Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the UK-EU treaty on Gibraltar. Before I do, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the people of Spain following the recent wildfires in Andalusia. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, all those affected and the emergency responders working under extremely difficult conditions. We are thinking of all the British nationals tragically affected by the fires, and our embassy and consular teams remain available to support those who require assistance.

I am pleased to inform the House that on Tuesday 14 July, I signed the treaty in Brussels, alongside EU Trade Commissioner Šefčovič, who signed on behalf of the EU. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar and Spanish Foreign Minister Albares were also present at the ceremony, in recognition of the important role Gibraltar and Spain have played in the negotiations.

This is genuinely a historic moment. It represents the culmination of over five years of work, and I pay tribute to all those whose efforts have brought us here: members of the previous Government, including the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton; and particularly my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the former Defence Secretary and the current Defence Secretary, and our crucial teams of negotiators in London, Brussels and Madrid. I particularly pay tribute to the Gibraltar team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, who have done sterling work at so many levels; it has been recognised in the Department, but I want to place on record my sincere thanks for all their efforts over many years. Of course, I also thank the Government of Gibraltar, who have been our partners at the negotiating table throughout. Nothing in this treaty has been agreed without their full involvement and support. I am also grateful to the European Commission and Spain for the constructive approach they have taken to negotiations. Together, we have found solutions that worked for all.

Throughout this process, we have been committed to transparency with Parliament. Since last June, when we reached political agreement on the treaty’s core elements, we have regularly kept Members informed of developments, including through private briefings and, on many occasions, being held to account here and in the usual ways. As I promised, we laid the final text of the treaty before Parliament on 14 July, the day of signature, alongside an explanatory memorandum, which was the earliest possible opportunity to do so. Members will see that, as I assured them, the signed treaty has not substantively changed from the draft treaty that I deposited in the Library of the House in February, which they have been examining for the past four months.

Signature of the text enabled provisional application of the treaty on 15 July. That has given the people of Gibraltar clarity and certainty. They do not have to wait for a far-off and undefined date of ratification before they can enjoy the economic and social benefits of the treaty—the fluid border is here now. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have seen the joyful, moving and genuinely historic scenes at that border after so many years, which reflect the fact that people have been at the heart of this agreement throughout. With the European Union, Spain and Gibraltar, we have put the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the wider region first.

Yesterday morning, the Chief Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, oversaw the removal of the final pieces of the fence, and there were emotional scenes. Workers, Gibraltar residents and holidaymakers are now crossing between Gibraltar and Spain with ease. The Government of Gibraltar have worked tirelessly to put in place all the necessary legislative and operational changes to make this happen, and I am very grateful for their dedication. As I said, they were truly historic and special scenes, and I was honoured to be presented with a piece of the now removed frontier, to celebrate this significant moment of a barrier coming down in continental Europe.

Having mentioned the benefits of the treaty, I think it is right to set out in full once more what those are. Over half of Gibraltar’s workforce cross the border every day. They depend on being able to do so swiftly and easily, as do the shoppers and holidaymakers going in both directions. The treaty guarantees that. Customs and immigration checks will no longer take place at the border. Instead, everyone arriving into Gibraltar airport will undergo dual immigration checks: first, a check by the Gibraltarian authorities, who remain responsible for immigration and entry into Gibraltar; and then a check by Spanish officials to enable entry into the Schengen area. Completion of both checks will enable people to move freely between Gibraltar and Spain as they choose.

As for goods, Gibraltar and the EU will form a bespoke customs model. Gibraltar will bring its standards and tariffs for goods in line with the EU’s where relevant. That eliminates the need for checks on goods at the border, making life easier for ordinary shoppers and providing reassurance for businesses. The impact of the treaty on Gibraltar’s prosperity is not limited to the fluid border, as significant a change as that is; it also enables commercial flights between Gibraltar and EU member states in the Schengen area, removing a block that has been in place for years. That will potentially bring new investment to the region and unlock economic and transport opportunities.

Among all these changes, the treaty preserves the operational autonomy of our military base. As Members will know, British Forces Gibraltar is a critical hub for naval, air and joint operations across the Mediterranean and into the middle east and more widely. The treaty fully protects our ability to operate to, through and from Gibraltar. Spain will have no ability to restrict the movement of UK military personnel or goods into the base. All information sharing will be limited to the necessary details required to support the new border arrangements. British Forces Gibraltar will remain a sovereign base for operations well into the future.

This treaty has always been about creating a framework for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU and providing its people and businesses with the stability and certainty they need post Brexit, having been left out of the arrangements at the time of withdrawal from the European Union. Nothing in it affects UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, but to make that explicit, article 2 of the treaty clearly states that no part of the treaty can be used to challenge the UK position on sovereignty. Gibraltar is a vital part of the UK family—that will not change.

In conclusion, I would like to reflect on the significant achievement that this treaty represents. It has banished the fears of a hard border between Gibraltar and Spain, bringing back memories of the past. It has given Gibraltar the certainty to move forward with renewed confidence. It will enhance the prosperity of both Gibraltar and the wider region. It has bolstered our relationships with the EU and Spain, unlocking wider and deeper co-operation, which is very welcome. I am very proud to have signed it and to have worked alongside all those others to achieve a hopeful future, to put the past behind us and to find a way forward focused on people and prosperity. I want to celebrate that new relationship here today. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I gently remind the Minister that the statement he just gave seemed to deviate slightly from the copy I had received. We need to ensure that they align perfectly. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I apologise to the previous occupant of the Chair? There was no substantive difference in my statement as delivered from the copy provided, but I may have stylistically altered a couple of lines slightly; I apologise.

I thank the shadow Minister for her very reasonable questions, her broad support for what we have signed and agreed, and her recognition that the agreement is supported by the people of Gibraltar. It is what the people of Gibraltar want and there was unanimous support in the Gibraltarian Parliament for the deal; that is very important.

The right hon. Lady asked about the CRaG process. As I explained in the debate that we had the other day, the treaty is now laid so the CRaG process starts, but scrutiny will only take place when both Houses are sitting—the intervening period of the recess does not interfere with the ability of both Houses to provide scrutiny. Helpfully, this aligns with the process in the European Parliament, which has its own processes, so scrutiny will take place in the autumn there as well. I remain completely at the disposal of the right hon. Lady, shadow Ministers and other shadow spokespeople if they have further technical or other questions, and I am sure that officials would be happy to provide further briefings.

I would gently say that we have answered many, many questions on this issue. We published a draft treaty text on 26 February—it has been available to study in this House for four months—but the text has not substantively changed since then. I have appeared before multiple Committees and indeed we had a debate in Westminster Hall just the other day. I am very happy to talk about this; there is absolutely nothing to hide. It is an important treaty and, despite the right hon. Lady’s comments about the process, I am glad that she broadly endorses it.

The right hon. Lady asked about military autonomy. I can tell her absolutely that military autonomy is protected—that was a key red line for us. Indeed, I think the treaty reflects a new relationship of co-operation: Spain is a key NATO partner, who we are working alongside on many different issues. The agreement reflects a mature and responsible way forward, but it does not affect the operations of British Forces Gibraltar in any way.

The right hon. Lady asked about goods. Guidance is being provided to businesses. There are always teething issues when bringing in such processes, but we are actively monitoring what is happening and ensuring that the systems can keep up.

The right hon. Lady asked about checks on people. I am not sure what she meant by “reported chaos”. I think there were some slight issues with the first flight that came in, but the second flight has come in, I think, without incident. We are closely monitoring what is happening on the ground. As with any new system, this is a dramatic change and there will be implementation issues. She rightly raises important concerns about the entry-exit system. The deal was made to prevent that system from operating at the existing—now removed—hard border, which would have been very logistically complex; she knows from the geography at the border. I am confident the new arrangements will work and we are monitoring them closely. Myself and other Ministers have been regularly raising with other European counterparts and the European Commission the wider entry-exit system issues that she mentions.

The right hon. Lady made some specific points about pensions, which I will happily write back to her on. I do not expect to see any provocations in the future—I am not sure what she was referring to when she said that. I expect co-operation in the mutual prosperity of the people of the whole region. That was clearly reflected in the remarks made by the Spanish Prime Minister, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Mayor of La Línea and Spanish officials. Everybody wants this treaty to work for people and for businesses, and we see a new spirit and a way forward.

The right hon. Lady asked about the concordat. I have signed the concordat with the Chief Minister. I have also written with some further clarifications, which I hope are satisfactory and address any concerns, but we are very clear: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. Of course, we have some constitutional responsibilities, but as I have set out, only in exceptional circumstances would there be any difference in our position and we would always be working alongside Gibraltar. I set that out very clearly in the documents, which she can read. I hope she is satisfied and I remain at her disposal for further detailed technical questions.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on this important agreement, which provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar, while also providing economic opportunities and important safeguards for that place. I thank Foreign Office staff for the work that they have done, and both the current and previous Gibraltar Government representatives in the UK, Jonathan Scott and Dominique Searle. Does the Minister agree that this much-needed agreement provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely do. The agreement enjoyed unanimous support in the Parliament. Gibraltar has been at the heart of the negotiations throughout: one of our key conditions was that Gibraltar was entirely satisfied with what was agreed. Fundamentally, the agreement will benefit people, businesses and communities —that is at its heart. I add my thanks to the officials mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar last July. I warmly welcome the agreement and congratulate the Minister and the Government, together with Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on securing it. Gibraltar has always insisted that there should be nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar, and this agreement both meets that expectation and honours that principle. I also pay tribute to the Spanish Government for the pragmatism they have shown in coming to this arrangement.

The agreement finally resolves the existential uncertainty created by Brexit. It protects Gibraltar’s economy, safeguards our defence interests and gives the territory certainty and confidence in its own future. Self-determination is and must remain the bedrock of our relationship with all our overseas territories. Sadly, that is especially important to say today after the disgraceful scenes in Atlanta last night, where football was used as a platform to challenge the democratic right of Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. That principle is not negotiable and never should be.

I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, in relation to the EU’s entry-exit system coming into force, what reassurance can he give British travellers that journeys to and from Gibraltar will not face unnecessary disruption this summer and into the future? Secondly, have the Government assessed the practical impact of the Schengen 90-day and 180-day rule on British citizens travelling to Gibraltar? If so, what conclusions has that assessment reached? Finally, will the Minister reassure the House that the constitutional safeguards within this agreement are sufficiently robust to ensure that Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain never again return to the uncertainty and border disruption of the past?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their wholehearted support, which is very welcome. I assure him that the constitutional safeguards are in place; they are at the heart of this agreement and are entered into in good faith by all involved, particularly by ourselves and the European Union. That is why this has been a complex and long process. The treaty is a substantive document that ensures that the right safeguards and provisions are in place.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the 90-day and 180-day rule. People do not have an automatic right to go and spend beyond that period in Gibraltar at the moment, and Gibraltar remains responsible for its own immigration processes. We looked at these issues, and this is what Gibraltar agreed to in order for there to be fluid access into the Schengen area. Gibraltar residents are not prevented in any way from returning home to Gibraltar, and we will look at how these things are implemented over time. Fundamentally, this treaty opens up opportunities for people and businesses to travel to Gibraltar and the wider region. Hopefully, new flights will also open up—obviously, subject to commercial interests. This genuinely open up new hopes for travel and investment in the region.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the entry-exit system. As I explained to the shadow Minister, we keep this matter under close monitoring, as we do in relation to all entry and exit points in the Schengen area. We are always raising issues through our posts and concerns, and we raise things with the European Commission. There are exceptions and processes by which those can be dealt with when queues get too large or problems emerge, but we are confident that they will be dealt with in the case of Gibraltar.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the events yesterday, which I agree were deeply inappropriate and disappointing. It is a real shame that people could not focus on the football, and I think most people looking at the events would feel that way. We have absolutely no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. The Falklands are British—they remain British, and they will continue to be British. Falkland Islanders want to be British, and they have explained that many, many times. Let us get back to focusing on the football.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister and his counterparts in the Gibraltarian Government on getting this treaty over the line. Along with many Members across this House, I went on a visit to Gibraltar a few weeks ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was incredible to see our British forces in Gibraltar and to see how many of them are actually Gibraltarians, and are not just from the mainland United Kingdom. I was really impressed by the Chief Minister and all his team; they were really looking forward to this moment. They are a very agile Government. We could learn some lessons from them—I suppose the population of Gibraltar being only the same size as the population of the Isle of Sheppey in my constituency probably helps slightly! Can the Minister confirm that there will be no diminishment in or deterioration of the capability and operational abilities of our forces and our base in Gibraltar? Are there things that this treaty enables us to do that will enhance our military capacity in Gibraltar?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit. Having visited Gibraltar a number of times myself, I know that it is a truly special place to visit. Having also been caught in long queues while crossing the former border, I know how delighted I will be not to face that in the future and to be able to enjoy the wider region in Spain as well. The impact is very positive. There will be no changes to our military capability or ability to operate; our autonomy and operational capability remain the same. I think this is a new era for co-operation between the UK and Spain as NATO allies and in many different areas, and this treaty sets a new spirit for that co-operation going forward.

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

May I warmly endorse what the Minister said about the Falkland Islands, and ask a question or two about security aspects? Given that both we and Spain are in NATO, the reassurances about the sovereignty of the base are welcome. Can the Minister confirm that on those occasions when military assets, including munitions, have to be moved into the area, the report that I have seen suggesting that everything about munitions has to be reported to the Spanish authorities does not mean that this cannot be done in secrecy when that is required? Finally, with regard to the border, is there any danger that, without the land border, people will be enabled to get on an aeroplane and come to the UK who might pose a security threat, and then we would be in difficulty sending them back? Hopefully none of those fears is warranted, but I would like to hear that from the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

As always, the right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. I can absolutely assure him that there is no change in the ability to operate in the way that we have done from Gibraltar in the past. Indeed, I welcome the new co-operation with our Spanish friends—our NATO allies. All the appropriate liaison will take place, but our ability to operate will not be affected in any way. That was an absolute red line for us.

The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that the wider security concerns were a key part of our discussions. They are important for Spain, they are important for us, they are important locally, and they are obviously important given air travel from Gibraltar. I will not go into the operational details in the House today, but he can be assured of that.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I warmly congratulate the Government on successfully securing this historic, landmark agreement. I thank the Minister and his team for engaging with the APPG and for his words today explaining the sheer emotion that this treaty brings to Gibraltarians. Having visited Gibraltar on a number of occasions, and having spoken and listened to its Government, businesses and people, I know that they are really proudly British and want to remain so.

This agreement protects Gibraltar’s sovereignty and its sovereign military base, strengthens our relationship with Spain, improves co-operation with our European neighbours and delivers what Gibraltar has consistently asked for. It has been backed by the Gibraltarian Parliament and supported by every former Chief Minister —I thank them for their commitment, dedication and trust in us. Does the Minister agree that those criticising this agreement should spend less time speaking on what they believe is for Gibraltar and more time listening to the people of Gibraltar? They have consistently supported this agreement and, as I have heard today, joyfully welcomed it.

[Stephen Doughty]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work and that of the all-party parliamentary group. I genuinely welcome the cross-party involvement in that group over many years, which has always been done with a focus on the interests of the people of Gibraltar. I can see that a number of members of the APPG are in the Chamber today, and that is very important. I absolutely agree; we need to listen to what the people of Gibraltar want, what they have clearly expressed throughout this process and what Gibraltar’s Parliament has reflected in its unanimous support for the agreement. She rightly summarises all the benefits. It was a delight to see her in Brussels just before I travelled over to sign the treaty in person, and I thank her and all Members who have taken an interest in Gibraltar for their work. I encourage them to continue to do so as new opportunities emerge.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I understand entirely why His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar needed a new arrangement following our departure from the European Union. Gibraltar was excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement by the last Conservative Government and left high and dry, so it needed a new arrangement. However, I believe this agreement is deeply flawed—it is quite clearly a constitutional compromise. British citizens will no longer have the same right of access to Gibraltar that we have today. Having sat in this House when the previous Labour Government tried to negotiate joint sovereignty with Spain, I know that we simply cannot trust Madrid or the European Union—if we give them something, they will give nothing back. Their ultimate aim is sovereignty over the Rock, so any compromise on the constitutional arrangements for Gibraltar should be opposed by this House.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman was previously a member of the party that left Gibraltar high and dry when it was in government, so it is quite rich to hear him make those comments. I am afraid that I totally reject his claims. If he had seen the scenes of Gibraltarians celebrating and actually listened to them and what they wanted, and if he had actually read the treaty, he would know that it says nothing about joint sovereignty. Sovereignty was not on the table in these negotiations, and it never would have been. His comments about trust are completely out of kilter with what people on the ground want. People in Gibraltar and in Andalusia want to work together, have prosperity together and celebrate their trade and commercial links, so it is not for him to stand up in this House and tell Gibraltarians what to think.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on the agreement. Does he agree that it is only possible in part because of the work that this Government have done to repair the relationship between Britain and the European Union? That is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the people of Glasgow who I represent.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The benefits of this agreement go well beyond just being for the people of Gibraltar, La Línea and the neighbouring region; they reflect a new relationship between the UK and EU—one of trust, co-operation and working in the interests of people, business and consumers, not pursuing an outdated ideology. The element of trust that we all collectively were able to inject into these negotiations is why we have come to this successful conclusion, and it provides a very good basis for discussions on other matters.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the article 2 sovereignty clause, this treaty demands that Gibraltar aligns with a number of EU laws, standards and tariffs. If the European Court of Justice is at odds with a Gibraltar court on the application of those, no matter of arbitration will ever shift the European Union from being absolutely wedded to the supremacy, in their eyes, of the European Court of Justice. How can that sovereignty test ever be met?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear that sovereignty was not on the table. Gibraltar—its Government and its Parliament—has freely agreed to this agreement, and a range of arrangements are in place, as well as dispute mechanisms, to ensure that fluid movement can take place across the border and high standards will continue to be enjoyed. Those are set out very clearly in the treaty, and I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of those arrangements and how they will operate in practice, but I emphasise that this agreement has Gibraltar, its Government and its people at its heart. They have backed it, and they have agreed to remove that border and the risk of a hard border, which would have been disastrous for Gibraltarians.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

As the Minister knows from our Westminster Hall debate last week, I was part of an APPG delegation to Gibraltar a couple of months ago, where we had a wide-ranging set of meetings. I congratulate all those involved in achieving the treaty. One reservation that was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition there—who did, of course, eventually support the treaty—was about possible future changes. He wanted an absolute guarantee that the people of Gibraltar would have the final say on any future constitutional changes. Could the Minister confirm that is the case?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent advocacy and support on behalf of Gibraltarians —it is very important to see that support on both sides of the House today. The concordat that I have set out with the Chief Minister, and indeed the letter I have written, set out how we will work incredibly closely with the Government of Gibraltar going forward to address any unforeseen circumstances. The treaty has clear provisions in relation to that, as well. Of course, we do not foresee circumstances in which those provisions would ever be needed, but it is important that they are always there, and I am confident that they will stand the test of time.

Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government are pleased to provide an update to the House on the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar. The treaty was signed in Brussels yesterday, 14 July, and laid before Parliament for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I signed on behalf of the UK, and Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, signed on behalf of the EU. The ceremony was also attended by the Spanish Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares, and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo.

This treaty resolves one of the last outstanding issues from Brexit, by creating a framework for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. It establishes a fluid border between Gibraltar and Spain, providing the people of Gibraltar and the region with much-needed legal certainty and stability, and securing their prosperity. It safeguards the operational autonomy of our military facilities, ensuring that they can continue their vital contribution to regional security without interference or interruption. And it protects UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, with a clause which makes explicitly clear that nothing in the treaty can be used to challenge our sovereignty position.

The Treaty is being provisionally applied from 15 July, providing certainty for the people and economy of Gibraltar. His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar has prepared the necessary legislative, operational and infrastructure changes to enable the new arrangements to begin on 15 July.

The scrutiny process will be led by the European Affairs Committee.

[HCWS260]

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John, for what I hope will be an interesting and constructive debate about the future of Gibraltar. I am delighted to be joined by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar—the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—on which I serve as the vice-chairman.

As the result of a discussion between me and the Gibraltar Government representative, who is in the Gallery, we thought it would be useful to have a fact-finding trip to Gibraltar, so that when the treaty on the future of the Rock was up for discussion, we could have one from an informed position. Two or three people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to, but I was delighted that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the Cross-Bench peer, accompanied me, and we were also joined for one or two of the meetings by Lord James Wharton, from the upper House.

Following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme that was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the local population, the business community and, of course, the politicians in Gibraltar. We had a meeting with His Excellency the Governor, which was just a courtesy call, but it is always a pleasure to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear how they approach the issues. I should point out that we went at our own expense, so we were independent of the Government of Gibraltar.

After we had seen the Governor, we were delighted to go to the airport and be joined by the Chief Minister, who delighted in giving us a tour of the airport. He has clearly devoted a great deal of time and effort to the arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides are content and, importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is maintained. We all know the long history of Spanish claims on the Rock, but that is definitely not in any way part of the treaty; sovereignty is absolute.

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

indicated assent.

[Martin Vickers]

I can see the Minister nodding; no doubt he will confirm that later.

On our trip to the airport, the concerns about Spanish officials operating on the Rock were, to some extent, assuaged. I was delighted that we were able to receive reassurance from not just the Chief Minister but his senior officials who accompanied us on the tour of the airport. I know there have been certain concerns about Spanish officials, police and the like operating within British territory, but the arrangements that have been made mean that, to a great extent, our fears can be assuaged.

Next we visited the commander at the British base. He assured us that there is co-operation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial to both sides. There is no interference in the operations of the base, and the military is content with the arrangements. The American navy had been in the port only a day or two before our visit. It was encouraging, particularly in view of the current world situation and some of the noises coming from the American Administration, that work and co-operation are continuing at a purely operational level.

There was one visit on which we heard some discontent. We walked along Main Street and called in to see a number of retailers, purely at random, and they raised some concerns. As we know, the retail sector is struggling in many countries, and Gibraltar is no exception. Interestingly enough, one of the shops we went into dealt in ceramics, and the owner imported most of his products from the UK. He pointed out that because of various impositions on the ceramics sector, the costs were rising in the UK so much that it was becoming unprofitable to operate. With the proposed taxation arrangements in Gibraltar affecting retailers, he was going to cease operations in the not-too-distant future after being in business for about 25 years. It was very sad to hear that. But on the whole, although many of the retailers were not particularly happy, they recognised the overall benefits to Gibraltar of the operations.

I have mentioned the concerns about security and so on. One of our meetings was with the chief commissioner of the police, who recognised that there are a number of issues that need what he described as “further consideration”. Having said that, when we left the meeting we felt that, on the whole, his concerns could be worked through. I am sure the Minister is well aware of them, but I would be more than happy to discuss them with him if that would be beneficial.

We then had a lunchtime meeting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Health, Care and Business Minister. It is important to stress that we had full co-operation from the Chief Minister and his Ministers during our visit, bearing in mind that we had no official standing and were merely there as representatives of the all-party group. I want to put on the record our sincere thanks to the Gibraltar representative for assisting us in making the arrangements for the visit.

In the course of the lunch with the Chief Minister, once we had dealt with the routine matters we were there to discuss, we had a very useful political discussion. It is always interesting to hear an outside politician’s views of what is happening over here in the UK. I am not entirely sure what they would make of it today, but a couple of months ago we had a fascinating discussion, mainly about whether there were concerns about the treaty across the political spectrum here in the UK. We were able to give reassurance, based on the meetings we had and knowing the views of colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group, that there would be all-party support from Westminster.

According to the report we put together, we discussed the evolving UK-EU relationship, and on the whole the direction of travel was greatly supported. We also discussed a number of the issues that were causing concern, including—if I can remember the ins and outs of it—people taking advantage of the arrangements that were being put in place. It is probably not something we need to cover today, but it is worth recording that there were some concerns about people trying to take advantage of the health services provided in Gibraltar. We also had a constructive meeting with the vice-chancellor of the university, whom we had met on previous occasions. It was interesting to receive an update on how things were progressing there.

We had an interesting meeting with Keith Azopardi, the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, because we wanted to ensure that we received views on the treaty from across the political spectrum. He pointed out that the opposition had imposed a number of red lines in their discussions, but as Members will know, the draft treaty was eventually approved unanimously by the Gibraltarian Parliament. The leader of the opposition quite understandably pointed out his party’s concerns. As opposition parties do, it obviously wanted to carve out a position whereby if something went wrong, he would be able to say, “I told you so.” I can see Government Members smiling at that, because they have been in opposition—my party is in opposition now, and the shadow minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), may point out one or two of our concerns in that respect.

Mr Azopardi expressed genuine concerns but—he will probably not thank me for saying this—in all honesty I think he was struggling to find reasons why he would have been tempted to vote against the treaty. It is important to recognise that political parties across Gibraltar have supported the treaty and feel on balance that it would be beneficial for it to be ratified.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, and to that of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which have been broadly in the spirit that I and the people and Government of Gibraltar would have hoped for: reasonable, fair scrutiny with broad support. It is important to emphasise that, because it sends a strong signal that complements the strong support of the democratically elected Parliament of Gibraltar for the draft UK-EU agreement.

I will respond to specific points as I go, but will start by paying a tribute to all those involved in the process over many years: His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar—the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Attorney General and all their officials and teams—and our teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the senior officials who did sterling work in taking us through the detailed process. The treaty is a big one, with many associated administrative and practical arrangements. I know there have at times been frustrations about the length of the process and the detail, but it was important to get it right. This is about the future of Gibraltar and our relationship with the EU, Gibraltar and Spain.

I also pay tribute to our friends in the EU and Spain for the constructive spirit they have shown throughout the discussions and negotiations. We have come to a conclusion that is beneficial for people, which is what we all sought to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a party political point but an important one: in the end, this was about people and businesses, their lives and their ability to move, to trade and to get on, without the uncertainty caused by Brexit.

Gibraltar was not included in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement that was negotiated by the previous Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. That meant serious uncertainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why we have worked together to find a practical and lasting solution that protects Gibraltar’s economy and way of life for the long term, while crucially safeguarding our sovereignty.

We had previously reached the provisional and political agreements, and have been involved in the detailed process for some time. We have now achieved an agreement that ensures the free circulation of people and goods between Gibraltar and the EU by removing the physical barriers on the border between Gibraltar and Spain. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that, not least because of what the people of Gibraltar went through for so many years. That will mean jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar but—it is important to emphasise—for the whole region. That involves EU Schengen area rules relating to border checks being applied in Gibraltar and a customs union being established between the EU and Gibraltar. That will bring certainty to the territory.

Let me turn first to some of the questions about scrutiny; I will answer the questions from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in detail in due course. The CRaG Act 2010 gives statutory form to long-standing constitutional conventions on the scrutiny of treaties and is the process we are legally obliged to follow to ratify treaties. Despite the very particular approach of the CRaG system, transparency has been at the heart of our approach. I gently rebuff some of shadow Minister’s comments, because we published the draft text of the agreement on 26 February, and I gave an oral statement to the House on the same day. We have had this debate today and I have appeared before Committees and answered many questions. We have attempted at all stages to be transparent and open. I have offered private briefings to shadow ministerial colleagues and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister set out the timeline today and assure us—

[Stephen Doughty]

indicated assent.

[Wendy Morton]

He is nodding, so I will sit with bated breath.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will come back to the timeline in due course. It is quite right that throughout the process Parliament has provided scrutiny, as it has been doing in this debate, which is very welcome.

[Edward Morello]

Perhaps it is useful to point out that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not, as standard, hold evidence sessions on every treaty that is laid before Parliament under the CRaG process. The Minister and the Chief Minister very kindly appeared before us to give evidence, and frankly a lot of the questions that the shadow Minister asked were probably answered in that evidence session.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed; that is a fair point, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making it. We did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have endured scrutiny in the media and from businesses and others—and quite rightly so. On my visit to Gibraltar, I met with the leader of the opposition, businesses and others, who had legitimate and reasonable questions to ask. We have done our best to answer those transparently and in good faith.

What matters most at this point is providing clarity and certainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why I am pleased to say that the UK and EU will provisionally apply the agreement from 15 July—next week. This is an important milestone for Gibraltar. The UK and the EU, along with Gibraltar and Spain, are committed to fully ratifying the treaty as soon as possible, and we are all working at pace to achieve that.

My understanding is that the process in the European Parliament will take place this autumn, up to December. We will be operating under a similar timeline, in accordance with the discussions we are having with the relevant Committees and others regarding the CRaG process. Once signed, the treaty will be provided immediately to the UK Parliament, and I will make the appropriate statements to signify that moment. We will then have the CRaG process and ratification. I hope that satisfies Members who asked about the timeline, but I will go into a little more detail later.

Much of the legislative and operational work to bring the agreement into force is being led by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and they have made very strong progress in a short space of time. They have already put in place their main primary legislation and are working tirelessly on the many practical steps needed to apply the agreement. I am pleased to say that there is very strong co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian authorities across areas of shared implementation, including the physical infrastructure works required at Gibraltar’s airport. We stand ready to assist in whatever way we can, and have done so throughout the process.

It is important to emphasise, as many Members have, that negotiations on sovereignty were never on the table during the treaty negotiations, and that was not in doubt. The agreement is about technical arrangements that govern Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. I appreciate the compliments paid by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), and others about article 2 of the treaty, which makes it clear that the agreement in no way affects our sovereignty position on Gibraltar and cannot be used to challenge it.

As I set out both in opposition and now in government, we remain committed to the Gibraltar double lock, which means we would never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, and we would never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar was not content. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected in the treaty for the long term. If it had not been, we would not have agreed it.

Many Members raised important points about the military base. Safeguarding the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities has been a red line for the UK Government throughout our discussions. The agreement protects that autonomy and allows our facilities to continue their vital contribution to regional security and prosperity. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved in the negotiations at every stage. We have the full backing of the Defence Secretary and defence teams on this agreement. I am glad that that was confirmed by colleagues’ experiences of engaging with the Commander British Forces in Gibraltar.

The agreement also removes immigration checks at Gibraltar’s land border with Spain. That is crucial for the nearly 15,000 people who cross the border every day for work, and for protecting Gibraltar’s economy. To unlock the benefits of a fluid border, travellers arriving at the airport will undergo dual immigration controls. Under this system, visitors have the benefit of crossing freely into Spain without checks. Time spent in Gibraltar will therefore count towards the EU’s 90/180 days requirement. The Government of Gibraltar have assessed that the significant impact of an open border outweighs any challenges that might result from it. Because Gibraltar automatically already applies a period for UK residents coming into Gibraltar, it has been pointed out that, practically, this means very little. It does not, of course, affect the residents of Gibraltar itself. The agreement delivers a solution that the Government of Gibraltar want, and the Chief Minister has been very clear on that.

The treaty has a series of benefits for wider relationships. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the welcome announcement regarding non-co-operative jurisdictions from our friends in Spain. That is important to Gibraltar and is a testament to how things have moved forward. We have seen tangible and positive developments in our relationship with our friends in Spain across a whole series of issues that matter to people here in the UK, including our co-operation in business, security and trade. That is welcome. The treaty is, of course, one of the crucial aspects of the reset in our relationship with the European Union. This agreement is good for Gibraltar and for the United Kingdom, and it is good for all the people, including our people. Right hon. and hon. Members have accurately reflected the work and statecraft that has gone into it and the practical benefits it will deliver. This marks a turning point.

Before I conclude, let me respond to some of the specific points that have been made. I have answered the questions about the timing of the CRaG process, but Members will appreciate that bringing a treaty of this complexity into effect has required a set of interlocking processes. We are not the sole guardians of the process; there are processes in Gibraltar, Spain and the European Union, and the treaty can be signed only once those processes—including the EU’s translation of the text into 23 other official languages—have concluded and been aligned. Rather than delaying the publication until that point, we chose to bring forward the draft treaty so that Members could scrutinise it and see the detail.

I assure Members that the text published in February remains substantively unchanged. The intervening period has been used for legal verification, technical checks and the preparation of authentic language versions. That is one of the reasons why the final treaty will be published and signed imminently. The provisional application will take place from 15 July, and we will then make the appropriate statements in this House and start the CRaG process, in line with discussions with the secretariat of the European Affairs Committee regarding the practical arrangements.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I am conscious that in between there will be a recess. I will ensure that that does not affect this House’s ability to have the proper period to scrutinise under the CRaG process. That may be what the shadow Minister was going to ask.

[Wendy Morton]

It was along those lines, but for absolute clarity, does the Minister envisage the treaty coming forward before we break for recess?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do envisage the treaty coming forward, but I want to ensure that we do not start the clock and then Members feel they do not have a chance to scrutinise it over the recess. The minute that the treaty is signed, it will be provided—within appropriate transmission times—to both Houses. We will ensure that we are in close contact with the Committees and that we have an agreement on the CRaG process, and we will make the appropriate statements. Sir John, you will know that the timing of statements and debates in the House is a matter for the usual channels between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to shy away from scrutiny, and that is why I welcome this debate. We will not try to curtail the CRaG process in any way. In practical terms, this treaty will have had far more pre-scrutiny and Committee scrutiny in this House than many other international treaties. I hope that provides some assurance to colleagues.

Members asked a number of other questions. I have covered the questions about article 2 and sovereignty. I was asked about future scenarios that might emerge with respect to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. It is important to emphasise that the Gibraltar Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the UK to ratify the treaty, subject to the existence of a concordat assuring that the UK can exercise its powers in the treaty only with the consent of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine in a referendum whether the treaty should be terminated in the future. Obviously, we hope to never get to that scenario, but it is important that we have those safeguards in place.

To answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked, I quote from my letter to the Chief Minister on 2 March:

“It is therefore politically inconceivable that in any normal circumstances, should a democratically elected Government in Gibraltar or indeed the Gibraltarian people determine that this agreement does not serve their interests, His Majesty’s Government would not take action.”

I hope that provides assurance, as it is certainly the tenor of my discussions with the Chief Minister and, indeed, of the discussions he has had in the Gibraltar Parliament.

I have touched on the questions about the 90-in-180-day rule, but for the record, under the agreement, non-resident British nationals can visit Gibraltar for up to 90 days, as is the case today—there is no change in that—but, as visitors will be free to enter Spain without checks, time spent in Gibraltar will count towards the 90-in-180-day requirement of the EU. Importantly, immigration into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. The agreement provides a unique solution, a fluid border, and puts different procedures and processes in place.

On the military base, there are lots of details, but I was asked a specific question, so I want to be clear that UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks under the proposed arrangements. That will enable our facilities to continue their vital operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel serving in Gibraltar and their families will not depend on Schengen border checks; as is the case now, the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. We also have important agreements on goods entering the base. As colleagues will understand, we do not disclose sensitive operational details, but we have agreed special arrangements to ensure the functioning of the new arrangements.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I asked him about officials from Spain being at border control posts alongside officials from Gibraltar to oversee that work, and about the impact and influence that they may have. Can he confirm that that will be the case? What influence will the Spanish officials have? Will they oversee or counteract Gibraltar border control and customs officials?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. The practical checks that take place at the airport are not dissimilar to the juxtaposed controls at St Pancras and elsewhere. We tried to come up with a practical solution to the new arrangement, and it is one that has the full agreement of the Government of Gibraltar. Everyone arriving at the airport will undergo Gibraltar immigration controls carried out by Gibraltar officials, followed by Schengen entry checks carried out by Spanish officials on behalf of the EU. On completion of those checks, individuals will be able to enter both Gibraltar and the Schengen area.

As I said, that set-up is similar—it is not exactly the same—to how we make the arrangements work practically at St Pancras. Of course, 18,000 people use Eurostar every day, and we have heard about the 15,000 people crossing the border in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar and the different authorities are working closely on a whole series of practical and physical arrangements for how things will work—I will not go into the detail of all the different maps, plans and architect’s drawings that we scrutinised in great detail.

As was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, another benefit of the agreement is that, subject to commercial interest, new flight routes into Gibraltar from other areas within the Schengen area could open up. Again, this will provide an economic boost and benefit. I pay particular tribute to the Deputy Chief Minister, who has taken a keen role in relation to the airport and its functioning over the years; it has been at the heart of the agreement throughout.

On customs checks and the business impacts, I recognise the points made by Members about the questions they have been asked by businesses. The UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar are confident that overall, the economic benefits of the agreement will massively outweigh any issues with changes. Obviously, there will be implementation periods for the taxation arrangements, which are for Gibraltar to decide on; for example, there will be a period coming up to the VAT rate changes.

On customs checks for businesses, to allow for free flow across the Gibraltar-Spain border, goods in Gibraltar must meet EU standards. Over half of all goods in Gibraltar arrive from the EU and already meet those standards, as do many others that arrive from outside the EU. They are going to be pre-cleared away from the land border by relevant customs officials. The Government of Gibraltar fully support that new model, which brings in the benefits of an open border and protects Gibraltar’s economy.

Points were made about security. I think there is a steadfast commitment on both sides to work together, with practical arrangements between law enforcement agencies. None of us wants anything going on in Gibraltar or indeed over the border in Spain that will put anyone at risk. We all know the types of threats, which we share. That is at the heart of the wider discussions we are having with the EU about how we better align on law enforcement and security and defence.

I want to conclude by thanking everybody for their scrutiny, which has been hugely important. I thank the all-party group for its consistent engagement over many years, and I thank friends in the Gallery for their engagement. I really do think this is a milestone moment in finalising something that was left undone by Brexit. The agreement will have practical benefits for the people of Gibraltar, for the people of the whole region, for the United Kingdom, and for the UK and the EU. There are wins across the board in the agreement. I very much hope that Members will engage with the CRaG process as it goes forward. I will keep the House fully informed, as appropriate, the minute the treaty is signed and deposited. With that, I thank Members for their contributions.

Russia: Chemical Weapons

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Written Statements

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

In February this year at the Munich security conference, the United Kingdom, together with our European partners Sweden, Germany, France and the Netherlands, confirmed that prominent Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a lethal toxin, Epibatidine, while being held in the custody of the Russian state in a Siberian penal colony. He did not survive. Epibatidine is a poison derived from the skin of a toxic dart frog found in the Amazon rainforest, far away from Russia, and only the Russian state had the means, motive and opportunity to administer this.

This is only the latest incident. Russia’s willingness to develop and deploy highly toxic chemicals forms a clear and disturbing pattern. Alexei Navalny survived an earlier poisoning from a Novichok nerve agent in 2020 which he attributed to the Kremlin. In 2018, a Novichok was used in Salisbury in an attempt to assassinate the Skripals which tragically resulted in the death of a British national, Dawn Sturgess.

Following the confirmation that Alexei Navalny was poisoned with Epibatidine, the Foreign Secretary said we would

“make use of all policy levers at our disposal to continue to hold Russia to account.”

Today I am updating the House on a new package of sanctions under the UK’s chemical weapons regime, targeting two leading scientific and military Russian institutions and key individuals involved in the research, development and production of the lethal toxin Epibatidine and Novichoks in flagrant violation of Russia’s obligations under the chemical weapons convention and biological and toxin weapons convention.

Our sanctions today send a strong message that the UK will continue to take action by exposing those within Russia’s scientific and military community who are responsible for such egregious actions, deterring others from pursuing similar activity.

This package builds upon prior sanctions for Russia’s use of chemical weapons on the battlefield in Ukraine.

The Russian state has demonstrated time and time again that it is unafraid to use the full range of despicable tools available to it to terrorise people, including its own citizens, and undermine democracy, in brazen defiance of international norms.

It is clear Russia did not destroy all its chemical weapons as claimed in 2017, and that it has not renounced biological weapons, as it is obliged to under the biological and toxin weapons convention. Ahead of tomorrow’s 112th executive council meeting at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons we stand ready with our partners and states parties to impress upon Russia the need to rejoin the consensus of the international community, and to pursue science for peaceful purposes.

[HCWS186]

Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Written Statements

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

On 25 and 26 June, the Foreign Secretary attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026 in Gdańsk, Poland, where she was joined by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The annual conference is the major international recovery and reconstruction event for Ukraine, and the most important non-military focused conference in the Ukraine calendar. It brings together Governments, international financial institutions, civil society and the private sector to mobilise support for Ukraine’s long-term recovery.

URC26 has come at a critical moment as Russia continues its illegal war with sustained attacks on Ukraine’s civilian and critical national infrastructure.

On Thursday, the Foreign Secretary set out a total package of half a billion pounds of support for Ukraine, made up of almost £290 million of bilateral assistance to bolster Ukraine’s recovery and energy security, and the signing of a £210 million UK Export Finance guarantee, previously announced by the Prime Minister at the G7, to help secure Ukraine’s nuclear energy supply.

The bilateral assistance of £290 million for this financial year will help meet Ukraine’s urgent energy and humanitarian needs as well as support longer-term economic and social recovery. This package was referenced in the Foreign Secretary’s written ministerial statement and oral statement on official development assistance programme allocations back in March.

Three projects were highlighted which form part of this package:

Up to £13 million to support British International Investment’s intention to commit to the EU flagship fund. The fund will provide long-term equity investments into key sectors including energy, infrastructure, and SMEs—all critical to rebuilding Ukraine’s economic foundations. The fund—backed by the European Union, and the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, and Poland, alongside their development finance institutions—represents a flagship platform for collective UK-European action.

Up to £12 million for a new governance programme. This will include up to £2.4 million for the EU anti-corruption initiative to help Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies and key civil society actors prevent, spot, investigate and prosecute corruption. It will also include up to £1 million to deliver core judicial reforms so Ukraine’s justice system operates with integrity, meets EU accession requirements, and underpins wider objectives on anti-corruption, democratic governance, and post-war recovery.

Up to £763,000 to continue to support reforms to modernise Ukraine’s energy and climate sectors and to develop and promote decarbonisation policy, through support for the Green Transition Office and for the implementation of the recently adopted national energy and climate plan of Ukraine, key for the green transition, and unlocking EU markets.

The £210 million UK Export Finance guarantee will enable UK-based Urenco to supply nuclear fuel to Ukraine’s national power company Energoatom to enable nuclear power plants to continue supplying over 50% of the country’s electricity for the next two years. This deal is critical to Ukraine’s energy security, strengthening Ukraine’s resilience and ability to withstand Russia’s attacks on its energy infrastructure. The deal will also boost the British economy, as Urenco employs more than 650 people in the UK and its Chester site supports more than 4,500 jobs around the UK in the wider supply chain.

The UK also announced a series of additional measures for Ukraine, including:

the UK’s latest $1 billion tranche of fiscal support for Ukraine, approved by the World Bank, which, pooled with partners’ support, will provide more than $4 billion in additional funding for Ukraine. This support will keep hospitals, schools and essential public services operating across Ukraine and help unlock private sector investment, support economic growth and create skilled jobs.

new British International Investment investments of up to £65 million, utilising existing UK ODA funding, to co-finance projects that will expand lending to small and medium-sized enterprises through the Bank of Lviv and support construction of two new wind farms;

up to £200,000 to scale up support to Ukraine’s critical minerals sector through deploying British Geological Survey expertise to strengthen geological data, improve standards and unlock investment;

up to £1 million for the second year of the DBT’s project development programme to support British business participation in the early-stage planning of reconstruction projects across Ukraine following the successful delivery of projects in phase one, including feasibility and scoping studies of Lviv airport future expansion by British companies and modernisation of schools in Vinnytsia.

UK Export Finance and Ukraine’s export credit agency also signed a memorandum of understanding which will strengthen expertise sharing and support Ukraine’s export credit agency to help drive Ukraine’s private sector and exports.

These announcements bring total UK non-military support since the start of the invasion to £5.6 billion which includes:

up to £4.1 billion in fiscal support through World Bank loan guarantees to bolster Ukraine’s economic stability and support vital public services.

up to £1.5 billion in committed bilateral assistance to fund humanitarian, energy, stabilisation, reform, recovery and reconstruction programmes.

The UK remains a leading partner for Ukraine’s resilience, recovery and long-term prosperity. Our support fosters long-term political, security, economic and reform collaboration, anchored in the 100-year partnership, to help Ukraine endure now, recover at scale, and build the foundations for a secure Euro-Atlantic future.

[HCWS173]

UK-St Helena BIOT Migrants Memorandum of Understanding: Extension

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Written Statements

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

On 21 October 2024, I spoke to the House confirming that on 15 October 2024, a new memorandum of understanding (MoU) had been reached with the Government of St Helena so that any new migrants arriving on the British Indian Ocean Territory would be transferred to St Helena, recalling that in practice no new migrants have arrived on Diego Garcia since 2022. The intention was for that MoU to last until a treaty between the UK and Mauritius came into force.

Given the need to ensure this arrangement continues to operate effectively moving forward, on 21 May 2026, we reached a further understanding with the Government of St Helena to extend the MoU until 30 April 2028.

Although we do not anticipate the arrangement with St Helena being required for its full term, we and the Government of St Helena agreed it would be prudent to settle on a maximal timeframe, negating the need for any further extensions.

We are hugely grateful to the Government of St Helena for their continued commitment to the border security of both the United Kingdom and BIOT.

As part of the arrangement and within existing FCDO budget allocations, the UK Government have committed to provide a one-off investment of £8 million in St Helena to improve health and education outcomes, and improve telecommunications and renewable energy infrastructure. This is consistent with our long-term support to the sustainable development of St Helena. Other technical support and costs remain, as I said to the House on 21 October 2024.

In further recognition of St Helena’s valued place within the British family, the UK Government also commit to provide a one-off ex gratia payment of £250,000 to St Helena.

We thank the community of St Helena for its willingness once again to support fellow members of the British family. This extension underlines the strength of our modern partnership with every one of our overseas territories.

[HCWS138]

OSCE: UK Delegation Appointments

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Written Statements

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

The hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) has been appointed as a full representative of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).

The right hon. Baroness Winterton of Doncaster DBE has been appointed as leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of Stephen Gethins.

[HCWS134]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

18. What recent discussions she has had with international partners on the potential merits of increasing sanctions against Russia.

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

As you will know, Mr Speaker, Jo Cox was a good friend of mine long before we came into this place, as well as a colleague of mine at Oxfam, and I have to say that coming in today on this anniversary is particularly sad. I also know that Jo would have told me to stop getting so emotional and to get on with the job in her inimitable way, as she often did—so I will do just that.

We are committed to increasing the economic pressure on Russia by disrupting the revenue the Kremlin generates from Russia’s energy trade, including oil, which remains its primary means of financing the illegal war in Ukraine. The Prime Minister has today announced further sanctions, designating and specifying 70 individuals, entities and ships under the UK’s sanctions regulations, including 20 shadow fleet vessels.

[Gregory Stafford]

While diplomatic pressure on China, India and Turkey is essential, we must also do more militarily to disrupt the shadow fleet carrying Putin’s oil. I pay tribute to our armed forces who, this weekend, boarded a Russia-linked tanker in UK waters under new Government powers. Since those powers were announced in March, 184 sanctioned shadow fleet vessels have made 238 journeys through UK waters, including 94 journeys into territorial waters, without a single interdiction until now. What is the Department doing with the Ministry of Defence and international partners to ensure that this is a sustained approach, rather than a one-off?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on future operational matters. What I can say is that we have also assisted in the interdictions of other vessels, including by working with the French and the United States in relation to the Bella 1. We keep Russia’s activities under very close review and designate hundreds of vessels under the shadow fleet measures, and we will look at all opportunities to ensure that they cannot evade sanctions.

[Dr Chambers]

Two years ago, I visited Ukraine, taking medical supplies in refurbished ambulances; we had to stop only twice to fill up with diesel, which made us realise just how close to us the frontline really is. It is deeply troubling that the Government are now reneging on their full support of Ukraine by pursuing an indefinite waiver on imports of Russian oil via third countries. I ask the Foreign Secretary to reverse course on this, and to close any loopholes putting any money into Putin’s war machine.

[Stephen Doughty]

With respect, the hon. Gentleman may not have caught up with developments on that front. First, it was never an indefinite waiver; we said that we were keeping it under two-weekly review—my colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade made that very clear. Yesterday in the House, and indeed in announcements over the weekend, we set clear end dates for those temporary licences, which are to phase in these measures. Of course, these are new measures—we were never watering down previous sanctions; these are toughening the sanctions on Russia, but with sensible provisions in place to phase them in.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be aware that the sanctioned oil and gas that is sold by Russia to Turkey and China is often used by companies in those countries to manufacture products, including ceramics. Those products are then dumped into the UK, distorting our domestic manufacturing base. That is a secondary impact of the profits coming from that sanctioned material. What evidence is the Department sharing with the Department for Business and Trade so that it can put in place the trade remedies necessary to protect our domestic manufacturing from the impacts of this illegal trading?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I would be happy to discuss it further with him, as, I am sure, would colleagues from the Department for Business and Trade.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

We pay tribute to our armed forces for their courage and bravery in boarding and seizing the Russian shadow fleet vessel at the weekend. We also welcome the further sanctions announced today, including those targeting the shadow fleet. We urge the Government to put pressure on those who buy and refine Russian oil, as the freedom of Ukraine depends on cutting off the funds that finance Putin’s illegal war. Given the urgency on the battlefields of Ukraine and the inflated revenue Putin has recently had from Russian oil, does the Minister think that the situation can wait until 2027 for the introduction of the ban on Russian-originated diesel and jet fuel imports?

[Stephen Doughty]

The shadow Minister asks an important question. I made it clear in yesterday’s Delegated Legislation Committee that that is the end date, but we are keeping it under review every two weeks and the licence could end before then, with the appropriate notice in place for industry. I am clear that our sanctions are having a categorical impact on the Russian economy. Russia has slashed its economic growth forecasts, and collectively our sanctions have denied Russia access to $450 billion, which could have fuelled the war for many more years. Our sanctions are having an impact, but we will continue to toughen them.

[Mr Snowden]

We both agree that this is important. While Putin uses globally inflated oil prices to fund his war machine, our own defence investment plan is in tatters. The former Defence Secretary’s shocking resignation letter said that the Prime Minister was “unable”, and the Chancellor “unwilling”, to provide the funding for the defence investment plan. That is absolutely damning. Astonishingly, the very next day the Government announced £4.5 billion to paint 10,000 new zebra crossings. Given that the FCDO made a big cut to its own budget to fund defence last year, does the Minister share my anger that other Departments are refusing to contribute to keep our country safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

7. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking to help tackle the global spread of disinformation on social media.

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

As the Foreign Secretary said in her Locarno speech in December, and as the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service reinforced a week later, an industrial-scale attack is being waged every day through social media, designed to undermine our democracies and divide our societies. We know that networks attributed to Russia, including Doppelgänger, are flooding social media in countries across the world—not just the UK—with counterfeit documents and deepfake material in an attempt to weaken global support for Ukraine. We are taking tough action on this front with our international partners.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Every single day a tidal wave of disinformation is being targeted at social media users in our country and around the world—and if we are in any doubt who is behind that wave of lies and fake images, we need only look at how much of it is designed to undermine the Ukrainian war effort or attack President Zelensky. Does the Minister agree that in order to protect the people of Ukraine, we need to take the fight to the sources of this information warfare?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly why we have taken the action that we have: since October 2024, we have exposed and sanctioned 96 actors and entities involved in this type of activity, and in May we imposed sanctions on another 56 individuals and entities that are particularly involved in activity to undermine Ukraine. That included employees of Social Design Agency and ANO Dialog. We are constantly looking at what measures we can take, and taking action. The Kremlin is spending billions of dollars on information warfare. We will expose this activity and take it down.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

In 2017 there was appalling ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, and Facebook was used to recruit civilian death squads. Atrocities continue to this day. The UK holds the pen on Myanmar at the UN. At the General Assembly this year, will the Foreign Secretary hold a high-level meeting to look at this issue and shine a spotlight on the human rights abuses that continue to this day in Myanmar?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am sure that my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for Myanmar would like to follow up with the right hon. Gentleman on that issue. The challenge of misinformation and disinformation relates not only to Russia but to a whole series of contexts—and not just states. We also see it in non-state actors, including Daesh and other organisations. We are working very closely with partners to identify and tackle those networks.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The political murder of Jo Cox was deeply affecting for many of us—and, frankly, none of us should ever recover from it. She was not only brave and principled; she was also funny. If I ever need to cheer myself up, I simply remember her throwing her little body into the interparliamentary tug-of-war and how very funny it was—and she knew it.

My Committee and the Philip Rycroft review have found that the UK is already experiencing Russian disinformation warfare and that our defences to it are worryingly weak. We have both recommended a statutory, public-facing national counter-disinformation centre to ensure a co-ordinated response. The French have done it. The Swedes have done it. The Ukrainians have done it. I wonder whether the Minister can hold out hope that, someday soon, Britain might do it too.

[Stephen Doughty]

Well, Jo certainly was funny. I remember standing in King Charles Street with her once just before going to see officials in the Foreign Office—she had lots of climbing ropes in her bag as she had just got back from a hiking expedition. There were many fun moments with her over the years.

My right hon. Friend raises a crucial point. I really welcome the work that she and her Committee have done on this issue. We have taken their recommendations seriously and I will continue the conversation with her. I cannot make the promise that she is asking for at the moment, but we are certainly looking closely at the suggestion.

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

At the end of March, the Foreign Affairs Committee published a report into disinformation diplomacy. We investigated how malign actors are seeking to undermine democracy in the UK from overseas using information manipulation and interference, with such techniques as spoofing, bots and co-ordinated inauthentic behaviour. The Committee recommended that the Government demand greater transparency from social media companies in relation to the algorithms exploited by malign actors overseas. What discussions are being had with other Government Departments to make that so?

[Stephen Doughty]

I assure the hon. Member that we are very much having discussions with counterparts across Government. I am sure that in the next few days I will be meeting the new Security Minister and the new Minister for the Armed Forces. I also recently met a Minister at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to discuss these very issues. I assure him that we are working closely together across Government on this issue.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her Department’s policies of international outbreaks of Ebola.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her damehood, which is well deserved, and on her consistent advocacy in relation to Armenia. I can assure her that we are monitoring the concerning situation regarding Russian economic pressure on Armenia. We are developing our strategic partnership further. In fact, I was discussing Armenia with both US and EU counterparts in recent days, and we will work closely with international partners to ensure Armenia is robust and able to pursue its own future.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T8. I understand that the FCDO sent representatives to Afghanistan to meet women’s organisations a few weeks ago, so may I seek assurances about the safety of those women’s organisations going forward, and ask for a written statement on the outcomes and context of that meeting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Every year, billions of pounds never make their way to the Treasury coffers because of British tax havens, such as the British Virgin Islands. The upcoming illicit finance summit offers us a real opportunity to tackle tax evasion and dirty money in these havens. Ahead of the summit, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that these havens finally throw open their books, and that tackling tax dodging must be top of the agenda?

[Stephen Doughty]

The illicit finance summit will convene a broad coalition to tackle dirty money globally and focus on financial transparency, property, crypto and illicit gold. The Crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres have committed to upholding international tax standards, but we work closely with them on upholding those international standards and on wider transparency, including in relation to beneficial ownership.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly challenged the Government on the use of Chinese slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels. Chinese companies also dominate the mining companies using slave labour to extract cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so how much more needs to happen for the Government to challenge this evil use of slave labour, particularly by the Chinese state?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Watching coverage of the football in America, it may be difficult to believe that a great number of Scottish football fans were refused ESTAs—the electronic system for travel authorisation—at the last minute, after they had previously been approved, costing them thousands of pounds in cancelled airfares and hotels. Will the Minister tell us whether there have been conversations with the American authorities about how this has happened and how to avoid it, and will she impress on them the economic loss that they will face from all those missed alcohol sales?

[Stephen Doughty]

We wish Scotland very well and congratulate the team on their success against Haiti.

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I have raised these issues with the US Government, as has our embassy in Washington. Obviously I cannot comment on specific cases, but I urge all constituents who are travelling to the United States for the world cup to follow the US guidance online. If they encounter any challenges, I urge them to speak to the US embassy.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir. The Foreign Secretary will know that I have written to her with the support of more than 60 parliamentarians to raise concerns around the serious escalation in tensions in Azad Kashmir, including reports of bloodshed, arbitrary arrests and food blockages. Will she reassure this House that she will use all diplomatic levers open to her to push for peace and justice in Kashmir? That includes the lifting of the lockdown, the restoration of all communications and the immediate resumption of peaceful table talks, at the heart of which must remain respect for Kashmiri human rights.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Last month, along with other members of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I visited the Rock in order to assess responses to the proposed treaty at first hand. Will the Minister give us an update? When does he anticipate that the treaty will be finalised?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent advocacy on Gibraltar. We are committed to finalising this treaty imminently. The draft treaty text is undergoing its final legal checks, and as he will know, a draft was previously deposited in the House with a summary on 26 February. We look forward to signature imminently, and the provisional application is expected on 15 July.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for raising the case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal during her recent visit to India. Will she update the House on whether her discussions were positive? Are we any closer to securing Jagtar’s release and return home to West Dunbartonshire?

Summit on Illicit Finance

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing the debate, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. It has been a thoughtful and important discussion on an issue that goes to the heart of our national security, our prosperity and our values.

I can reassure the House that this Government are determined to tackle dirty money both at home and internationally, and that it remains a key priority. Hosting the illicit finance summit in 2026 is a central part of that commitment, which we will deliver on. We need to do that because illicit finance, as many Members have pointed out, fuels organised crime, corruption and conflict, enables kleptocrats to hide stolen wealth, undermines economic growth and weakens democratic institutions here and abroad.

Crucially, as was rightly pointed out by a number of Members, it directly affects people here in the UK, from fraud and scams to criminality on our streets, as shown so excellently by the examples given by right hon. and hon. Members in relation to their constituents. Indeed, as a global financial centre, we also have a responsibility to lead international efforts in this field to tackle this threat.

I appreciate the cross-party nature of today’s debate. Of course, one party is not here. What a surprise—Reform is absent yet again. I will let hon. Members draw their own conclusions from that.

The summit will be a major opportunity to drive international action. The aim is to bring together countries, international organisations, civil society, private sector experts, researchers and others to tackle dirty money around the world. I was asked a number of times about the objectives of the summit, which are very clear—to expose the scale and harm of illicit finance, to forge new partnerships, to share intelligence, to strengthen enforcement and, crucially, to secure concrete commitments for the future that close the gaps exploited by criminals and others who seek to undermine our society’s economies.

We will strengthen global enforcement against illicit finance through new partnerships on, for example, information sharing and asset recovery, which also came up. The summit will also help us to agree actions to tackle channels for dirty money, including money laundering in the property sector, which was rightly raised, the misuse of cryptoassets and, as was rightly referenced in relation to Sudan and other locations, trade in illicit gold.

There is no great conspiracy around the change in the date. As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and other colleagues know, there is often complexity when it comes to the diaries of Ministers and others whose attendance we want to secure at these summits. It will take place in December, and we will announce the exact date in due course.

It is crucial that we have a successful summit and have the right people there, and that we can demonstrate our own leadership on a number of key topics. I appreciate the welcome from many hon. Members who understand that it is better to have a summit that is successful and that has the right people than one that is, perhaps, not all it could be. That is why we took the decision; it was not taken lightly. I will keep the House updated on the preparations in due course.

I was asked a number of times what the Government are doing on this domestically, which is obviously crucial. This is not just an agenda for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; it is also for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade and many other agencies, as well as our law enforcement agencies. The economic crime Acts protect our open economy and strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive. We have built on the Acts to enable further progress. In October, the Chancellor announced that the Financial Conduct Authority will take supervision of anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing in professional services firms—another theme of the debate. That will replace a system that previously involved 22 different private sector bodies. It is better that that is brought together and focused to simplify the system and strengthen our defences. The Chancellor announced an increase to the economic crime levy rates—this was also referred to by hon. Members—which will raise an additional £110 million a year to boost law enforcement staffing and technology, and support public-private data sharing and financial intelligence to target criminal activity.

There is, of course, much more to do, and I accept that challenge. We set out further ambitions in the UK’s anti-corruption strategy, which was published in December. That important document included an additional £15 million to expand the domestic corruption unit and improve investigation—the shadow Minister asked about the resourcing across Government and agencies for that. This does not mean that we cannot do more; we will always seek to bring more effort to bear on this. It is important that this is a cross-Government and cross-Agency effort, and that it is not just one Department. We are also working on a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy to strengthen our response.

We also have to focus on international co-operation. It is not within the abilities of one country alone to tackle this; it is huge, and the sums referred to by right hon. and hon. Members were staggering. We are using a range of measures on everything from sanctions to exposures of different networks that are moving money around, particularly in new technological ways; for example, by using crypto. As an example of that, colleagues will be aware that in October 2025 and March 2026 we sanctioned the Prince Group and its enablers. It is responsible for a huge network of scam centres in south-east Asia that exploit trafficked workers to defraud victims on a global scale, including on the streets here in the United Kingdom and undoubtedly in every one of our constituencies. Our sanctions froze £127 million-worth of UK property and triggered a wave of investigations and arrests across the region. We also launched the world’s first dedicated sanctions regime targeting irregular migration. And we did not stop there: at the Berlin process summit, we targeted a number of entities including criminal gangs that are driving people smuggling across the western Balkans.

We are also working through bodies such as the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, which has identified and frozen billions of pounds of stolen assets globally. We are looking at every way in which evasion is going on and new networks are being used, which includes the evasion of Russian sanctions by those exploiting cryptoassets and complex financial routes. Members will have seen our announcements in recent weeks on that as well as the closing down of crypto exchanges and other means by which illicit finance is being used to fuel the war in Ukraine. That is on top of the National Crime Agency’s Operation Destabilise, which exposed and disrupted high-harm Russian money laundering networks supporting serious and organised crime around the world. That led to 84 arrests—many are already serving prison sentences—and we seized over £20 million in cash and cryptocurrency. That is tangible progress that is being made, which is important to reflect on. I pay tribute to all the law enforcement officers and experts who were involved in that.

Members have rightly raised points about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I have spoken about that issue on many occasions in this House, and Members will have heard what the Justice Minister and, indeed, the anti-corruption champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said in relation to the Crown dependencies. As I am also Minister for overseas territories, I am glad that there was recognition of the progress made in Gibraltar, Saint Helena, Montserrat. We have legitimate interest to access registers in the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands; progress has also been made in Anguilla. However, I recognise the serious concerns that colleagues have raised about whether some of the measures go far enough. I am in regular dialogue with the elected Governments in the overseas territories, and I have made clear the progress that we expect to make and our disappointment at some of the backsliding we have seen.

One location that came up in many right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches is the British Virgin Islands. I want to reassure colleagues that I have raised those concerns directly with the Premier and other agencies in the British Virgin Islands in recent weeks. All options remain on the table if we do not see the sort of progress that we need, because, as been rightly pointed out, this is an issue not only about financial transparency and global economic stability, but about the national security of this country and the global British family. When it comes to the threats posed by Russia, Iran and many other malevolent actors—let alone serious and organised crime—we have to adhere to the highest standards. I have conveyed that to the Premier and the authorities in BVI in the strongest terms and I will update the House in due course.

I have said a lot about the action in relation to Russia, which the shadow Minister asked me about, but she also asked about Iran. We have a range of measures in this regard: ramping up disruptions of UK-connected Iranian networks, increasing enforcement actions against Iranian organised crime and sanctions-circumvention networks and indeed dissolving companies registered in the UK for facilitating financing to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The shadow Minister also asked about the related sanctions issue. To be very clear, we are not watering down existing sanctions; we are introducing new sanctions in relation to refined oil and liquefied natural gas, but naturally with a phased-in strategy to ensure that we can wind down existing contracts and others. I can assure hon. Members that that is under regular review, and that we certainly do not want to see Putin or his regime gain any kind of bonanza from this.

We have been clear from the start that we are doing a huge amount to tackle the issue of asset recovery. In fact, in 2024-25, asset recovery from proceeds of crime was up by 31%, with £284.5 million recovered. We continue to be very ambitious in those strategies.

We are also doing a huge amount, as I said, on the enablers—that was touched on by a number of people—and that new approach by the FCA will ensure that we have the powers to take a coherent, effective and impactful approach to supervision.

In the remaining time—I am trying to work out how long I have, Sir Roger; I will keep going until you shout “Order”—the hon. Member for North Norfolk quite rightly asked what we are doing with people who fail to comply. Let me be clear on that: verification of directors and persons with significant control is mandatory. Individuals who fail to comply in this country may face financial penalties, disqualification or, indeed, criminal sanctions.

We are also clear that overseas entities on the UK register of overseas entities and register of persons with significant control must comply with our beneficial ownership requirements. We are taking every step possible. Of course, it is for enforcement agencies to follow up on these things, but we are very clear on this, and Companies House is actively identifying non-compliance and working with partners across Government and law enforcement to ensure that entities meet their obligations.

If I have not replied to any specific points, I am very happy to write to hon. Members afterwards, but, in conclusion, I want to reassure Members that this remains a major priority. This summit will happen, and it will have tangible, important announcements to make about our commitment here at home and about what we are doing overseas. We will make sure that that has a legacy that impacts into the future, particularly as we enter an important year regarding the G20. I thank everybody for their contributions.

UK Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Appointments

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Written Statements

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

Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of Baroness Drake CBE.

The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of Stephen Gethins.

[HCWS86]