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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

5. What steps her Department is taking with international partners to help improve the global response to cyber-attacks and ransomware.

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

We work closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt those responsible for malicious cyber-activity. To date, 42 international partners have supported UK activity to expose cyber-threats, and 74 countries are members of the counter ransomware initiative, led by the UK. In addition, 27 counties have publicly endorsed the UK and France’s Pall Mall code of practice, which aims to tackle the proliferation of cyber-intrusion tools.

[Uma Kumaran]

The Minister will remember that when the Russia-backed cyber-crime network Lockbit was smashed in 2024, it was the direct result of intensive collaboration between the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. They worked together to defend Europe from Russia’s hybrid attacks, which seek to weaken our role in the world. Is that not a reminder that we are all safer, on both sides of the Atlantic, when we work together, and that we should never forget where the real threats to our national security come from?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Indeed, they echo what we heard this morning from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives about working together as close allies and across NATO. It is good to welcome guests in Parliament today from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, too.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As is evidenced by the 2024 Lockbit and 2025 Media Land sanctions packages, the UK works closely with key partners, and remains committed to using all available tools to defend against cyber-threats. Our co-ordination with Australia, the United States and other allies demonstrates to adversaries that we will not tolerate assaults on our public and private institutions and our democracies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive responses. On ransomware and what we are trying to do with technology, Northern Ireland leads the way on cyber-security, as does south-east England, but the technology is always advancing. The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that we are protected, but at the same time, we need to ensure that our technology moves forward, so that we can equal or outdo our enemies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, and that Northern Ireland will be part of it?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member rightly extols the virtues and skills of the excellent workforce in Northern Ireland and across the UK on these issues. I have had the pleasure of meeting people from a number of cyber-security companies. We are doing all that we can to increase the skills chain, and to ensure that we stay steps ahead of our adversaries. We will not tolerate activity that hits consumers and individuals in the UK and risks our national security. We will work with others to defend this country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Iran is a cyber-menace that is committing digital warfare against democracies around the world and its own people. Most recently, it has cut its own citizens off from the internet to hide the scale of its atrocities. Do the Government have any plans to use their cyber-capabilities to take on Tehran in its moment of weakness, and how they will prevent Tehran from evading tariffs by using cryptocurrency?

[Stephen Doughty]

It was perhaps an unexpected elevation, but I welcome the shadow Minister to his new role, and thank him for his important question on a very serious matter: the threat from our adversaries. He is right to point out Iran, but there are many others who are attempting to damage our national security and hit consumers and individuals in the UK. He will understand that I will not go into operational details on any matter relating to our cyber-defences, but he can be assured that we keep the activities of our adversaries closely in mind, and we are doing all we can to defend this country against all threats, wherever they come from.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of whether the Mauritian Government are able to effectively protect Chagos’ marine environment.

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

The Chagos archipelago and marine protected area is one of the world’s most important marine environments, and as has rightly been recognised by Members across the House, both the UK and Mauritius are committed to its protection. I can confirm that no commercial fishing will be allowed, but low levels of artisanal fishing will be permitted for the sustenance of Chagossian communities, which is compatible with nature conservation. We are working closely with Mauritius to ensure that adequate patrolling capabilities will be maintained after the marine protected area enters into force.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank the Minister for his response. A recent Yale University report ranked Mauritius last out of 131 states for stringency in relation to its marine protected areas, and a woeful 173th out of 180 for the protection of biodiversity. Mauritius has even admitted that it does not have the capacity to patrol the area, and that it is open to commercial fishing. I recognise the response that the Minister gave, but Britain has kept the Chagos marine environment pristine for 50 years. Why do the Government not want to secure that legacy in law?

[Stephen Doughty]

With the greatest of respect, because I know that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue with sincerity, I was just very clear. It was on 3 November that Mauritius announced the creation of the Chagos archipelago marine protected area, and it has confirmed that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. We are working very closely with Mauritius on patrolling and protecting the environment. These are important issues, and I assure him that we are absolutely seized of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said that Five Eyes partners, including the United States, backed the Chagos surrender Bill, but today the American President has publicly opposed it, rightly citing the very concerns that we Conservative Members have raised about the malign influence of China and Russia, and their benefiting directly from the surrender of the Chagos islands. Is President Trump right? Given that Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill will cost £35 billion, compromise our national security and betray the rights of the Chagossian community, when will the Government finally see sense and scrap this shameful treaty?

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, the right hon. Lady has made wild claims about costs. What she says is simply not the case. We have been absolutely clear that the UK will never compromise our national security. As we have made clear repeatedly, the agreement that we have struck is vital to protecting our national security and that of our allies, and to guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is crucial for the UK and the United States. Our deal secures the operation of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has backing from across the Five Eyes, as well as from other international partners. I remind the right hon. Lady that, in May, the US 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 US Administration in coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal, and of how it secures the base, and I am surprised that these comments have been made in the context of difficult conversations about Greenland. The right hon. Lady joins us in standing for its sovereignty and right to self-determination, so I urge her to be a little more reflective in her comments.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to support UK citizens arbitrarily detained abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

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

With the greatest respect, the hon. Member knows that this Government have strengthened our relationships with the EU: we have a security and defence partnership; we are securing a sanitary and phytosanitary deal; and we are rejoining Erasmus+. Those are all things that will make a tangible difference for people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and we are very proud of them.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

T8. In her interview two weeks ago in The Sunday Times, the Foreign Secretary warned that the only person who benefits when NATO is divided is Vladimir Putin. That warning looks even more relevant today, so may I ask her once again to remind her colleagues across the Atlantic that this is the time to come together as an alliance and remember who our true enemies are?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

A 14-year-old child, the son of my constituent Mr Greaves, has been detained by the French state for 440 days. He is a British citizen with no dual nationality. He has received no schooling and, most concerning of all, has not received even a single welfare visit by the British consulate, despite having been chased many times. Will the Foreign Secretary intervene personally in this case and meet with me to be able to secure a welfare visit?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case.

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

Last week, Uganda held elections. There were wide-ranging accounts of people being prevented from going to polling stations and of ballot stuffing. In one polling station, more votes were cast than there were electors. There is now widespread violence, and the son of the so-called President of Uganda has threatened to murder the leader of the opposition, Bobi Wine, who lost the election. What can the Foreign Secretary tell me about the veracity of the elections? What is she doing to protect British citizens in Uganda and to ensure the safety of members of the National Unity Platform?

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

In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said that the future of Greenland should be determined by Greenlanders and Danes, yet Members across this House are just finding out that any opportunity to give Chagossians a referendum has been stripped from this afternoon’s discussions on the Chagos Bill. Why does the Foreign Secretary think that the Chagossians do not deserve the same rights that she considers to be so fundamental to Greenlanders?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going to be discussing those issues this afternoon; we will have ample time to discuss the amendments down for consideration. He also knows that we have engaged extensively with Chagossian communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Through his new folly over Greenland, President Trump is increasingly bringing the UK closer to Europe. At Denmark’s request, would the UK allow European forces to use the UK’s command infrastructure for operations in and around Greenland?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the hon. Lady knows, we already work very closely with Denmark in NATO. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has made clear our desire for an Arctic sentry programme, and we work with other partners in the High North through the joint expeditionary force, so we already work very closely together.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

Last week, I met a mother from my constituency who told me a terrible story. In October, her daughters were taken by their father, supposedly for a day out at the fair, but they never came home. It seems he has abducted them and taken them out of the country, either to Afghanistan or to Pakistan. Can the Minister set out what the Government can do about these kinds of abductions, and will he meet me to discuss how we get these little girls home?

Ukraine

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

Next month marks four years since Russia launched its illegal and barbarous full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but Ukraine has stood strong. We have stood alongside Ukraine and will continue to do so. I am particularly proud that this week also marks one year on from our agreement of a crucial 100-year partnership with Ukraine—I know that it enjoys wide support across the House—which we will celebrate and take further forward this week.

This has been four years in which the Ukrainian people have stood firm, bravely resisting the assault on their sovereign territory, and four years of enduring relentless drone and missile strikes that have killed civilians and torn through homes, infrastructure, hospitals and schools. Like many hon. Members across the House, I have been in Kyiv while such attacks have been under way. I have seen the devastation and damage caused and the implications for the civilians—the ordinary people of Ukraine—who face that. I have been in the bunkers where children have to take their lessons because of the attacks, and I have heard the harrowing stories of those who have been abducted and taken by barbarous and illegal Russian action.

Just last week, Russia launched 252 drones and 36 missiles at targets across Ukraine in yet another attack that killed and injured dozens of civilians and left millions without power or heating as temperatures plunged to minus 20°. The attack also included an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile that struck critical infrastructure near the Polish border. Russia’s use, for the second time, of a hypersonic IRBM in Ukraine—this time close to NATO territory—is a reckless and dangerous escalation. Moscow claimed that it was responding to an alleged Ukrainian attack on one of Putin’s residences, which is a baseless allegation and yet another example of Russia using disinformation to justify its actions. Just last week I discussed disinformation with hon. Members at the Foreign Affairs Committee. I know that it is an issue that many of us across the House take deeply seriously.

As an aside, I note the absence in the Chamber yet again of one party—we all note that, as there is a strong cross-party consensus on Ukraine. Of course, that party has willingly repeated Russian narratives on NATO and Ukraine, and indeed its former leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to share those narratives. Reform Members might like this to go away, but it is not just their words that speak volumes; their absence does, too.

I genuinely commend the Opposition and the other parties present, because I have had many conversations with the Members here, and I think all of us, whichever side of the House we are on, have stood resolutely with Ukraine since the start of this conflict. That very much represents where the British people stand on this illegal and barbarous aggression on our continent. We know from our own history what such aggression can mean, and we will continue to take that stand. I am proud of those in my constituency and all our constituencies who continue to support Ukrainians in the UK, and continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

Russia’s barbaric actions come against the backdrop of US-led peace negotiations. Time and again, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, and just last week, President Zelensky came together with world leaders and the United States in Paris to discuss next steps. We welcome the significant progress that has been made, and the work of President Trump and many others to take that forward. Alongside France, the UK has led the coalition of the willing, carrying out detailed military planning on the security guarantees that are needed to insure against future Russian aggression in the event of a peace settlement.

In Paris, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined President Macron and President Zelensky to sign a declaration of intent. That declaration confirms that in the event of a peace deal, the UK and France would deploy forces to Ukraine. It paves the way for a legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil, securing its skies and seas and regenerating its armed forces for the future. As the Prime Minister has said, if British troops were to deploy under this agreement, the matter would come before this House for a debate and a vote. The Paris declaration agreed between us and our coalition partners sets out the security guarantees that are to be activated once a ceasefire takes effect.

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

I have previously suggested that to have an occupied eastern part of Ukraine under Russian control while the western part of unoccupied Ukraine was left as a military vacuum would be a recipe for disaster. However, it is of concern that the alliance that stood firm at the end of world war two to ensure that West Germany did not get encroached upon by Soviet forces from the east is not still in being, as far as Ukraine is concerned, because of the ambiguous attitude of President Trump. Does the Minister have a view on why President Trump is so clear when it comes to dictatorship in and aggression by Iran, yet has such a strangely different view when it comes to the same two features of Russian behaviour?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I would gently disagree with his suggestion. On President Trump’s leadership, in the important discussions that took place in Paris with the United States and other coalition partners, it was set out clearly how security guarantees would be activated. More broadly, I am proud that we continue to stand with the United States in NATO, and proud of our commitment to article 5 and to defending the security of the alliance. That is absolutely crucial to our security, and the security of all of us in the alliance.

We of course support all the progress towards a just and lasting peace, but it is crucial that we keep Ukraine in the fight. We all know that its armed forces are fighting heroically and with great determination. Like many Members, I have met those who have served on the frontlines in Ukraine, and seen the extraordinary bravery and fortitude that they show, but we must recognise that they are under immense pressure, so we need to get them the support that they need to defend themselves, and to ensure that they have support in the future.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Today the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has been given an open letter from the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk. He has been here, and I have met him a few times. He is urging

“the immediate delivery of air defence and air-to-air missiles”.

Ukraine is in desperate need of them, and he has asked all NATO members to speed up this delivery as much as possible.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments, and for sharing what the Speaker of the Rada has said. I too have met him. He is a remarkable individual, as indeed are all the Ukrainian MPs we have all met. They stood up to defend their Parliament at the most difficult of times: at the time of the invasion. He raises important points. These are all matters that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the Armed Forces and others are looking at.

We are very much looking at all the immediate needs, and of course, we stand ready to support Ukraine wherever we can. Indeed, that is why we have led the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group, alongside Germany. We secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year, and we are going further. In Project Octopus, we have developed an advanced air defence interceptor drone, which is to be mass-produced in the UK. We are developing a new long-range ballistic missile to boost Ukraine’s firepower and defend against Putin’s war machine.

We continue to lead, not only on supporting Ukraine, but on galvanising partners to maintain support. I met my good colleague from Portugal this morning, and discussed the contribution that Portugal has made. Indeed, many countries across Europe, large and small, have stepped up, and it is important to acknowledge that European partners increased aid by more than 50% in 2025, compared to the year before. In December, as colleagues will know, the European Council agreed a €90 billion loan to help meet Ukraine’s needs, and of course we are also providing up to £4.1 billion in support through a World Bank loan guarantee that runs until 2027.

Of course, as well as the military support that we need to provide to Ukraine, now and into the future, so that it can defend against and deter future threats in the event of a settlement, we must rachet up the pressure on Putin to de-escalate the war, engage in meaningful negotiations and come to the table. I am proud that this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals, entities and ships under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, including Russia’s largest oil companies and 520 oil tankers. Last week, as colleagues will know, the UK supported the United States in intercepting the sanctioned vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic as it made its way to Russia.

We are working with international partners on further measures to tackle the shadow fleet. Those include additional sanctions, steps to discourage third countries from engaging with the fleet, increased information sharing, and readiness to use regulatory and interdiction powers. By choking off Russia’s oil revenues and squeezing its war economy, we are showing Putin that he cannot outlast us.

Our sanctions are biting hard. There is clear evidence of their impact: Russia’s oil export revenues are at a four-year low. We are preparing to implement further significant sanctions this year, which have been announced, including bans on importing refined oil of Russian origin, and a maritime service ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which a number of Members have rightly called for over past months.

As a result of our actions and those of our partners, Russia’s economy is now in its worst position since the full-scale invasion began. We are also taking the crucial steps to stop the third-country circumvention of sanctions. Whether it is intercepting crypto networks that are flooding resource into Russia, the components and other things on critical lists that it might be using in drones, or the energy revenues that it is generating, we will not cease till we find every way in which Putin is attempting to circumvent our regimes. I am proud to work closely with colleagues in Departments across Government on this, but also, crucially, with European, United States and other partners. That is having a tangible impact, and is as crucial as the direct support that we provide.

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

I agree that the foreign exchange earnings of the Russian economy have been badly damaged by the sanctions, but we are also coming to the conclusion, are we not, that it is legal for Western powers to intervene on the fake flag fleet—the shadow fleet—as we saw last week? What plans do the Government and our allies have to make the whole business of exporting Russian oil and gas far more risky, by undertaking a large-scale interception of the shadow fleet?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will note that I chose my words about future actions carefully. I will obviously not go into specifics, but let me just say that we know what Putin is doing. We know where he is taking things and what is happening, and we will not hesitate to act where we can, lawfully, to choke off those revenues that go towards fuelling the war against Ukraine. Let us remember that that is exactly what they do. Let this be a warning: we will not hesitate to use the powers we have—lawfully, of course—wherever we can.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. In December, I went on a cross-party trip with NATO to South Korea; we heard that its Government have changed their position on Russia and are now looking to open plants in Russia. They spouted the Russian lines against NATO. I have fed that into Government, but we have recently signed a huge trade deal with South Korea. Is it a concern in Government that people we are trading with are now shifting their position on Russia?

[Stephen Doughty]

We continue to work and engage with all partners around the world about the reality of any loopholes or routes that could be supporting the war. As we all know, troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were brought in by Russia to fight. There are also often entities and individuals operating within countries, and we try to bring those to the attention of the authorities of our partners and friends, so that they can take action, but we will not hesitate to sanction and take action, where appropriate.

Turning to the crucial issue of accountability, we are working closely with Ukraine and its allies to hold Russia accountable for its heinous crimes in Ukraine. We are a founding member and chair of the conference of participants of the register of damage, which allows Ukranians to record losses, injury or damage caused by the war. In December, I was proud to visit The Hague to sign, on behalf of the UK, the convention to establish an international claims commission, which will assess claims under the register of damage to determine future compensation. We are also supporting the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and the International Criminal Court to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully and fairly investigated, using independent and robust legal mechanisms.

As I mentioned, tens of thousands of boys and girls have been snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia. We are clear that this is a campaign to erase a nation’s future. We cannot allow that to happen, so we are backing crucial efforts to identify those children and bring them home, and we are working with partners on that. We have committed more than £2.8 million to helping to trace and return them. We welcome all that colleagues have been doing to raise awareness of the issue globally.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Last year, I moved my constituency office into Bosnia House, a former police station that was taken over by Anes Ceric, the CEO of the Bosnia UK Network, and his organisation. The network supports all communities, including Ukrainians, Syrians and Bosnians. There are such facilities not only in my constituency, but across the country. More help needs to be provided to ensure that the Ukrainians who settle in this country are fully supported, not only to achieve a better life, but to integrate with other communities. If any support—for example, any money drawn from sanctions—can be targeted at those organisations, it would be most gratefully received.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the contribution of the many organisations across the country that have reached out to support Ukrainian communities. I have certainly seen that in Cardiff, where some fantastic groups have done that; I know that is reflected in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is a strong heritage in this country of individuals who fled conflict working to support others who have done the same. I have seen that repeatedly in many different groups. I pay tribute to all of them, and to all the people up and down Britain who have brought Ukrainians into their homes and supported these efforts in many other ways.

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

While we are on the subject of Russian war crimes, James Scott Rhys Anderson is one of the only Britons to have been captured by the Russians. He was tried—the Foreign Office believes on false charges—and charged with being part of a terrorist group and illegally entering Russia. He was sentenced to five years in a Russian prison, and will then be transferred to a Russian penal colony, rather than being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. What progress has been made on securing his release?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the number of cases. Russia has obligations under the Geneva convention, and we expect them to be upheld. We regularly raise these cases at the appropriate levels. I am happy to talk to him separately about that specific case, but he can be assured that I am well aware of that and a number of other cases. We are clear that international law must be upheld, including the basic principles of treatment of prisoners of war and situations involving children. That goes to the heart of the nature of what the Russian regime has been doing and the lengths it is willing to go to. We urge the upholding of the commitments to basic decency and the treatment of individuals, to which we are all signed up.

We are standing with Ukrainian people on the ground in their hour of need. We have provided more than £577 million in humanitarian support for vulnerable citizens since the invasion began, including those forced to flee their homes. This year we will spend up to £100 million on support, including to help families through this harsh winter. We have upped our support in energy, particularly in response to regular attacks on energy infrastructure. A lot of our work is to help to mitigate that, but the scale of those attacks is severe and they have a daily impact, as Members can see in media reporting and from what we know on the ground.

There is no firmer friend for Ukraine than the UK. Indeed, our commitment runs deep. I have mentioned the crucial 100-year partnership that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelensky in Kyiv. That agreement has enhanced co-operation across defence and security, science, trade and culture.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his update, particularly the in-depth overview that he is giving us. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), I would appreciate an update on the work that the Minister is doing to support families in this country. I commend to him the work of the Ukrainian community centre in Reading, where there is a Ukrainian language library. It is one of the very few in the south of England, and people visit from west London and Oxford to use it. It is important that families are able to maintain their native language and that children can retain their culture at this difficult time. Will he say a few words about the importance of that form of domestic support?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. Indeed, there is a similar initiative—a Ukrainian language library—in my constituency. It is absolutely crucial that that support is given, not only because it is the right thing to do for those young people, enabling them to maintain a connection to their culture, heritage and language, but because it stands in stark contrast to the attempts by Putin to wipe out their language, culture, history and heritage—not least through the abduction of children and continued attacks. One of the most moving moments during my visit to Kyiv was in a bunker under a school, where I saw the remarkable fortitude and resilience of young people and their teachers in the face of Russia’s attempts to destroy their lives physically and psychologically. They stand firm and resilient, as Ukrainians do. That should be a lesson to us all.

Under the 100-year partnership, as well as the joint development of drone technology, trading links, digital connection and other matters, we also have important school-twinning programmes. Those things will, collectively, deliver long-term economic growth and security for the UK and Ukraine, and strengthen ties between our nations.

I will end my remarks as I know that many Members wish to contribute. The UK’s support for Ukraine is iron-clad. The Ukrainians’ security is our security. We fully support US-led efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. As we have said repeatedly, only the Ukrainian people can decide their future. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must never be changed by force, and any deal must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security—and, indeed, Europe and the United Kingdom’s security—in the future. In the meantime, we will not hesitate to keep supporting Ukraine and ensure that it has the military equipment to defend itself, while sustaining the economic pressure on Putin to cut off the revenues funding this barbaric war, and ensuring accountability for the appalling scenes of destructions and devastation, be they against children, infrastructure or the whole nation of Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.