need to respond to the points made.

Of course, many groups support the deal, including the Chagos Refugees Group, the Chagos Islanders Movement and the Seychelles Chagossian committee.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made many criticisms. We have heard and been through them a number of times. I remind her that, of course, it was her party that started the negotiations in the first place. She supported this when she was in government. The Conservatives have demonstrated absolute naked opportunism, ignoring the national security issues and jumping on the political bandwagon. They talk about defence and national security, but in 14 disastrous years in office their party hollowed out our armed forces. Our Government are investing at levels not seen since the cold war, and 85% of the negotiation rounds took place—

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was referring to an article published on 14 January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius.

The former Government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including on threats to the operations of this crucial base, and senior figures raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. It is only after leaving government that they have done so. That is not principled opposition; it is opportunistic.

Many questions were raised about the finances. I must be clear that the higher figure of £34.7 billion that was released by the Government Actuary’s Department was a nominal amount and was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate, so it is deeply misleading to cite that figure, given the changing value of money over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow. Quite frankly, I am baffled at hearing these complaints about the finances, given the billions that the Conservatives wasted on defective personal protective equipment, the festival of Brexit and who knows what else.

There were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. The Government have always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of publication, and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty set out that the net present value of the treaty was £3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology —I have set that out on many occasions before. Of course, I would expect forecasts to change over time, given the changes in the OBR’s forecast inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course we will continue that transparency in the usual ways before the House. Indeed, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, no less, has confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and that it is reasonable for the Government to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost. If we use its suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be £96 million on average, which is £5 million less in today’s money than the Government’s forecast at the time of the treaty’s publication.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am not going to pursue the Minister down that line—I did that last time—but I do want to ask a simple question. This morning, we had a very clear statement from the President of the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said that if America says no, then this does not go ahead. Are his counsels in any way discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that view from the President today is clear and for good? In other words, will they then stop this Bill?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very reasonable question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we engage with the United States as our closest defence and security partner every single day. Conversations are ongoing. We are always engaging with them on these matters, and I am sure we will continue to do so over the coming days. I have set out the clear position that the United States set out on many occasions—this went through a detailed inter-agency process—and of course we will continue conversations with the United States, as we have done before.

I was rather baffled by the complaint of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not now in his place—[Interruption.] Ah, he is at the Bar of the House. It was his Government who established the citizenship route for Chagossians, which rightly gives them the right to come here, and local authorities can engage in the usual way with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about their needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) raised the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This is very important, so let me be clear: it does speak on behalf of the United Nations or member states. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson both welcomed the agreement, so it is simply not the case that those concerns were raised by the United Nations, and it is important that the record be corrected.

There were concerns about the reasons. I was clear about the operational impacts on the base of not securing this deal, which include overflight clearances, securing contractors, declining investment and degraded facility. We would also be unable to prevent—this is a crucial point that Members have reasonably raised—China or other nations from setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises. I have set out the legal reasons for that on many occasions, which include the litigation that could be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, including under annexe VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the Pelindaba treaty. The United Kingdom and Mauritius are satisfied that their existing international obligations are compatible with the agreement, and we are very clear that we comply with our obligations under international law.

[Mr Francois]

I refer the Minister to article 298 of the UNCLOS treaty, which means we have a complete opt-out on military bases, but may I take him back to costs? The Government Actuary’s Department, whose whole raison d’être is to calculate long-term spending commitments, stood up the £35 billion figure—in fact, it said it might be more. Who should the House believe—people whose whole life’s work is to calculate long-term costs, or this Minister?

[Stephen Doughty]

I regret the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I have respect for him normally, but if he had been listening a moment ago, he would have heard me explain this exact point. It is a nominal amount. It is not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. The value of money changes over time; £1 today is not worth the same as £1 tomorrow. This is very clear. I set out the multiple ways in which this has been verified, and it is even agreed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

We have discussed these issues at great length in this House on many occasions. Let me be clear: this deal secures this base for the national security of the United Kingdom and the United States, and it secures it for our allies. It is vital, and this is an important point to end on. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South asked why this matters to our constituents. It matters because the capabilities on this base matter for the national security of this country, our allies and our citizens in preventing terrorism and the activities of adversaries with hostile intent towards us, the United States and our allies. It secures this base into the future, and we urge the House to reject the Lords amendments and agree with Lords amendment 4.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.