Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by paying tribute to the strength and bravery of FCDO staff in the middle east. They are giving support and guidance to hundreds of thousands of Brits who are stranded, scared and desperate to return home. There are so many lessons to learn from what is happening in the Gulf at the moment, but for the purposes of this debate, the lesson we should learn is the vital importance of the Foreign Office. It is not all about wearing linen and drinking gin under jacaranda trees—[Laughter.] I have done it. It is a great deal of hard work and it is very important that we recognise that. It has never been harder—look at what they are having to deal with now.

I heard on the radio a few days ago an interview with a 21-year-old who went to Dubai to celebrate her birthday. She was there by herself, and she was clearly really frightened, but the embassy will look after her and, I hope, it will get her home to her mother. It is our brave Foreign Office staff who have to step up at times like these. I am sure that they must also be terrified, but they will get this girl back. They will have to call in favours and rely on relationships that they have developed over years. They will rely on relationships and the credit that they have in the bank because of their professionalism and their work on behalf of our country. They cultivate relationships and use that strength, and hundreds of thousands of Brits in the Gulf will rely on that professionalism in the next few weeks and months.

Those staff will be acutely aware that they are also charged with attempting to sow the seeds for peace in the future, and that will also rely on their relationships and their professionalism. They do that knowing that it is important that Britain continues to be a force for good—as we can be at our best. We expect them to work twice as hard, against a background of rumours and stories about cuts to their jobs—25% of them could lose their jobs. It is important for the House to remember the sacrifices that these civil servants make. They do a different job from our armed forces, but effectively through their work they are keeping us safe, and it is important for that to be understood.

I fear that the strategy for the restructuring of the Foreign Office is not very clear. It seems that we are taking a top slice off. The directors are being shorn—there are fewer of them—and they in turn will be expected to cut their staffing by, we are told, about 25%. Let me warn the Minister, who should perhaps reflect on this, that restructuring of that kind is not particularly sensitive to Ministers’ priorities. It would appear that we are simply restructuring in order to restructure, while not looking first and foremost at what the Foreign Office is about, what we should be doing, and how we can ensure that we retain the expertise, the knowledge, the connections, the best people, in order to deliver those priorities. I fear that we will yet again undermine morale in the Foreign Office. I could go into one of some of the reasons why, under the last Government, Foreign Office morale was gravely undermined. This is not the place for that, but I do not want us to do it again ourselves.

Given the limited time, I will not go into any more details, but let me say this. I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) about the British Council. He has great expertise. We have had private meetings; we have had public meetings; we have had the National Audit Office over; we have sent our own auditors in; we have spoken to the unions. We in the Foreign Affairs Committee are doing everything we can to help the Foreign Office to ensure that the British Council, when it is restructured, is restructured in a way that is for the benefit of our country, the benefit of our culture and the benefit of soft power. “We are watching you carefully”—that is all I am saying at this stage.

I will now move on, given the time that I have left—I have promised myself to give myself full range until you stop me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about one of the most important things that we do as a country, which is supporting the BBC. Across the world, countries are using huge amounts of money every year—China and Russia are spending £8 billion on their global news platforms—to spread lies. We have, against that Goliath, the David that is the BBC. The advantage the BBC has is that it is a badge of truth, like no other organisation. Other countries would just die to have what we have. We have the BBC; we have the World Service. People change to the World Service from other channels. When a war has been called, they say, “Let us hear what the BBC is saying,” because they want to hear the truth, not just the nonsense and the spin.

What are we doing at this time when there is a new type of warfare that is not about guns and not about tanks rolling over the hills, but about the war for people’s minds? The war for people’s minds is about the promotion of lies: that is the new type of warfare, and we are so complacent about it. We are not sufficiently alive to the amount of manipulation that is going on. We are allowing this jewel, this gift that Britain could give the world, to diminish. Why are we doing that? I personally feel that it is not just a matter of ensuring that the funding for the World Service is not cut. I would say, particularly if our presence in Africa is to be diminished—as it unfortunately will, given what is happening to our aid budget—“At least let those countries hear a bit of truth, and let it be promoted.” It is not as if we were nothing. I do not want to overstate this, but we are already communicating with 313 million people worldwide, which is pretty good. Let us make sure that they all have an opportunity to hear what it is that the BBC can do. The new fact-checking unit is second to none, and is especially important at times like this, when it is able to crack the lies so that people can see the truth.

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

I absolutely endorse everything that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said about the BBC World Service. Will she, in the time available, make a brief comment about its sister organisation, BBC Monitoring? That monitoring service used to receive a modest ringfenced grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it then was, but that was done away with, and it is now entirely dependent on the BBC’s wider organisation for its funding. Is not the restoration of that dedicated ringfenced grant for BBC Monitoring, which filters all the most interesting comments that other countries’ broadcasters are making, long overdue?

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not think I need to repeat the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and made very well. Perhaps I could mention another specific service: BBC Persian, which is particularly important at this time. It is doing incredible work. It is sharing vital, lifesaving information with millions of Iranians who are suffering right now during internet blackouts. It is BBC Persian that is doing the fact-checking. It is a source of truth. It is an independent voice. It is not propaganda. If we want to understand its effectiveness, we need only bear in mind that the regime absolutely loathes it. If we require a badge of truth and a gold star, that alone must be sufficient. Why are we not supporting BBC Persian? And why did the Arab radio station that was broadcasting in Lebanon get cut? Guess what? Sputnik took over the airwaves immediately afterwards. What are we doing? What is the matter with us? This must surely be a priority.

I see your beady eye on me as I speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me end by giving what I think is the best example. I have been told that BBC usage is growing in the fringes of China—in the countries around the edge of China—more than anywhere else, through TikTok accounts. What story does that tell us? It tells us that young people want the truth and are desperate to find it, and they are doing that in the way young people do, through TikTok—but they go to the good old BBC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Edward Morello]

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

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

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

because that is

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

The British Government recognised Palestine last summer, and that was greatly welcomed around the world. The concern now is that Israel may be about to annex the west bank. If Israel does that, where is Palestine? The Minister spoke last week and said that they were considering concrete steps, and he has said that again today. I just wondered what they were.

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question; I know she is extremely focused, rightly, on the deterioration of the situation in the west bank. She focuses correctly on the threat of annexation. We oppose that absolutely, as do our American counter-parts, as I am sure she is aware. I am not in a position to provide further commentary on what the steps I alluded to might yet be, for the reasons that we have rehearsed in this Chamber many times. We have taken action, including the three rounds of sanctions that I described, and we will continue to take action while the situation continues to deteriorate.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Could the Minister please assure the House that international law will apply to Diego Garcia, by way of either the ownership or the use of Diego Garcia, either by our military or by the Americans?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. Of course, the UK Government abide by international law and will continue to do so.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Jimmy Lai is 78. He has rotting teeth. He has diabetes, heart issues, and recently he has visibly been losing weight. He has now been sentenced to 20 years. It is effectively not a life sentence, but a death sentence. I urge the Chinese authorities to end this elderly man’s appalling ordeal, and I would ask that they exercise clemency, and allow him to be reunited with his family. Does the Minister agree that concern for the suffering of Jimmy Lai extends far beyond his family, and touches the hearts of so many British people?

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is right to say that the situation Jimmy Lai is in, and the urgent need to release him on humanitarian grounds so that he may be reunited with his family and receive the independent medical treatment that he must have, goes beyond his family and touches the hearts of Members across the House and this country. He has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. My right hon. Friend will know that his case remains a priority for this Government and the Prime Minister.

Iran

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I would like to turn to the threat that Iran poses to people here in Britain. The Intelligence and Security Committee has said,

“since 2022 the risk appetite of the Iranian regime to attempt assassinations of dissidents and…journalists in the UK has increased significantly”.

We need effective collaboration between the police and the intelligence services to protect ourselves—particularly those of Iranian heritage—against the Iranian regime’s use of wide-ranging and persistent threats, including physical threats, harassment and intimidation. What is being done to prevent attacks on media freedom in the UK by the Iranian regime, such as the stabbing of Pouria Zeraati in March 2024?

[Mr Falconer]

I will repeat to the House the message I gave the Iranian ambassador on one of our first interactions: any violence on the streets of the UK that is linked back to Iran, whatever Iran might think about the origin of those individuals or the press coverage they might supply, will be treated in the most serious terms by the British Government. I have left the Iranian ambassador—and, indeed, all our Iranian contacts—in no doubt about the strength of our feeling on these questions.

Arctic Security

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

The main purpose of the Prime Minister’s statement today was to send out an international message, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for the skilful way in which she has amplified that message this evening. However, there is another audience who deeply appreciate what the Prime Minister has had to say. Many ordinary British people are becoming increasingly anxious about the threats being made by one of our most important friends to one of our allies. They are frightened by the dark turn that international relations seem to have taken and the potential chaos that we may be heading for. In fact, a friend of mine texted me today to tell me that as she was watching the Prime Minister live, she was weeping—she has found this very frightening. Will the Foreign Secretary convey the thanks of so many of us to the Prime Minister for his clarity, calm and leadership?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and I will convey that message to the Prime Minister. We have clearly seen that our Prime Minister is standing up for the UK national interest, our security and prosperity and British values. We know that our security and prosperity are strengthened by alliances and partnerships, not by pulling apart.

Iran: Protests

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I know that the Minister shares with me—and probably with most of the House—a deep affection for the Iranian people, for their beautiful country and for their extraordinary culture, which makes the killing and terrible violence we have seen even worse than we could possibly have imagined. Can he give the House confidence that Britain and the international community will not now abandon the Iranian people for geopolitical expediency?

Ukraine

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I have been complaining at home recently because the heating broke down, and I felt that was not being taken seriously by my other half. It was minus 1°C, I was really cold and I had been moaning about it for a week. Then it was pointed out to me that right now in Ukraine, in Kyiv, it is minus 12°C, although it feels like minus 16°C, and overnight it will be minus 17°C. To stop myself moaning, I have put the temperatures in London and in Kyiv on my phone.

I keep remembering that in Kyiv ordinary men and women are having to battle against the cold, and their infrastructure is being deliberately attacked by Putin to try to undermine their morale. What happened on Monday night? There were 293 drones and 18 missiles in a bombardment. Air defences shot down 240 drones and seven missiles, but there was damage to critical civilian infrastructure in Kyiv and across Zaporizhzhia, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv and Donetsk.

There are now several hundred thousand households without any power or heating. There are 500 high-rise tower blocks where people are really cold, and they have acute shortages of electricity. The Russians are doing this on purpose. This is not proper warfare. This is such a basic thing—you are not supposed to target civilians when you are at war; it is against the law. When you are at war, you are at war, so go for the combatants; do not go for the children, nursery schools and housing estates. Do not bomb blocks of flats. That is not right or proper; it is illegal, immoral and wrong.

The people are exhausted. They are about to hit their fourth year of being at war with Russia, but what is so amazing is the strength, focus, fortitude and bravery of these people, which has absolutely hit me in the heart when I have talked to Ukrainians. They are absolutely determined to keep their country Ukrainian, and they will not allow the Russians to win. No matter how hard it is, how cold it is or how many people are lost, they will continue to fight. They stand resolute, and we stand with Ukraine and with those brave people.

On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have had the honour of not only visiting Ukraine, but having a number of meetings with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee. Its members have varied over the years. During the most recent meeting, the chair was the only person we could see. I joked about it to start with—I was going, “They ought to turn the lights on.” What an idiot! They do not have any lights or any power. The members were talking to us from their cars, because they could put on the heating and a light in their car and talk to us that way. That was how we had a meeting with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee, but the members of the Committee showed up and told us what they had to say. We stand with Ukraine—this bravery!

There are many things that we can do. I am really encouraged to hear that we are bolstering the work that we need to do when it comes to the shadow fleet. If anybody does not understand it, the shadow fleet is a fleet of ageing ships of obscure ownership that are uninsured and often environmentally unsound. They are being used to transport sanctioned Russian oil products to get around the oil price cap.

I hope that we can find legal grounds for deploying military assets against the shadow fleet under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and do insurance spot checks on false-flag ships, some of which were expelled by the countries for which they used to wave the flag and claim they came from. Some of those countries do not even have a shipping register, yet the ships still claim that they belong to those countries. If the ships are not insured, we can really take action, and I am glad to hear that we are going to step that up. That sort of sanction busting must stop.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On that point, two tankers from the shadow fleet were scheduled to go through the channel earlier today. The shadow fleet exists solely to keep money flowing to the Kremlin, while threatening maritime safety and environmental security. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government should be mindful of other aspects relevant to this debate as we continue to pursue the shadow fleet that allows Putin to wage his unwarranted and unlawful invasion?

[Emily Thornberry]

I agree completely. We need to be as creative as possible when it comes to the shadow fleet, and there is always more that we can do. The Foreign Affairs Committee and many of its talented members are always available to give as many suggestions as the Government wish to hear. One thing that worries me is that it is all very well having creative ways of imposing sanctions, but they are only as good as their enforcement. When I push the Government on exactly how much effort they are putting into enforcement and how much investment is going in, I am always concerned that although those sanctions may look good on paper, things may be slipping through the net. We need to ensure that we mean what we say, and that we do it.

There are a couple of other issues that I would like to briefly cover. First, although there is a hot war going on in Ukraine—that is one war that is going on in Europe—we are all agreed that Europe is also at war with Russia on another basis. That is the new hybrid warfare, the sort of warfare that is more difficult to identify, whether Russia is subjecting us to sabotage, cyber-attacks, or misinformation and disinformation. We are at war with Russia, and it is trying to undermine our democracies and our countries. Nowhere is that clearer than around the Black sea, which is of huge strategic importance to Russia. The countries around the Black sea, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, have all been subjected to a level of hybrid warfare that we need to look at, not just because we need to be of assistance to them—we are all in this together—but because that is a portent of what could happen to us.

Yesterday, the Committee heard from Ana Revenco about the ongoing hybrid warfare that Moldova is subjected to. It is at the forefront of hybrid warfare; it faces cyber-attacks, illicit financing schemes, prolific information manipulation campaigns and political rhetoric espoused by Kremlin-linked actors. Some of us in the Chamber might be thinking, “We already have some of that—in fact, we probably have all of that”, but we only have it at a low level. However, we are heading for elections, and elections are always a time when a democracy is at its most vulnerable. We must not be complacent, but I fear that sometimes we are. We are a great democracy; we have been going for a long time, and we think, “Oh, it’ll be fine”, because of course we are an island. If, like Finland, we had Russia right on our border, we would have a very different attitude, but in modern times, whether or not we have a land border, Russia can still try to influence our democracy by undermining us. If we open our eyes, we can see that there is ongoing disinformation that is trying to undermine our democracy right now, and the problem is that the public are not alive to it. The last thing anybody ever wants to admit is that they have been lied to and they have fallen for it. Trying to explain to them afterwards that they have done so is just impossible, so we need to ensure that we counter that disinformation right now.

For the Russians, Britain is the No. 1 enemy in Europe. Looking at their rhetoric and the sorts of things they say about us, it is Britain they loathe more than practically any other country. I am proud of that, but we need to be mindful of what it means for our country. The Russians believe that we are responsible for triggering the second world war and many subsequent conflicts. In today’s context, that is projected on to the war in Ukraine, where Britain is portrayed as not merely a supporter of Kyiv, but the architect and main driver of the conflict. Listening to some of the things their secret service has been openly saying about us, it is as if everything that is happening in Ukraine is down to us—I wish it were, but the rhetoric is definitely against us. They advance a conspiratorial vision in which Britain is acting as not just Ukraine’s ally but the mastermind behind a proxy war, persuading Europe to fight to the last Ukrainian. The chairman of the state Duma even alleged recently that we were orchestrating specific incidents, such as the shelling of Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border. So it goes on. Russian propaganda routinely accuses the UK of being involved in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage targeting Russia, or Russian nationals. The allegations include the poisoning of Litvinenko, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic sea—it seems that all of this is down to us—and the terrorist attack committed by Islamists at the Crocus City Hall.

Russian propaganda continues to point the finger at Britain. It used to be America, but for some reason America is not in Russian sights so much any more, and we are. In a way, we should be proud of that, but we need to be mindful of it, and we need to stick together and stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine—the Ukranians are fighting the war for us, and we continue to give them every support—and we should be proud of that. I am proud of the fact that in this country and in this House—with the exception of those who are not present in the Chamber this afternoon—we are united behind them. We remain united, and we must remain united until the end—until victory. Slava Ukraini!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you want us to keep our comments fairly brief, so to save time, let me say that I associate myself completely with what was said by the Minister, the Opposition spokespeople and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in support of Ukraine. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. They are a brave and noble people showing enormous courage. None of us here has any sympathy whatever for Putin and what he has done. We should be reasonably confident and not downhearted. We should be proud of what we have done as a nation from the very start.

We should not assume that Putin will necessarily win. He has an economy the size of Spain, or perhaps Italy. We have vastly more resources. These regimes can seem very strong, but they can collapse very quickly. Who knows what will happen? He is only a prototype dictator. In these four years, he has only marched 30 miles; Stalin marched all the way from the Volga to Berlin. Yes, all right, he is refusing all these peace offers, and he is determined to get the rest of the Donbas. I agree that over four years, with thousands more dying and his economy destroyed, he might get another 30 miles, and get the rest of the Donbas, but so what? What will that achieve for his country? It is so cruel, unnecessary and pointless. There is criticism of Mr Trump, but at least he is trying to get some sort of peace deal. Our influence is limited, but we should support his efforts. One thing we cannot support is cravenly getting a peace deal that allows Russia to grab territory that it has failed to get over the past four years, and get the fortresses that Ukraine needs for its survival.

There is hope. I know that some people think that this is almost as bad as Germany invading Poland in 1939. It is almost worse. I have made it my job over the past 40 years, partly because my wife is half Russian, to try to understand the Russian psyche. It is worse, in a sense, because so many nationalist Russians, who are not the Russians I know or associate with, view Ukraine—Ukraine means “border country”—as part of Russia. They view Kyiv, the source of the Russian Rus, as we view Canterbury, so I am afraid these Russian nationalists will not give up. They want to grab the whole country, so we must remain firm.

I would go along with anything the Government wanted to do in support of Ukraine in terms of sanctions: upping sanctions, stopping tankers—anything they like. However, in the few moments that I have, I want to question the Government on the idea of sending a small force of British troops. We are part of the coalition of the willing; I do not want it to be the coalition of the naive willing.

I have sat through so many of these debates: the debate on Iraq—I was one of only 15 Tory MPs to oppose Blair’s invasion—the Afghanistan debates; and the Syria debate, in which I refused to support Mr Cameron. There is so much danger in deploying perhaps just 7,000 under-resourced British troops to a country the size of France, with a population the size of France’s and an 800-mile front—a country where 7,000 people have been dying every month. Now, if America was prepared to come in, or if there was a NATO operation, I think the House would be very willing to accept our involvement, but compare this with what happened in West Germany. Compare the size of our Army now to the size of our Army then. Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had 120,000 service personnel in Germany? We had 55,000 British troops, excluding the RAF, in West Germany; we had 900,000 NATO troops in West Germany, including the Bundeswehr. America was totally committed.

I noticed what was said by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary). They did not immediately say that they would support the Government. Instead, they asked some quite serious questions. If we have this debate, we have to go on asking those questions. What are the rules of engagement? What happens if I am right, and Putin accepts some temporary ceasefire and then marches in again? What would happen then to our 7,000 troops?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I take on board his points, but we have yet to give sufficient emphasis to whether Putin actually wants peace. I fully understand that plans need to be made in case there is a peace, but that is rather based on the idea that he wants to stop, and I, for one, am not really sure that he does.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree with that entirely. I am not sure that this will ever happen. I am not sure there will ever be a ceasefire. I think Putin is determined to carry on for another four years and another 30 miles. However, as the national Parliament, and given the size of our Army and the resources that we have, I think that we have a right to question the Prime Minister on this. Now, I quite understand that for the Prime Minister, this is hell. He has to deal with the NHS, the farmers, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats—much better to grandstand on the world stage and say, “Yes, we are prepared to put our troops on the ground,” but it is grandstanding, and it is extremely dangerous.

I will end on this point. Just imagine—I know it is probably not going to happen—that there is a ceasefire, and we put troops in, and Putin marches again. Does anybody here really, in their heart of hearts, want to be involved in a shooting war with Russia? I have grown-up children. Does anybody here want their son to be called out there, and to be killed by a Russian drone, as thousands of brave Ukrainians have been? This is serious stuff. I am pleased that the two Opposition parties are asking the questions—that is what we all need to do.

Iran

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary in her condemnation of the brutality and horrendous actions of the Iranian regime and the threats that it poses. She will know that when she was Home Secretary and I was shadow Home Secretary, we strongly supported the national security actions on Iran. In fact, I said specifically that I hoped the House would be able to come together to support our national security and defend our democracy, and I urge Conservative Members to take the same cross-party approach to defending not only our national security but regional stability. The scale of the truly brutal, horrendous actions in Iran means that we should stand together in condemnation of that action, and in the action that we need to take in concert with our allies, including on further sanctions and further immediate pressure on the regime.

The right hon. Lady asked for my assessment of the scale of what is happening. Like her, I have seen the reports that suggest that 2,000 people might have been killed. There might have been more. My fear is that the number will prove to be significantly higher, because we are currently getting so little information as a result of the internet blackout that the regime has instigated as it tries to hide what it has done and the consequences. That is why we are talking to other countries about what can be done swiftly to try to restore some sort of internet access or phone communication to people across Iran.

The right hon. Lady asks about the Foremans. I raised the Foremans’ case directly with the Iranian regime just before Christmas, and we continue to raise it because it is a huge consular priority for us. We are also in close touch not just with the US but with other allies across Europe and the G7 to look at what further sanctions measures we need to take.

The right hon. Lady also asked about the snapback, and she will know that this has been a running issue for many years. Following the non-compliance over the nuclear regime, the previous Conservative Government did not take the snapback action. We took that action, and it was supported on a cross-party basis. I hope again that will remain the case, because it was clear that that compliance was not taking place. That work was done in conjunction not just with the E3—France and Germany—but with US allies; there have been many conversations about this matter with them as well.

The right hon. Lady also raised the issue around the IRGC. She will know that this issue was raised with the previous Government over many years. I have particularly raised the need to reform the legislation. That is exactly why I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review: I was concerned that legislation designed for terrorism threats was not applicable in the same way to state-backed threats, and we need to ensure that we can deal with the hybrid and state-backed threats that the country now faces.

The international community needs to come together on this. In the face of this brutality from the Iranian regime, we need not just concerted action around sanctions and the enforcement of existing sanctions, but overwhelming pressure. We will pursue that through the UN and through every avenue we can. The world is watching Iran, the world needs to be watching and the world needs to stand together against the brutality we have seen.

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

The question now is: what is Donald Trump going to do next? There must be many people in the Foreign Office trying to second guess what he might do. Will we give support to Donald Trump if he decides to take action against the Iranian regime in—what he would say would be—defence of the Iranian people, or will we take the same position we did in the summer, which was to give assistance when it came to defending American bases or Israel, if the Iranians retaliate?

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend will obviously understand that the US response will be a matter for the US Government and Administration, and it would not be right for me to speculate on the what and the how, or on the way in which they will respond. What I can do is set out the UK’s approach around increasing the economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, but also in calling on countries to come together to do so, because although a lot of countries have talked about sanctions, in practice we have not seen them enforced, and we need that concerted action together in the face of this brutality.

Venezuela

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another, however abhorrent that leader is, and tries to intimidate the smaller country to, as it says itself, gain access to its resources, does the Foreign Secretary not agree that this should be called out not just by Britain, but by our western allies? We should be calling it out for what it is—a breach of international law. It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law; it is surely for the west to stand up and call it as it is. Does she not therefore share my concern that there may be a profound risk of international norms changing? If we do not call it out, this may become okay, and we risk living in a world where might is right, which is surely not in Britain’s interests.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and I recognise that she has been consistent in her opposition to the Maduro regime, even when she was under pressure not to be through many years. She and I would probably agree that a man who is currently being investigated for crimes against humanity and has such a history of political repression, as well as economic destruction and corruption, should not be leading a country.

My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the issues of international law. I have set out our commitment to international law, and she will know that my predecessor as Foreign Secretary talked about progressive realism. We have set out the progressive principles we follow—including how important international law is, because the framework it sets does not just reflect our values, but is in our interests—but also that we have to engage with the world the way it is. I can assure her that, as part of that, I have raised the issue of international law with Secretary of State Rubio and made it clear that we will continue to urge all countries to follow it.