Ukraine

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I have spoken about Ukraine and, indeed, initiated debates on Ukraine a number of times over the past 12 years. Of course, 12 years ago was when the war that Russia is waging on Ukraine started, with the annexation of Crimea. Over those 12 years, I have visited Avdiivka, Mariupol and Berdyansk, all of which are now under Russian occupation.

I am proud that as a result of our pressing the Government over that time, the UK started supporting Ukraine through Operation Orbital. That was before the full-scale Russian invasion, but since then, we have been in the vanguard. That is because we have a duty as an original signatory to the Budapest memorandum, and because we believe that independent sovereign states should not lose territory as a result of military aggression, but also because Ukraine is our frontline. Putin’s threat extends not just to the territory of Ukraine, but to all those countries that used to be part of either the Soviet Union or the Warsaw pact, particularly the Baltic states.

I am proud of the extraordinary resilience and courage shown by the Ukrainian people. People have talked in this debate about the fact that it will be minus 16ºC tonight, when 70% of Kyiv has no electricity—and that is also the case for large parts of Odessa, Kharkiv and a number of other cities. The losses during this war on both sides have been truly horrendous; there have been well over a million Russian casualties. Although the number for the Ukrainian side has not been released, it is almost certainly well over 100,000. We can understand why the Ukrainians want to see an end to this war, but they want a just and lasting peace.

The original plan advanced by Steve Witkoff and President Trump—the so-called 28-point plan—was utterly unacceptable. It required Ukraine to accept the loss of its territory, and to commit to never having NATO troops on its soil. The plan that is apparently now coming forward is, we are told by President Zelensky, 90% agreed, but he has described the requirements on territory as being “very difficult”. While it must be for Ukraine to decide on the terms of any peace, the idea that Russia will be allowed to keep any of the sovereign territory of Ukraine is difficult to stomach.

As we have debated, the peace plan may involve the deployment of troops as a security guarantee, and I share the concerns that a number of Members have expressed about how that will operate. While it is important that we talk about how a settlement might be enforced, there is a strong chance that we will not get one. Sergey Lavrov has said in the past 24 hours that the prospect of a ceasefire is simply not serious. Since talk of this peace plan was advanced, Russia has stepped up its attacks. The number of drones and missiles landing across the whole of Ukraine has gone on increasing. The settlement plan may involve stationing NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, as we have been debating, but Putin has made it absolutely clear that that is a complete red line, and something that he will not accept.

We need to prepare ourselves for the real risk that this war will go on for a long time, so I say to the Minister: where is plan B? Plan B has to involve much tougher action against Russia. It needs to involve seizing Russian assets and stopping trade with Russia. It means arming Ukraine to an extent that has not been possible. I welcome the recent announcements, including on Project Nightfall in the past week or so, through which we will supply Ukraine with long-range missiles.

On assets, the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning heard from the chief executive of the Chelsea humanitarian fund, and representatives of the legal firm advising it, about the difficulties in achieving what we all want, which is the use of the money from Chelsea football club to support Ukraine. Will the Minister please meet them? There are some serious legal obstacles. They said that they have a solution, but they are anxious for an opportunity to discuss it further with the Minister.

I would love to think that this war will come to an end soon—my friends in Ukraine pray for that every night—but let us be prepared for the fact that it may go on for much longer, and that we will need to do a lot more to put pressure on Russia to stop.

Iran

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the number of British citizens who have Iranian family who are deeply worried about their safety, and about the Iranian citizens who live lawfully here and have done so for a long time who have also been targeted by the Iranian regime. I can assure her that the UK does not sanction food or medicines, and we make targeted decisions to ensure that the sanctions focus on those responsible for the damage as opposed to ordinary people.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the attempts by the regime to suppress news of what is happening in Iran by shutting down the internet makes the work of external media such as the BBC Persian service and Iran International all the more important? Given that journalists from both organisations have been attacked and threatened, can she and the Minister for Security, who is sitting next to her, confirm that measures will be taken to step up the security of those journalists?

[Yvette Cooper]

The fact that the Security Minister has come to sit on the Front Bench for this statement shows how seriously we take the threats here in the UK. The right hon. Member is right to talk about the threats that have been made to Iran International. I know that he will join me in paying tribute to the work of our police, particularly our counter-terrorism police, and our security services for ensuring that people are kept safe. I also pay tribute to the BBC Persian service. It is clearly independent operationally and editorially. One in four Iranians have accessed the BBC Persian service to get the latest news despite it being banned in the country. That shows the impact that independent journalism can have.

Venezuela

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right about the fear and hope felt by many people in Venezuela; we have had that reflected back to us over the weekend. That is why we are doing everything we can—we are in an unusual position, given our experience and relationships —to promote and support a transition to democracy. I also agree about the importance of increasing our defence investment; that is why we now have the biggest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Maduro and Chávez regime was characterised by widespread human rights abuse, criminality and economic destitution, and many Venezuelans are rightly and understandably celebrating its end. However, I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that after more than half an hour, it is still not clear whether the UK Government actually agree with what has been done. She referred to the discussion taking place at the UN Security Council at the moment—can she say what the UK’s position will be at that meeting?

[Yvette Cooper]

I set out our position at the beginning of the statement: we have long supported a peaceful transition from an authoritarian regime to a democracy. We shed no tears for the removal of Maduro, but we want a peaceful transition to the establishment of a democracy, which we do not yet have in Venezuela. That is what we will work towards. We will always argue for the upholding of international law.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We send our wholehearted support to Jimmy Lai’s family, who face the most difficult of circumstances, and to Jimmy Lai himself, who is a British citizen and has our strong support. We will continue to raise this issue in every forum that we can. The priority must be to draw on those humanitarian grounds, if nothing else, to get the immediate release of a man who is 78 and who has already been incarcerated for far too many years.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Jimmy Lai’s so-called crime was simply being a journalist expressing his views. As the Foreign Secretary has said, he is 78, and we heard this afternoon from Sebastien and his legal team that his health is deteriorating rapidly and he is likely to die in prison unless he is released soon. Will the Foreign Secretary meet Sebastien, with his legal advisers from Doughty Street Chambers, to discuss what additional pressure can be put on the Chinese Government to obtain Jimmy Lai’s release?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have met Sebastien Lai previously, and I will certainly meet him again in order to talk to him about what more support we can provide.

Ambassador to the United States

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

There have been some powerful speeches from both sides of the House, and it is apparent that everybody is agreed that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as ambassador to Washington. It matters because ambassadors are critically important to our nation. They are the leaders in projecting our soft power. They are viewed as embodiments of the United Kingdom, and it is them who influence very largely how the UK is perceived.

As has been said, we have had some really good ambassadors to the United States, going back to the late Sir Christopher Meyer, who I knew well and who did a terrific job, Lord Kim Darroch, and Dame Karen Pierce. Sometimes there have even been good political appointments. There was a certain amount of controversy when Peter Jay was appointed US ambassador—he was the son-in-law of the Prime Minister—but he did a reasonable job. Ed Llewellyn became our ambassador to Paris, and now to Rome, and has done a terrific job.

As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), pointed out, because Ed Llewellyn’s appointment was a political one, he was interrogated by the Select Committee. As she said, the Committee, on which I serve, has attempted numerous times to have Peter Mandelson appear. We were told, in the Foreign Office’s most recent letter to the Chair, that the Committee would have the opportunity to talk to him on a visit to Washington. I was at both meetings, so I can say that the first was a briefing about the state of American politics when we first arrived, and the second was a breakfast at which he hosted opinion-formers to discuss with us what was happening in the US Capitol. At no stage did we have any opportunity to cross-examine or ask Peter Mandelson the questions that we would have asked had he appeared before the Committee. It is ridiculous to suggest that those meetings somehow compensated for his failure to appear.

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

I was with the right hon. Gentleman at those Foreign Affairs Committee meetings. We should also say that there was no opportunity for us to quiz Lord Mandelson in a public setting.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was important that we had that opportunity. Had we done so, the questions being asked now could have been asked then, and we could have explored rather more why the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson was taken—it is still causing bewilderment to a large number of people. As has been said, it is now apparent that he should never have been appointed. I will not recap what my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and many others have said about his record, his previous resignations and his unsavoury links, all of which should have rung every alarm bell.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution. Does he not agree that although there is a tendency to say that it is about what we can do in the future, this debate is about what has gone wrong in the past, about the Government’s role in it, and about the Prime Minister shouldering responsibility and taking us through what he knew?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Actually, the two are related, because we can determine the lessons learned and decide what to do in the future only if we know what went wrong this time. In order to know, we must obtain the answers to our questions.

The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee set out and ran through a number of important questions in her contribution, and we have now had an answer from the Foreign Office. She referred to the letter that was sent to her. What we know from the letter—it does not tell us much—is, first, that the Foreign Office had nothing really to do with this. It says that the appointment was carried out following the propriety and ethics committee investigation, which was carried out in the Cabinet Office. The Foreign Office was then told of that and instructed to appoint Lord Mandelson as ambassador. After his appointment was announced, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting.

National security vetting—deep vetting—has been referred to. We need to know what that says, but we are told by the Foreign Office that national security vetting is independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Essentially, the Foreign Office appears to be saying, “Well, we were told about his past, but we were not told anything about what was uncovered, about the questions that were asked or about his answers.” Yet this is someone who already had very serious offences against him, which had caused him to resign twice, and real question marks about his record as European Commissioner and about some of his friendships. All of those questions must, one assumes, have been asked during deep vetting, yet he passed. The final outcome was, “Fine, he can be appointed.” The Foreign Office was told that but was not given any other detail.

Frankly, I find that completely astonishing. It raises even more serious questions about the deep vetting process and what it showed, and why, if Ministers were not given any detail about what the process uncovered, they did not ask any questions about it. I look forward to the Minister addressing that in his response.

[Edward Morello]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I give way to another fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Edward Morello]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the Committee’s repeated requests to meet Lord Mandelson before his appointment. He also raises the various responses that we got from the Foreign Secretary. The important fact that there were questions about the suitability of the appointment means that there must also be questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. Did he ask to read the propriety and ethics and security vetting reports before making the appointment, and did he go ahead despite their content?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman asks valid questions. We need to have the answers to them all. I know that he will join me in urging the Foreign Affairs Committee to continue pressing this case. It may well be that another body—perhaps the Liaison Committee, which has the opportunity to interrogate the Prime Minister—will also pursue these matters. As has been said several times, this will not go away. There is real anger across this House and across the country, and people will demand answers.

The Committee attempted today to try to put those questions by summoning two members of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, but we were told that neither was available. I can tell the House that I have some experience in summoning people who do not wish to appear before Select Committees—there is a procedure—and I hope that, when we return after recess, the Committee will pursue these matters and will require Ministers to appear, and that if they refuse, we will see what other actions can be taken.

These are very serious matters. The questions have been asked, but the answers have not been forthcoming so far. We will go on pursuing this until they are.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Middle East

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that that must rightly be a matter for lawyers, but I reassure her that we do fund and support organisations on the ground in gathering evidence. That is much easier in the west bank than it currently is in Gaza. At this Dispatch Box, I have said time and again that I think it is important that the Israelis let international journalists in to monitor the situation. I think that is hugely important. Where we can, we will continue to support journalists, organisations and federations to monitor and support that work, and we of course support a lot of NGOs on the ground.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Further to the answer the Foreign Secretary has just given, does he share my horror that, among the thousands of civilian deaths that have occurred in Gaza, it is estimated that at least 200 journalists have been killed, some of them deliberately targeted? Does he agree that those of us who are supporters of Israel’s right to defend itself need to tell the Israeli Government that this is unacceptable and cannot continue?

[Mr Lammy]

I associate myself entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is not only unacceptable; it also diminishes the Israeli Government in the eyes of young people across the globe who look at this with horror and cannot understand it, so I urge them to just step back and recognise the damage they are doing to their reputation collectively.

Middle East

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Palestinian cause is a just cause, and I would ask the Israeli Government to reflect again on international humanitarian law. I have in front of me “A Practitioner’s Legal Handbook”, and I am hugely concerned, as I read through it, that it feels that there are breaches.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The deaths of those trying to access aid in Gaza are truly shocking. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the number of civilians killed is being disputed by Israel and there are suggestions of disinformation. Does he agree that one way in which we could establish what is actually happening is if international media organisations, like the BBC and Reuters, were allowed full access to Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, 100%.

BBC World Service Funding

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley]

I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.

Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.

Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I do not in any way argue with the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the journalists of BBC Persian, who have endured appalling harassment, particularly of their families still in Tehran. It is also worth putting on the record the bravery of the journalists of Iran International, one of whom was attacked by a thug from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the streets of London, and who still endure enormous threats and intimidation.

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that remark. The World Service is ultimately about the listener. We must bear in mind, when considering the funding settlement for that service, that there are individuals living under authoritarianism whose freedom of expression is so very restricted. They rely on the World Service to provide an accurate and comprehensive global perspective. Funding the World Service is not just about serving elites; it is about earning respect abroad and safeguarding future freedom. Let us not be complacent when it comes to the funding of the BBC World Service. It is an important source of essential soft power and a way for the country to punch well above its weight on the international stage, to spread truth, to lighten the grip of totalitarianism, and in some circumstances prevent the need for us to use hard power at all. That is exactly what the Prime Minister told us this morning.

It has been said that we could not recreate the BBC World Service today if we started from scratch. There is not the political will and no one would be willing to take such a risk. If we lose the World Service, we simply will not get it back. I do not think we should take that risk. The Government were bold to increase funding for the World Service last year, but a more steady and long-term funding arrangement must be put in place to prevent what I fear will be death by a thousand cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on calling the debate this afternoon, which is extremely topical, and on convening a very helpful panel to discuss the subject a couple of days ago.

The World Service has always been one of the great assets of this country. When we talk about the UK’s soft power, the BBC is right up there at the top. Its reach into some of the most troubled parts of the world is huge. We only have to reflect back on the stories of people like Terry Waite, who, when he was held hostage in Lebanon, spoke of how he relied on the BBC World Service. The service has become all the more important today, for two reasons. First is the huge spread of disinformation—what is called foreign interference and manipulation of information—being conducted by Russia and China.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned Moldova. I was there a few weeks ago and spoke to politicians there who were trying to counter a tidal wave of Russian disinformation on TikTok and Telegram channels, seeking to influence the parliamentary election coming up later this year. The same is happening in China, with independent media being closed down and huge amounts put into spreading Chinese propaganda. That is one aspect.

At the same time, the other reliable voice, which was provided by the Voice of America service, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, has been undercut by the withdrawal of funding by the US Administration. I hope that that will be reversed. At the moment, it is on hold; we are told it is under review. But having talked to some of the people involved, they are pessimistic. If Voice of America goes, it makes it all the more important that we have a trusted, reliable source of independent news.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), from a constituency neighbouring my own, is right that there have occasionally been questions about the impartiality of the World Service, as there are always likely to be. I heard the complaints about BBC Arabic, and in some cases I sympathised with them, but overall the BBC World Service is deeply trusted.

Until 2010, World Service funding came entirely from the Government. Then, as a result of pressures on public spending, the then Chancellor George Osborne decided to reduce public expenditure, and so asked the BBC to take over the funding through the licence fee. That continued until 2015, when I was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Government agreed that, although funding was still from the licence fee, the Foreign Office would provide a top-up. That is how it has remained: roughly two-thirds of funding comes from the licence fee, and roughly a third from Government.

But the World Service is now under a double squeeze. The licence fee has been frozen for a time. It is now going up again, but the BBC has had to find savings. The director general, if asked, will say, “My job is to provide value to the licence fee payer, and the truth is that most licence fee payers are unaware of, or certainly don’t listen to, the World Service.” It is a public good. It is for the good of the country. That is why he argues that the Government should take back overall responsibility for funding the World Service. That is an argument with which I have great sympathy.

I am deeply concerned that, because World Service funding from the Government counts as official development assistance and the ODA budget is under pressure, further cuts are to be made as part of the expenditure reductions currently taking place, even though there was a top-up last October. The latest letter from Jonathan Munro, director of the World Service, states,

“we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in spend on ODA”.

That suggests that there may be further reductions. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not only continue to fund the World Service at the present level but look to increase it, because the need for that has never been greater.

Middle East

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Iran’s proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, have been considerably degraded over this period. The Houthis have been held back but are still active in the Red sea. We will do all we can, working with partners, to protect our shipping routes. We have been crystal clear to the Iranian regime about the strait of Hormuz in particular.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Foreign Affairs Committee met the Iranian ambassador twice last week, and he claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme was legal and purely civil, and he said that they want to negotiate. Can the Foreign Secretary say, on the basis of the numerous meetings with the Iranian Foreign Minister that he has reported, whether he gained any impression of Iran’s willingness either to dismantle its nuclear programme or to negotiate?

[Mr Lammy]

That is the central question. What I have found is inflexibility, as well as a failure to face the seriousness with which the international community are looking at this question and to accept both that we have moved on from the joint comprehensive plan of action, which the Iranians pulled out of back in 2019, and that the focus now is on zero enrichment. Maybe they can have a civil nuclear capability, but it would have to be heavily monitored and would need some sort of international regime in locus with it. They have to face that seriousness now at this point.

Iran-Israel Conflict

John Whittingdale Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I spoke to the director general at the beginning of last week, reassured him of our full support and thanked him for all his work that is ensuring a common understanding of what Iran is doing and why we have to act.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that just as Russia is run by an authoritarian regime that wants to destroy its democratic neighbour Ukraine and has carried out attacks on British soil, so Iran is run by an authoritarian regime that is out to destroy its democratic neighbour and has also carried out attacks on British soil? Is it not the case, therefore, that for the same reasons we stand with Ukraine, we need to stand with Israel now?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman puts it well. We should also mention what those in Iran are doing to destabilise neighbouring countries—Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq—with their proxies. We absolutely have to keep our guard up in relation to Iran.