Middle East

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I share the Government’s condemnation of the illegal settlements that are systematically destroying any prospect of a Palestinian state. Of course, settlements do not build themselves; they require money, insurance and trade, and I therefore welcome the changed guidance to British citizens that they should not conduct any economic or financial activity in the settlements, but the question really is, “What happens if they do?” Currently, the truth is that British companies are bankrolling annexations one settlement at a time. If the Government can recognise that settlements are illegal, why do they not just issue a ban on all trade in goods and services with the settlements, rather than more guidance? Are we in danger of doing too little, too late?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are clear about the fact that settlements are illegal and are undermining peace. We do not want trade with illegal settlements, and we want to deter support for those settlements. Such support includes financial engagement, and it also includes the charitable organisations that should not be engaging either. That is why we have set out new sanctions today, and stronger business advice. Of course we distinguish between illegal settlements and trade with businesses and organisations across Israel, and we will also continue to work with allies across the world on this. I recognise the points that my right hon. Friend has made, and I know that countries that have looked at this have also found it hard to deal with some of these further issues in practice, but we will continue to work with allies to establish what practical arrangements can ensure that we stand up for international law and against the illegal settlements that are endangering peace.

Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

Instead of it being completely unacceptable for Israel to invade and threaten the Lebanese people south of the Litani river, it seems to have been long understood that providing it did not cross the river, there would not be any particular consequences—as if there was a modern-day Rubicon. Now it has crossed, and now Israel and Hezbollah are fighting out their ancient hatred in the middle of a country, and deliberately trying to destabilise Lebanon. That is completely unacceptable.

When my Committee visits the country this month, I expect that we will hear many requests for more assistance to the Lebanese army, so that it can make real progress in disarming Hezbollah and defending its people. Can the Minister confirm that such assistance is going in? Can he give us more details of the plans?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her continued interest in Lebanon. I have been south of the Litani, and I have handed over watchtowers to the Lebanese armed forces in those areas. I would not want the House to have any impression other than that our view is consistent, north and south of the Litani. I saw for myself, from that watchtower, the extent of damage done to civilian infrastructure, with whole villages completely flattened. People said to me, quite rightly, that their lives mattered and that people in the south of Lebanon should not expect their villages to be flattened or their children to be displaced. I have been clear in all our contact with the Israeli Government and the Lebanese authorities how important it is for this violence to be brought to an end.

My right hon. Friend asked for further detail. I can confirm that we have provided over £175 million in training, equipment and advice to the Lebanese armed forces since 2009, and there has been particular work in relation to Lebanon’s borders against Syria and Israel.

Middle East

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I welcome the statement by the Minister, his reiteration of the Government’s commitment to international law, and that they are prepared to take further action—and will not hesitate to do so—when it comes to Palestine.

It has been almost two years since the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Israel and the occupied territories, calling on the Government to take action. Since then, settler violence has exploded; just this week, the UN released a report stating in no uncertain terms that the far-right Israeli Government are weaponising settler violence to carry out their stated intention of annexing the west bank.

In February, we were told that the Government wanted to respond to the advisory opinion with

“the rigour and seriousness that it deserves.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 524.]

In March, the Minister again told us that the Government would update the House on their reaction to the ICJ’s advisory opinion. My question is: when will we stop hesitating and take action to ensure that international law is respected?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question, which, as she says, she has put to me before. First, it is important to emphasise that we continue to take steps to ensure that international law is adhered to, and that those principles underline our response both to events in Isael-Palestine and across the wider middle east. I know the House is impatient for a fuller answer in relation to the advisory opinion, even though most of the substantive elements of policy I have addressed from the Dispatch Box.

My right hon. Friend is a learned lawyer herself, so will know that there are some horizontal implications from the advisory opinion that go beyond simply the context in the middle east, which is one reason that we have been taking our time. I will endeavour to return to the House with the speed that she demands, which I understand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

May I associate myself with the comments of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Foreign Office and the dedication and hard work of its officials? At a time like this, we are particularly in need of a Foreign Office that is absolutely at the top of its game, not just in this country but across the world. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s concerns remain about security more than anything else, and the impact of employing Peter Mandelson causes us great concern. During his time as the ambassador to the United States, he was given access to top secret information. How can we protect our country against his leaking any of that, given his record?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that my right hon. Friend has been taking evidence on that issue and that she has raised issues around security. We take the issue of security extremely seriously. She will know that there is a police investigation under way, which raises some of those issues. She will appreciate that I do not want to say anything that would cut across that, but I am happy to discuss the matter with her further.

Consular Assistance

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Having spent some 10 years on the shadow Front Bench, I know that it is frustrating and that it can be difficult, but there is a responsibility, in my view, to always put the country’s interests first and to not use an opportunity for narrow political advantage and play party politics. As for throwing personal abuse across the Dispatch Box at a time like this, I have to say that I am profoundly shocked.

May I move on to my question? Given that the Minister called in the Iranian ambassador to see him, I would be interested to hear what on earth the ambassador had to say and how he excused what Iran is doing at the moment by attacking many countries in the region, some of which have worked night and day to try to find a peaceful way through this.

May I also pass on a message from one of my constituents, who is caught in Muscat at the moment? They moved from the UAE on the basis of Foreign Office advice. They went to the airport in Oman and all they say is this. When they got to the airport, they could see some representatives, particularly of Italy, who were wearing high-vis jackets. There may well be people from Britain there, but they were not as clearly identifiable as some from other countries. I am sure that there is a presence in the airports, but perhaps there could be high-vis jackets or some form of clearer identification, because there will be a lot of people at Muscat airport looking for help.

[Mr Falconer]

We will take that feedback into account. I confirm that our ambassador to Oman is in the airport as we speak, to ensure the successful departure of the flight. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is right about the scale of the crisis. We will provide further updates on those questions as rapidly as possible. That is why it is so important that people watching at home register their presence and sign up for our travel advice.

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.