Official Development Assistance Programme Allocations 2026 to 2029

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

In recent years, the world has been reshaped by global instability. Faced with growing global security threats the Government last year took the decision to increase spending on defence by reducing official development assistance to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027. The UK will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.

Our commitment to international development is as important as ever—it reflects UK values, supporting those in conflict and extreme poverty, and is also in the UK national interest because in an interconnected world, crises and instability across the world undermine our security and prosperity at home. Over the past year we have taken the time to review our priorities and redefine how we work. We are modernising and improving our approach to development to have the greatest impact abroad and secure the best value for money for taxpayers at home.

The spending review 2025 set the FCDO’s ODA budget from 2026-27 to 2028-29; it will no longer be automatically adjusted for unforeseen changes to the ODA budget. The new cross-Government ODA delivery and impact board chaired by the Minister for Development will ensure all departments work coherently together. This means we have been able to set three years of ODA programme allocations, providing teams with the predictability required to effectively manage the transition to 0.3% of GNI. All future plans are subject to revision as, by its nature, the Department’s work is dynamic. Programme allocations are continually reviewed to respond to changing global needs, including humanitarian crises and other ODA allocation decisions.

In the attachment available online, see table 1: cross-Government ODA programme allocations.

Priority themes

Our priorities remain humanitarian, global health, and climate and nature, underpinned by economic development. We are prioritising support for fragile and conflict-affected areas and linking it to conflict and atrocities prevention. We will ensure that women and girls are central to development decisions.

The UK plans to spend approximately £1.4 billion each year in the places with the highest humanitarian need over the next three years, in addition to our planned commitment to the UN and Red Cross for humanitarian work. Over the next three years, the UK will spend around £6 billion of ODA as international climate finance. We will balance support between mitigation and adaptation and maintain a focus on nature. By using different instruments and levers, we will aim to generate an additional £6.7 billion of UK backed climate and nature positive investments and to mobilise billions more in private finance.

We have fully protected central programme spending on violence against women and girls, women peace and security, and preventing sexual violence in conflict. We are strengthening our approach to mainstreaming gender equality across the FCDO’s work and have raised our ambitions, committing that at least 90% of FCDO bilateral ODA programmes will contribute to gender equality by 2030.

Multilateral ODA programming

We are increasing the share of FCDO’s programme ODA which we spend through multilateral organisations, targeted strategically towards the most effective multilateral organisations. We have already confirmed we will honour our pledge to IDA’s 21st replenishment, an increase of 40% from our previous contribution. We are pledging £650 million to the African Development Fund, as the largest donor to a record replenishment of $11 billion.

We have already pledged £1.25 billion to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We also announced in November our commitment of £850 million from 2026 to 2028 for the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We will continue to support the World Health Organisation and UN Population Fund in delivering vital support on reproductive and maternal health. To prioritise the most effective investments, we plan to end our funding to the pandemic fund, the global polio eradication initiative, and support these objectives through other investments. We will match our current pledge for the 2027 to 2030 period to Education Cannot Wait, delivering an effective humanitarian response to education in crisis settings. In due course, we will set out our multilateral plans on climate and other education multilateral organisations when negotiations are further advanced.

In the attachment available online, see table 2: planned multilateral ODA programming.

Country and regional ODA programming

FCDO bilateral ODA allocations are reducing as a proportion of our ODA budget. We will prioritise our country and regional ODA where humanitarian needs are most acute—to reach those in greatest need and reduce the harm caused by violence and atrocities. The proportion of spending in fragile and conflict-affected states will increase by around 13 percentage points to over 70% of all country and regional spending by 2028-29.

Set within the UK’s 100-year partnership with Ukraine, we remain committed to providing vital humanitarian, development and economic support to Ukraine. We have protected Ukraine’s bilateral ODA allocation at £240 million per year. In addition, FCDO will provide $2 billion of loan guarantees through the World Bank to help meet Ukraine’s 2026 financing needs. FCDO has also allocated over £109 million ODA over three years to Ukraine from the integrated security fund and British International Investment has committed £250 million over five years. The UK remains ready to play its part in fully supporting Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s illegal aggression, provides for its population under constant bombardment, and rebuilds its economy and society. The UK will explore financing options to Ukraine to ensure support remains durable and as effective as possible in addressing Ukraine’s most pressing needs.

We are limiting our reduction of bilateral aid to humanitarian crises across the middle east. We are fully protecting our allocation to Palestine. The UK is committed to providing lifesaving assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, supporting Gaza’s early recovery, and strengthen Palestinian institutions, governance, accountability, and civil society, including reform of the Palestinian Authority. In Lebanon, we will protect funding at current levels during the ongoing crisis. The UK’s humanitarian programme in Lebanon provides lifesaving support, while strengthening national disaster preparedness and shock responsive social protection systems, in turn reducing the drivers of irregular migration.

We are fully protecting our allocation to Sudan. UK ODA is responding to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis alongside making progress towards ending hostilities and laying the foundations for a political process and civilian-led transition, protecting civilians and mitigating regional threats.

In a range of countries, we will transition away from spending high levels of grant ODA, but our ambition and effort will remain high, delivering through modernised partnerships, and making the most of what the whole UK has to offer. We will also make the shift to investment and mutually beneficial partnerships and phase out FCDO bilateral country allocations to G20 countries, except in Turkey where we help to share the burden on account of their hosting of refugees.

This approach means that the proportion of FCDO country and regional ODA allocated to Africa will reduce. However, we are pivoting our multilateral ODA even further towards the African continent including the African Development Bank and the World Bank’s International Development Association, which delivers two-thirds of its financing in Africa. The UK’s new Africa approach recognises that delivering strong partnerships requires looking beyond aid, consistent with our modern international development approach. It is a shift towards modern, equal partnerships based on shared interests—growth, security, climate, and global reform—using the full range of UK tools, not just ODA.

As we rethink and reset our approach, we will shift from donor to investor and providing expertise rather than grants. We will support systems capacity building rather than service delivery and support local solutions. Areas where partnerships are in place, but bilateral funds have been substantially reduced, will have the opportunity to draw on the communities of expertise, central funding and mobilise British International Investment and climate finance.

In the attachment available online see table 3: planned country and regional ODA programme allocations.

Thematic directorates

To support our international development reset, FCDO’s ODA programming managed from headquarters has been restructured to focus on: the delivery of effective multilateral programming and reform of the international development system; programmes that support financial leverage and private capital mobilisation, and the provision of a responsive offer to partners in areas where the UK can add value or broker expertise. Communities of expertise will help our posts bring the most innovative and practical thinking to joint problem solving with their hosts. Financial transactions will fund investment in developing economies.

We will prioritise our ODA-funded research and development where high-quality evidence, science and innovation can deliver the greatest impact for people most in need, and where the UK has a clear strategic role to play. Through the global research and technology development portfolio, we will invest in high potential R&D to tackle shared global challenges, focusing primarily on fragile and conflict affected contexts in Africa and south and west Asia, where poverty, insecurity and climate risks are increasingly concentrated.

In the attachment available online, see table 4: thematic directorates.

Arm’s length bodies, public corporations, private sector investments, subscriptions

In addition to the regional and thematic directorate programming set out above, the FCDO delivers through arm’s length bodies such as the British Council, public corporations such as the BBC World Service and through the UK’s development finance institution, British International Investment, which will deliver on the UK’s shift from donor to investor.

This Government will increase ODA and non-ODA funding for the BBC World Service, providing an additional £33 million in total across the spending review period, or £11 million per year for the next three years. That means this Government have increased its contribution to BBC World Service funding by 42% since coming to power, showing how highly we value it. This Government are also providing a non-ODA uplift of £40 million across the spending review period to the British Council. This supports our objective of a financially sustainable British Council for the long-term.

In the attachment available online, see table 5: arm’s length bodies, private sector investments, subscriptions.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-19/HCWS1425/

[HCWS1425]

International Development

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

Alongside the written ministerial statement published this morning, I want to update the House on the Government’s revised approach to international development and official development assistance allocations. National security is the first duty of Government, and this country faces the most serious security situation for a generation. For too long under previous Governments our defence investment was cut back, so last year this Government took the necessary decision to deliver the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war—the importance of that a decision has been demonstrated again in recent weeks as UK jets fly defensive operations in the middle east while our carrier strike group has been preparing to head to the High North.

In order to fund the additional defence spending, we had to take the hugely difficult decision to reduce our development budget over the next few years, moving to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027. That was set out by the Treasury in the spending review last year. Allies such as Germany, France and Sweden have made similar choices. This, for us, is not an ideological step; it is a difficult choice in the face of international threats. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed that it is our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.

Our country has a strong, long history of leading on international development across the world. Let me be clear that our commitment to international development remains a central part of our foreign policy and a reflection of both our values and our national interest. It is a fundamental part of our moral purpose to stand up against global disease and hunger and to support those trapped in crises caused by conflict or climate change.

We know that preventing conflict, instability and crisis, displacement and migration, as well as supporting security, economic development, growth and trade, and building global partnerships are all the right things to do. They are also directly in the UK national interest, because as we have seen all too clearly in recent years, instability and crises across the world have a direct impact on us here at home. We have looked hard at what we prioritise and how we work, using the challenge of a reduced budget to find solutions that increase impact, focusing on what secures best value for money for taxpayers while reflecting UK values and the UK national interest, and what will seize new opportunities to bring real change to people’s lives.

First, we will prioritise support for countries and communities facing the worst humanitarian need—those affected by wars and crises. We are committing £1.4 billion a year to tackle human suffering in some of the worst humanitarian crises. Seventy per cent of all geographic support will be allocated to the most fragile and conflict-affected states. That includes fully protecting funds for Ukraine, where people were left in freezing conditions this winter; for Palestine, where civilians continue to suffer immensely in Gaza; and for Sudan, where we see the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. In the light of the current crisis in the middle east, this week I have taken the decision to add Lebanon to the countries whose funding will be fully protected next year.

That does mean that direct bilateral aid funding for other countries will be reduced. We have taken the decision to withdraw from traditional bilateral funding for G20 countries. Countries such as Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan will remain humanitarian priorities. They will see direct grant reductions, although we will continue to support multilateral programmes that operate in those countries. Countries such as Pakistan and Mozambique will remain development priorities, but their direct grant funding will be significantly reduced. Instead, we will run partnerships for investment that include growth funding through British International Investment and investment to tackle climate change, or lever in direct UK expertise to help them improve capabilities and raise funds directly themselves.

Secondly, we will focus on areas that maximise impact, transform lives and build stability—creating jobs and economic opportunities is the path out of poverty—as well as saving lives and improving health through backing proven global partnerships with which the UK has strong engagement and expertise. For example, we have our partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, where we will be investing over £1.2 billion, which will save the lives of millions of children around the world. We are investing £800 million in the Global Fund, which is expected to save up to 1.3 million lives and avert up to 22 million new cases of HIV, TB and malaria. We are investing in climate action that protects people and prevents future crises. Over the next three years, the UK will aim to spend around £6 billion of ODA as international climate finance, covering mitigation, adaptation and a focus on nature. Using different instruments and levers, we will aim to deliver an additional £6.7 billion of UK-backed climate and nature investments and to mobilise billions more in private finance. That includes measures to help countries to recover when disasters hit. For example, risk insurance in Jamaica enabled rapid payouts following Hurricane Melissa.

Thirdly, we will support women and girls, and we will invest in line with our values, even where other countries have changed their development approach. I have taken the decision to make support for women and girls not just a priority for development, but a central theme across the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That means work to prevent violence, to champion women’s political and economic participation and to keep children learning even during conflict. We will continue support for things such as help for the survivors of horrific rape and sexual abuse and the kind of dedicated funding I announced recently in Sudan for women who have endured the most appalling and traumatic experiences. At least 90% of our bilateral ODA programmes will have a focus on women and girls by 2030. In an age of disinformation, we will also increase our funding to the BBC World Service by £11 million extra a year.

Fourthly, we will support and help reform international institutions to unlock greater finance for development and the innovation that can go far beyond UK aid and traditional grants. That means backing the most efficient and effective bits of the multilateral system to multiply our investment, because multilateral development banks are the largest source of development and climate finance and can lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms. That includes the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each pound that we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and to which we have increased our contribution by 40%. We are also working to double the amount of money that multilateral development banks can provide, listening to partners and backing Africa’s institutions to raise far more money at scale.

Our £650 million contribution to the African Development Fund will allow it to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including issuing bonds on the London stock exchange for the first time. We will use our shareholder role and our seat at the table to press for innovation and reform, increasing the voice and representation of low-income and vulnerable countries and pursuing debt relief too, because the global financial system needs to deliver a fairer deal for developing countries and their citizens. The UN must continue to play its indispensable role, but also be more efficient, effective and coherent, so we will refocus on core priorities in line with the UN80 reform initiative.

Fifthly, we are transforming how we work, responding to the clear need for partnership, not paternalism. My noble Friend Baroness Chapman, the International Development Minister, has set out a series of shifts in how we work. We will be an investor, not just a donor. Our partners want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid. Through British International Investment, our finance institution, we are driving growth and innovation and unlocking private capital. That is why I signed a joint agreement in Ethiopia earlier this year for energy transmission projects worth £300 million, enabled by a British International Investment company that delivers UK investment across Africa. That is the kind of partnership that also helps Ethiopians find work at home, rather than considering dangerous international migration overseas.

We are also making reforms to strengthen systems rather than providing services, so that countries can thrive better without aid. For example, our partners want to educate their children themselves, rather than having us try to do it for them, so we are helping to support teacher training and curriculum design. We are moving from providing grants to providing expertise, drawing on the best of British know-how and mobilising UK strengths from inside and outside Government, whether that is from world-class universities, specialists in the tech sector, the City of London, the Met Office or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For example, tax expertise helped Ghana generate an additional £100 million in revenue to invest in education, health and priorities. Finally, we are backing local solutions rather than remote international approaches, because organisations locally know their populations best and are closer to those in need.

Allocating a reduced budget inevitably leads to hard choices and unavoidable trade-offs, so we are focusing aid on the people and places that need it most, and we will still be a major player. We expect to be the fifth-biggest funder in the world. We will still use international leadership, such as our 2027 G20 presidency, to shape the global agenda for development. We will continue to use other policies and levers so that lower income countries benefit from trade and growth. We will tackle flows of illicit finance and dirty money, which harm developing countries most and fuel crime on everyone’s streets.

This modernised approach to international development and our allocation of ODA reflect our values and our interests, because our driving force has been and continues to be working for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet. We are clear that prosperity and stability in lower-income countries matters for outcomes here at home, whether that is the cost of living, the security of our borders, the resilience of our economy and upholding our UK values across the world. We are also clear that the UK’s sustained commitment to international development is about delivering both at home and abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, but I have listened carefully, and what we have heard today will do little to reassure this House, the development sector or the British taxpayer. After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, 12 days before the start of the new financial year, we still know little about how Labour will reform development. A reduction in funding has to be accompanied by genuine reform, and I remind her that it was the Conservative party that pushed the Government to reallocate funding from development to defence. It was Labour that conceded.

We hear warm words about a fundamental change in approach and about moving from donor to investor, but the Foreign Secretary has not told us what that means in practice. What programmes have been cancelled this year as a result of these reductions? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which commitments made by this country will no longer be honoured? We on the Opposition Benches are clear that development spending must be rooted firmly in Britain’s national interest, economic security, national security and health security. That is the anchor; that is the test.

The Foreign Secretary talks about moving from donor to investor, yet almost a decade ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), set out the UK’s first economic development strategy. These subjects featured in the 2023 international development White Paper. What exactly will be new in the Government’s approach? How will the investor model operate? What metrics will be used to measure return, not just financially, but in terms of stability, resilience and alignment with UK interests? What will the Foreign Secretary do to make the private sector much more of an engine in development?

The Foreign Secretary has announced that bilateral aid to G20 countries will end, with the exception of Turkey. What specific programmes will the UK fund in Turkey? How much will be allocated and what assessment has been made of the direct benefit to the UK?

I want to press the Foreign Secretary on oversight and accountability. Spending is being reduced and reprioritised, and there have been briefings about the future of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. That body was established to ensure that every pound delivers value for money. Will it continue in its current form, with full independence and authority? If not, what will replace it? Weakening scrutiny at the very moment of greatest change risks undermining public confidence entirely. She says it remains the Government’s intention to return to 0.7% of GNI on development. What are the fiscal circumstances that would allow that and what is her expected timescale?

Turning to priorities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken about climate finance, but at a time when the country faces serious fiscal constraints—driven by this Government’s own economic choices—can she explain why this remains a central pillar? Should our first priorities not be economic resilience and national security, including global health security? On the latter, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. What will she do to ensure that the UK remains a strong contributor in an era when the ODA envelope is smaller?

The multilateral development system needs a complete overhaul. Given Labour’s plans to reduce bilateral aid funding, does the Foreign Secretary have a serious plan to drive reform of the multilateral development banks? Will she push for much more robust accountability, transparency and conditionality? How will she ensure better outcomes and a stronger focus on delivery? Crucially, is she working in concert with our key allies, including the US, to drive that reform? The World Bank under its current president is undergoing a significant reform programme, which could be much more widely rolled out across the MDB ecosystem. Is she discussing how Britain could support that?

Will the right hon. Lady update the House on support for British international investment? This is a genuine success story, mobilising private capital, supporting growth and advancing British interests. Does she have any plans to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to generate strong returns? What of Britain’s soft-power institutions that support our influence around the world? What is her vision for the future of the British Council in this new landscape? Is it being supported or quietly squeezed?

The Foreign Secretary omitted to mention the Commonwealth at all in her statement. How will she work with the Commonwealth Secretariat and our partners to ensure Britain’s partnership offers are much more attractive, so that our friends do not turn to China, which seeks only exploitation and closed trade? More broadly, is she exploring the potential for minilateral partnerships with close security partners?

There are pressing geopolitical questions, not least how the Government is supporting countries vulnerable to Russian interference, including Moldova. What role will organisations like the Westminster Foundation for Democracy play going forward? Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. This week, we welcomed President Zelensky to this House. It is important that we reaffirm our commitment to the humanitarian response to Putin’s illegal invasion.

This House is entitled to answers, the sector is entitled to certainty and the British people are entitled to know how their money is being spent and why. For decades, UK development policy has delivered transformative results around the world. It works at its best not when we are a charity, but when we are ruthlessly focused on driving genuine outcomes with genuine objectives, have rigorous criteria for selecting projects and take a clear view on how to play to our strengths.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady obviously has a set of questions, but it would have been better if she had also taken some responsibility for the situation we are in, because it was the Conservatives who hollowed out the investment in defence with a £12 billion cut after 2010, who failed to respond to the end of the post-cold war dividend, and who left our overall public finances in, frankly, a perilous state by the time we reached the 2024 election. That situation left us with difficult decisions and choices to make. We are having to reverse some of the cuts they made in defence and to keep increasing defence spending, and we are having to make difficult decisions to fund that.

The right hon. Lady asked a series of questions on particular areas, but I gently point out that she said nothing to explain what her approach would be under the Conservative party’s policy to reduce development spending to 0.1% of GNI—a two-thirds reduction in the funding we are setting out. There was no explanation of whether that funding would be cut from Sudan, vaccines or global health support.

I say to the House that we are honouring our commitments, such as those to the World Bank’s International Development Association programme. The ICAI will continue, and we are increasing funding for the British Council, but that will come from outside ODA funding. That will come from additional funding, because we recognise the hugely important role that the British Council plays across the world.

The new approach we are taking to support investment and to shift from donor to investor was encapsulated in the “new Approach to Africa”, published by my noble Friend Baroness Chapman before Christmas. That set out the equal partnership and respect that underpin the new framework for our approach to Africa, which has been strongly welcomed by African countries.

On Turkey, we are continuing to provide support for refugees, just as we are providing support that helps refugees in places like Chad, because we know that providing that support in region also prevents people from making dangerous journeys and the kind of migration that is exploited by criminal smuggler gangs. There are areas where we are reducing direct aid, and that obviously leads to difficult decisions, but we are working to increase investment in those areas through things like the World Bank and other programmes. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we can both support the defence investment we need and continue to champion international development.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that my voice will last—the Foreign Secretary might get off lightly.

This was meant to be a statement about the 40% cuts that the Government are bringing forward. Instead, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the policy and direction shifts that she is making, which I think are the right ones to make, but we have not discussed the policy announcements around the cuts. I have had an embargoed copy of the equality impact assessment, for which I am grateful. When that is in the public domain, we will have the information that would allow us to have an informed debate.

I fear that the Government’s decisions have been based on a false dichotomy. Defence has been pitched against international development, but ask any military person and they will say that the best line of prevention and first defence is our development money, because it keeps people safe and secure in their homes, keeps them prosperous and holds Governments to account. In the world we find ourselves in, I am fearful that taking away that first line of defence will have massive consequences.

I will give a couple of stats to illustrate where we are. There are 61 ongoing conflicts. Less than 12% of the global population lives under a liberal democracy—the lowest in 50 years—with 5.8 billion people living under autocratic rule. Over the next 15 years, 1.2 billion people will reach working age with only a projected 400 million jobs.

Development spend keeps people fed, safe and prosperous. Our aid cuts will reduce that. Girls in South Sudan will no longer have education, polio will surge, civil society is being abandoned and the poorest will not be fed. Rather than providing solutions, we will see the consequences of the UK stepping away from the international stage for our reputation and influence, and, as the former Home Secretary well knows, we will see people come to our shores to seek sanctuary and opportunity.

Can we also spare a thought for the staff in the FCDO who face 25% cuts right now, and specifically the country directors who are having to go to people they have spent years building relationships with to say that we are no longer standing by them financially?

I do not really have a question because I have not been given the information, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that these cuts do not aid our defence—they make the whole world more vulnerable. Can I please ask that as we go forward, she listens to the ICAI report about transparency, where we are prioritising money and its impact, rather than just chasing the bottom line?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for the points she has made and for being such a strong champion for international development and its wider purposes. I also thank her for the extensive work and scrutiny that her Committee does in this area.

My hon. Friend mentioned the interaction between development work and security across the world, and I agree with her that those issues are strongly linked. We have decided to prioritise some fragile and conflict-affected countries exactly because those development and security issues are so strongly interlinked. Our purpose is to better link the direct aid we provide with conflict and atrocity prevention.

We are linking those policy approaches in, for example, Sudan. We are fully protecting the funding for Sudan because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis, but we are linking that to much stronger policy interventions, including for the women and girls facing such crises, and the work to support a ceasefire. The honest truth is that, if we could achieve a ceasefire in Sudan, that would have more impact than any humanitarian aid funding we can provide because, frankly, the humanitarian funding too often cannot get in because of the conflict. We need to join up strongly those policies with aid support.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the equalities impact assessment, which is being published today. Our intention had been to publish it by this point, but I understand it is being uploaded at the moment. I will be giving evidence to her Committee, but I can tell her that we looked at earlier assessments and adapted our decision making on the basis of that analysis to ensure that we are, for example, doing more to support women and girls and taking account of equalities issues.

I agree with my hon. Friend that these issues are interlinked, which is why they must continue to be linked as part of our foreign policy. We have to both defend our security and support international development, because those things are fundamentally linked: this is about both our values and our national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

May I start by asking the Foreign Secretary why this extremely important statement on Britain’s commitments overseas is being announced on a Thursday, when most MPs are not here? Is it perhaps because the Government are ashamed of these cuts and want them to slip out unnoticed?

Something has gone badly wrong when a Labour Government cut the foreign aid Budget more deeply than Donald Trump or the last Conservative Government. This shameful moment is not only a moral catastrophe, but strategically illiterate. The cuts to the bilateral aid budget will be a direct and severe hit to Britain’s long-term interests, to our influence and our ability to shape events in regions critical to our national interest, and to growth in new markets, leaving a vacuum for Russia and China to fill.

The Foreign Secretary makes great play of defence, but when the world is on fire we need more work on prevention of conflict, not less. By cutting aid and development, she weakens our security and will therefore need more defence spend down the line. If she does not believe me, she may like to believe the defence chiefs who have said so, including Lord Richard Dannatt. We Liberal Democrats oppose these appalling cuts and have set out credible alternatives to fund higher defence spend, including defence bonds and a higher digital services tax.

Does the Foreign Secretary not see the contradiction between her desire for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet and these savage cuts? Where is the bravery and leadership that previous Labour Governments and the coalition Government showed to the poorest in the world? Where has the Government’s full commitment to address climate change gone? Where are the Labour party’s values, where did it mislay its moral compass and where is its strategic logic? When and how will she return to the 0.7% of GNI target enshrined in law by the coalition Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I gently remind the Front-Bench spokesperson that the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition that cut the UK’s defence budget by £12 billion. She wants a more independent defence policy, but she has no serious plans to pay for it and she has never confronted the difficult choices that responsible Governments must take. On the Thursday issue, it is a working day in Parliament and she ought to take it seriously.

As a result of all these changes, we expect to be the fifth largest funder of international development, which is a sign of how seriously we take it. Many of the reforms that we are leading are driving greater impact of decisions and policies for other areas and countries to follow. Through more partnerships, with a greater focus on investment, we are increasing capabilities in and strengthening countries across the world. We are increasing our work on conflict prevention at a time when conflict and atrocities have escalated across the world. We are making a substantial, multibillion-pound investment in climate and nature, along with international investment. Prioritising reforms such as those to the World Bank will allow it to substantially increase its investment in some of the lowest-income countries in the world by multiple billions of pounds, which will help improve development, jobs and opportunities. We are also working in partnerships with countries.

There are difficult choices to be made, but a responsible Government cannot shy away from those difficult choices, and that is why we are supporting and championing international development alongside increasing investment in defence.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

As a former shadow International Development Minister, I know that one issue our nation has not grappled with is that 90% of the usurious levels of debt repayments for the poorest nations across our planet are governed by English law through the City of London. We could raise millions out of poverty without spending a penny, by introducing a debt justice law as called for by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and other agencies. Has the Foreign Secretary given that any consideration?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know that the UK—certainly under previous Labour Governments—has a strong history of looking at debt relief, which was championed by Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Prime Minister. I recognise the strong work that my hon. Friend has done in this area and in championing these arguments. We are pursuing further reforms to debt relief, which is an important issue because countries should not be held back economically by unacceptable debt repayments that make them more fragile and end up in a vicious cycle. We are looking at further reforms in that area.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision that the UK will once again co-chair the global Media Freedom Coalition, but will she match that with financial support for independent media organisations and journalists in the growing number of countries where media freedom is under attack and US support has largely been withdrawn?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and we do champion media freedom worldwide. That is why we have become a co-chair of that organisation, and the partnerships in different countries can look at these issues. It is also why we are increasing the funding for the BBC World Service. In Iran, for example, the BBC Persian service has been crucial to providing information for communities across the country. It has also proved vital in other areas as an independent voice that can counter misinformation and maintain the open debate and freedoms he mentions.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary is aware of the impact of humanitarian aid and how it saves lives in the midst of the most horrific situations that humans experience on this earth. She will also be aware of the vital role that UN agencies, including the World Food Programme, play in co-ordinating humanitarian actors in the midst of these crises. Will she set out the impact of these changes on humanitarian aid and on UN agencies? May I also say that her recognition of and focus on women and girls really matters, and many of us strongly support that?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the work my hon. Friend has done over many years, and continues to do, on development and support for those in conflict and crisis who face the greatest poverty and suffering. She is right to highlight the importance of the UN and, more broadly, multilateral aid institutions. There are institutions that need to be reformed to be made more focused and efficient, but we also need to continue to support those multilateral institutions, because that is what allows us to multiply the effect of any investment we put in. That international architecture can go far further than any one country alone, which is why we have been working to protect funding for some international and UN agencies. There are reductions in many different areas, but we have still sought to keep that focus on international institutions, where other countries have chosen not to and have pulled out.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I support prioritising hard power over soft power to protect our national security. In her statement, the Secretary of State drew a direct link between additional defence spending and reducing the development budget, but that was the exact opposite of the position put forward by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. In Hansard, on 13 July 2021, when the previous Government were reducing aid from 0.7%, he made the exact opposite case, saying that reducing overseas aid made us less secure and that we needed to continue with 0.7% to keep us safe. Does she accept that this is yet another example of the Government saying one thing in opposition and doing the exact opposite in office, ignoring the concerns raised by the Chair of the International Development Committee and others about the trade-offs that are quite normal to make in government?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I would gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have had to deal with a defence investment programme that was hollowed out by his party in government. We have had to deal with that, as well as the difficult fiscal circumstances they left us with. It is right to increase defence investment. We have had to take difficult decisions to do so, but those decisions were set out by the Prime Minister over a year ago and then confirmed in the spending review. We are reforming how we do development so that we can maximise and increase the impact of every pound we spend. We are choosing not to do what the right hon. Gentleman’s party is proposing, which is to reduce international development to 0.1%. That would damage important programmes that we need for the future.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I welcome this development reset. I support the Government’s decision to invest in our country’s security now and our ambition to support development more in future. On Yemen, given the conflict and the overall fragility in the region, how do the Government ensure that UK aid spent there does not fall into the wrong hands?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for raising Yemen. This is a complex situation. We know there is immense humanitarian need, but there are also malign actors and huge risks around security, as well as that humanitarian crisis. That is why we have been working to ensure there are sufficient safeguards, but also working closely with international organisations and agencies in Yemen. It is important that we ensure that the investment we put in gets to those who need it most.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Yesterday, I and my colleagues on the International Development Committee met staff from Action Against Hunger, who had just returned from Lebanon, to hear about the horrors they have seen on the ground there. I am grateful for the added support that has been talked about, but when we and the people of our country see, in real time on our phones and our TV sets, a world on fire in Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Palestine, and across the Gulf and elsewhere, it is surely madness to cut our aid budget—our soft power of hope and help—at this time of conflict and climate change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we would gain respect by doing the right thing and restoring the 0.7% now, which would be worth its weight in gold not just for the people of those troubled places but for ourselves in the months, years and decades ahead?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member rightly mentions Lebanon, where as we speak there is a huge humanitarian crisis. That is why in the past two weeks we announced an additional £15 million this year, particularly for Lebanon but also for some of the nearby areas, to provide urgent additional humanitarian and crisis support this year. It is why we have added Lebanon to the list of countries—alongside Sudan and Palestine, which he also raised—where we are protecting the funding next year as well, because this is so important. He talked about the scale of conflict. It is also why it is right that we target the aid we spend—the grant funding—on those areas that are in the greatest crisis and conflict, but also for other countries where they have Governments that we can work with. For example, we can help them to raise more taxes of their own, as we are doing in Ghana, or work with British International Investment, where we can put investment in growing their economy, which also helps them to raise revenue. We take different approaches for different countries in different circumstances. The aim is still the same: to provide support for people and their lives and the long-term economic development they need, but it does have to be done in different ways in different countries.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Over 220 million children worldwide are not in education. The UN sustainable development goal 4 is unlikely to be met by 2030. What investment is the UK making to support global efforts to help those children?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend raising the issue of education. There is a particular issue with girls not being in education. It is also an issue in conflict areas, such as Sudan or Ukraine, where children’s education has been held back. That is why we are continuing the funding for Education Cannot Wait, because it provides the crucial funding in conflict zones and crises, particularly for refugee families in need of support. In other areas, we think the crucial need is to work with those Governments. In some countries we need to work in partnership with the Government concerned, because there are schools, there is provision and there are services, but for different local policy reasons too many people, particularly girls, are excluded. We want to work both internationally and bilaterally to support education.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Many of our constituents will want to react to this announcement today by increasing the amount of money they give. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continue to offer an aid match option? Given that 0.7% is still technically on the statute book, will the Foreign Secretary bring forward a named vote in this Parliament to make the changes she is announcing today?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s point about aid match and how we can ensure that we help to use UK Government funding to lever in additional donations and support from huge numbers of people across the country, including through philanthropy. There is a strong commitment to that support. We will continue to have aid match agreements and arrangements in different areas, just as we did on Palestine over the Christmas period. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I recognise how difficult today’s statement is—it is not a position that any Labour Government would ever want to be in. I welcome the commitment from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to return to 0.7% as quickly as possible. I particularly welcome the protection and focus on women and girls, and on LGBT activity where other countries are withdrawing. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for aid match, will she continue to work with me to look at areas of expansion and ensure that generous people across the country have an opportunity to support and double UK efforts, particularly in fragile and conflict states, and on women and girls, and LGBT issues, where we are continuing the funding?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s considerable work on the aid match programmes and on how we mobilise that support from communities across the country. She is right to highlight that there are particular issues, including in some of the most serious conflicts and humanitarian crises. That includes areas affected by the climate crisis. After Hurricane Melissa, for example, there was huge backing from communities across the country wanting to support aid for Jamaica. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend and others who want to support aid match programmes, including those for women and girls.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The UK was once regarded as a world leader in international development, yet today UK aid cuts are the steepest, deepest and most brutal of any G7 country—astonishingly, they are going further and faster in withdrawing support from the world’s most vulnerable people than even Donald Trump’s US Administration. It is utterly shameful. We are not hearing today how deep and where specifically those cuts are, but we know that they will deny children education and prevent access to lifesaving medicine, while also hitting those who live in extreme poverty hardest. In short, they are death-sentence cuts. With no separate Department now, or even an elected international development Minister for us to scrutinise and ask these detailed questions, how can the Secretary of State expect anyone to seriously believe that this Government remain committed to international development in an era of acute global instability?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have set out very strongly the priority that we are giving to the countries affected the worst by conflict. In fact, the most extreme poverty is now in those countries affected by conflict. For example, there is substantial risk of famine in some areas of Sudan as a result of the ongoing conflict and crisis there. We have to combine providing and maintaining the investment to support Sudan with working to deliver humanitarian corridors to enable UN organisations to get into the country and pursue a desperately needed humanitarian truce. Those things are all linked.

There are important but difficult decisions that have to be made. I know that some people want to walk away from development altogether—and some people want to walk away from defence altogether. This Government are clear that we need to champion international development and increase support for defence together.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and particularly welcome the increase in funding for the BBC World Service, which is so crucial in delivering accurate and trusted journalism in this age of misinformation and disinformation. I also welcome the prioritisation of countries affected by war and crisis, particularly Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. Will she confirm that the support for Ukraine will cover the tracing, rescue, return and rehabilitation of the 19,951 Ukrainian children who have been forcibly deported by Russia?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can confirm that we are increasing the investment for the BBC World Service by £11 million. That comes on top of the increase that we have already made this year to support the World Service because we recognise the vital role it plays. I can confirm that in Ukraine we will continue to back efforts to support the lost and kidnapped children, and their families, who have been through horrendous experiences, and some of whom I have met when visiting Kyiv. I also pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, because I know that she has been championing this issue relentlessly, year after year, and has been recognised not just by this Government but by the Government of Ukraine. I thank her.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome the continued commitment to combating terrible diseases such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, but the Foreign Secretary has not mentioned polio. After many years of investment, we have almost got to the point of eradicating the disease. If that programme ceases, the risk is that polio will come back in a big way. In areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan the disease still seems to be rampant, and they are involved in a conflict, as she will know. Will she confirm that funding for the programme will continue, so that we can eradicate polio once and for all?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for global health and the impact of the commitment. However, we are not continuing the direct funding around polio. That is a difficult decision. What we are doing is insisting that polio is covered as part of the Gavi funding. We are funding more than £1.2 billion in investment in Gavi and the vaccines programme, and their work is now expanding into polio. Given the multiplicity of different programmes in some of those areas, we think the important thing is not to have overlapping programmes but to focus, particularly through Gavi and the Global Fund, on vaccines and on eradicating those diseases.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Beyond aid, our party has a proud history in this area, from debt relief to immunisation finance and leveraging capital investment in programmes such as the World Bank’s International Development Association fund. Will the Secretary of State give us an idea of how much of a priority that will be for the UK’s G20 presidency? Given that Ukraine now represents one of our biggest humanitarian budgets, what message does she have for my former constituent, Roman Abramovich, who has missed the 90-day deadline to pay the more than £2.5 billion he owes from the sale of Chelsea football club, which could be used for humanitarian needs right now in Ukraine and could alleviate some of those budgetary pressures?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on debt relief and the World Bank’s IDA programme, which we are increasing by 40% because it is such an important programme. I can confirm that those issues will be an important part of our G20 approach and plans for next year. I also strongly welcome what he said about Roman Abramovich and the need to get that money from the sale of Chelsea. It should be going to support families and for humanitarian support across Ukraine. That is where that money should be, not held up by someone’s refusal to follow the obligations that he committed to.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

The Secretary of State referred to the link between overseas aid and our security. Preventing conflicts, promoting stability and reducing migration is a classic example of when prevention is not only better, but cheaper, than a cure. Does she accept that cutting aid undermines our national security? What assessment has she made of the longer-term consequences for this country of these short-sighted cuts?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have to both increase our defence spending and champion international development in order to maintain our security here at home. That means focusing in particular on the areas where conflict is greatest. I worry that continued instability in Sudan, for example, allows extremist groups to flourish, which creates regional instability and increases migration. That is why we are continuing to support refugees in the region and in places like Turkey. Again, that is to prevent migration and instability. We are focusing our development funding and our policy measures on a lot of that prevention work. It is also important that we see this as investment and policy measures going hand in hand, and that we do not look at them in isolation.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Later today I am meeting Inclusion International, which supports people with learning disabilities throughout the world. The focus on women and girls that my right hon. Friend referred to is welcome and important, but there is great concern among disability organisations over the impact of widespread cuts to international aid for millions of people—millions of disabled people—affected by conflict. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she and her colleagues in Government will work with international aid organisations so that initiatives providing lifeline support to disabled people, often facing poverty, can continue?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will continue to work with international organisations on this; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), is due to have meetings on disability issues later today. We looked at this issue to ensure that there would not be a disproportionate impact, particularly with regard to equality impact assessments. We recognise that there is a difficult impact from reductions in aid budgets. That is why this has been such a difficult decision to make.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Pitching defence against development is utterly short-sighted—it is a totally misjudged binary. These aid cuts make us all less secure. The Foreign Secretary has talked about this as a difficult choice; in fact, it is the wrong choice. Let us be clear: under this Labour Government, we are seeing deeper aid cuts in the UK than in any other G7 country, which will take us down to the lowest level of overseas aid—0.24% of gross national income—since 1970, which will have hugely damaging effects globally. I have three specific questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, when will she publish the country allocations so that we can see exactly where the axe is falling? Secondly, how will she ensure that poverty alleviation remains the focus of overseas development assistance in this context? Thirdly, how does she square this with the comments of her own Prime Minister, who has previously acknowledged that cutting aid makes the world less secure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Please answer just one question, Foreign Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady’s party wants to walk away from NATO, which would actually make our defence more expensive and more difficult, rather than ensuring that we can support both defence and international aid. This Government will still be the fifth largest investor in international development as a result of these changes. It is challenging, but it is also about being able to support both our values and the national interest.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Holy Scripture tells us that we should never walk by on the other side, and I am reassured by the Secretary of State’s statement that she agrees, even if she used other words. She is right to talk about value for money for taxpayers and the values that we hold close as Brits. I particularly welcome the commitment to Gavi. With that in mind, and as we work to make “Global Britain” mean something, will she update the House on the work of the Soft Power Council in recent months? I also urge her to use the Commonwealth to advance the values that she set out in her statement today. Will she meet me to discuss my thoughts on how we can do just that?

[Yvette Cooper]

The soft power strategy is being worked on with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as we speak. Both the BBC World Service and the British Council—both areas where we are increasing investment, not simply through overseas development but through other budgets—are important parts of soft power.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am proud to have been part of the 2010-15 Government, when Michael Moore and others took us to 0.7% spending for aid. I think my Labour-voting constituents will be utterly stunned to hear the contents of the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. I do not understand the disconnect between this Government and the Blair and Brown Governments, whose aim it was to make poverty history. Could the Foreign Secretary say when she believes her Government will return to 0.7%, as she mentioned earlier?

[Yvette Cooper]

I would point out to the hon. Lady that the 2010-15 coalition Government cut our defence budget by £12 billion, which is what has placed us in the difficult situation we are in now—at a time when we face huge security threats. We will be the fifth largest funder of international development, exactly because we are continuing to champion it. Having been part of the previous Labour Government—which made priorities of debt relief and tackling global poverty, hunger and hardship—is exactly why I am so clear that we need to continue to champion international development, especially in relation to women’s and girls’ issues, and we will continue to do so.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have alternative plans for funding defence, because the plans being laid out today put Britain and the world at risk. The World Bank says that climate change could drive 200 million people from their homes and the World Health Organisation has said that climate change is the biggest threat to human health. The Government’s own national security assessment on global ecosystems, which they tried to suppress, could not be clearer:

“Ecosystem collapse is highly likely to drive national security risk.”

Why are the Government choosing to ignore the evidence and their own security experts by slashing international climate and nature funding, which protects people at home and abroad?

[Yvette Cooper]

The investment that I set out in the statement includes £6 billion of climate finance for climate change and nature, and a further £6 billion in UK-backed investment, including more support to bring in private sector investment and extremely innovative approaches to climate finance. We will be able to tackle these issues globally only if we work in partnership and have a strong voice on the international stage. This is about policy and funding operating together.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has been given a challenging statement today about issues that we all consider. I very much welcome the prioritisation of women and girls in conflict zones; that is essential. Does the Secretary of State agree that we also need to ensure funding to stop the radicalisation of young men? Training young men to work and find a fulfilling role is worth the investment to halt the breeding grounds of anger and despair, and to bring hope. Does the Secretary of State agree that we all have a responsibility in this regard? What will she do to help those young men by stopping them being radicalised and turning to violence and, instead, giving them hope?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have discussed with Foreign Ministers across the world the importance of combining opportunities for young people with strong security measures to prevent radicalisation and extremism. That is about security in different regions, but it is also about our security at home.

Middle East

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

I would like to update the House on the conflict in the middle east. Since the start of the conflict, we have seen Iran fire over 900 missiles and over 3,000 drones across 13 countries in the region—countries that are UK partners, and that hundreds of thousands of British citizens visit, work in or live in. Regional air defences have intercepted the vast majority of Iranian strikes, but in recent days we have seen damage to oil export infrastructure, gas facilities, ports and airports, and restrictions on the strait of Hormuz, with major consequences for the global economy; there are impacts on the UK economy, too. US and Israeli strikes across Iran are continuing. We have also seen attacks from Iranian proxy groups, and troubling escalation in Lebanon. The UK is continuing our support for British nationals in the region, our defensive military support for partners against Iranian strikes, and our intensive diplomatic activity on both security and economic issues in the UK national interest.

In Riyadh a few days ago, I saw the work to get British nationals home from across the region, and how we are protecting our people and our partners. I stressed the UK’s support and solidarity as I met counterparts from across the Gulf. Over the last week alone, I have held discussions with my counterparts from all six nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, and with the US, Israel, key European allies and other regional partners. We want the swiftest possible resolution to the crisis to bring security and stability back to the region, and to stop Iran’s threats to its neighbours and its efforts to hijack the global economy.

The events in the middle east have consequences around the world and affect our security and our prosperity here in the UK. Our response is based on clear principles and calm leadership: we will support UK households under pressure; we will protect our people in the region; and we will defend our allies under attack. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will not be drawn into a wider war; nor will we outsource our foreign policy. Our decisions will be based on UK values and the UK national interest.

Let me update the House on support for British nationals in the region. At the outset of the crisis, more than 300,000 British citizens were in the region. When the air strikes started and airspace closed, many were stuck. Since then, we have been working relentlessly to help them get home. That has been a complex task. Our 24/7 crisis response centre has been working with our embassies, partner Governments and the rapid deployment teams we sent to operate on the ground. We have worked closely with airlines and laid on additional Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We estimate that the number of British nationals who will have flown back from the region since the start of the war will today reach 100,000. We continue to monitor the situation to provide the latest advice, but I want to put on record my sincere thanks to all those involved in the tireless efforts to support British nationals abroad and to bring British citizens home.

Turning to the conflict, as the Prime Minister set out to Parliament, we took the decision not to be involved in the initial US strikes, or to join any offensive operations. We have taken a different position on that from the US and Israel, based on what is in the UK national interest. When Iran began to target other countries across the region, putting our partners and citizens in danger, we took the further decision to support defensive action. In Saudi Arabia, I have seen the air defences that the British Army is helping to operate to counter drones. We discussed additional defence assets, which were pre-deployed by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to the region before the conflict began, and we have increased support since. We have jets operating from sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and eight in Qatar, including in the joint UK-Qatari squadron. As I speak, British Typhoons and F-35s are flying in defence of the eastern Mediterranean and across Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. The UK’s defensive military action is supporting the wider region, with four extra Typhoons, three Wildcat helicopters and a Merlin helicopter already deployed. We are increasing our naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, as HMS Dragon and RFA Lyme Bay approach. As the House is aware, we have given permission for US forces to use long-standing basing at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to support defensive strikes against the ballistic missiles that are targeting the Gulf, but let me confirm again the point that the Prime Minister made last week: our Cyprus base is not being used in those US operations.

We want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible. The longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the more pressure on the cost of living here at home. Iran’s capabilities have been massively degraded, but the conflict has confirmed the threat that the regime poses through its weapons and its proxies, and why for so long there has been an international determination that Iran should never be able to develop nuclear weapons. As the conflict eases or ends, we will need some form of negotiated agreement to contain and constrain the future threats from ballistic missiles, drones, proxies and Iran’s nuclear programme, and to safeguard international shipping.

In the past seven days, we have seen Iran particularly focus its strikes on economic infrastructure in the Gulf: oilfields in Saudi; ports in Oman; strikes against commercial ships from Thailand and Malta; and threatened mines in the strait of Hormuz. Iran is seeking to hijack the global economy. It is holding hostage supplies of oil, gas and fertiliser, affecting prices and supply chains across the globe, threatening the cost of living here at home, and causing real worry for our constituents across the country. That is why the Prime Minister laid out yesterday how the Government will stand up for working people here in Britain, including by providing support for households with heating oil costs, and by maintaining the energy price cut and cap. Last week, we joined 31 other countries in the biggest co-ordinated release of oil in the International Energy Agency’s history, while maintaining our economic pressure and sanctions on Russia. As we welcome President Zelensky to London today, we are determined that war in the Gulf must not become a windfall for Putin. We continue to stand with Ukraine.

Reopening the strait of Hormuz is vital for market stability, and for the cost of living for British households. However, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a serious and complex issue, and there is no easy fix. We are discussing this with international partners in Europe and Asia, Gulf partners and the US. These discussions are separate from the conflict itself, as the US has said; countries around the world have been clear that they do not want to see escalation, or be drawn into a wider conflict, but they do want to see the strait open and functioning, and they do not want to see the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation undermined. Because it is an international shipping lane, multiple nations need to be involved in planning the way forward. Our discussions will continue to reflect serious, expert military and commercial assessments of what is credible and feasible, so that commercial shipping can return as soon as possible, as the conflict subsides.

I turn to Lebanon, which I am extremely concerned is on the precipice of a widening conflict that risks disastrous humanitarian consequences. In recent days, I have spoken to the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister, as well as holding discussions with the US, France and other European and Gulf partners. We need urgent diplomatic action to avert further escalation, but amid that danger, it is possible that there is also a moment of diplomatic opportunity, and we must bring all support and pressure to bear so that it is seized and not squandered.

Let me set out the UK position. First, we condemn the appalling attacks by Lebanese Hezbollah, which has fired hundreds of rockets at northern Israel. This must cease immediately. The actions of this proscribed terrorist group, at the instigation of the Iranian regime, are once again drawing the people of Lebanon into a conflict that they do not want and that is not in their interests.

Secondly, we support the sovereignty of Lebanon. We welcome the commitments made by the Lebanese Government, including the significant decision to ban Hezbollah’s military activities, and we will continue to support the Lebanese armed forces—they, not Hezbollah, are the sole legitimate defender of Lebanon.

Thirdly, we are extremely worried about the civilian consequences of current Israeli operations. An estimated 1,000 people have been killed, and one in seven Lebanese civilians have reportedly been displaced from their homes. This scale of humanitarian displacement is unacceptable and risks devastating consequences. This weekend, I announced that the UK would provide an additional £5 million in essential humanitarian aid, and today I can announce a further £10 million of humanitarian support to provide emergency medical care, shelter and other lifesaving assistance in Lebanon and the region. This will help prevent further displacement and instability that would risk escalating regional problems and have a wider impact on other countries beyond the region.

Fourthly, we believe that diplomatic progress can be made, as there is a shared interest across Lebanon and Israel in seeing an end to the Hezbollah threats and seeing peace and stability return. Both the Lebanese and Israeli Governments have expressed an interest in joint talks. We strongly support this path, the framework for which is in Security Council resolution 1701, as it presents the best route to lasting peace, security and stability beyond the region. The UK stands ready to provide diplomatic support to this process.

This conflict in the middle east is affecting countries across the region and the world. These global events are impacting our security and economy here at home. This Government are resolute in our determination to protect the safety, security and prosperity of British people and our partners. We are pursuing the swiftest possible resolution to the conflict, and security and stability, in the national interest of the United Kingdom. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I want to put on the record the thanks of the Opposition to our brave armed forces in the region and to those en route, as well as our thanks to the diplomatic and consular staff for all their efforts to support the quarter of a million British nationals in the region. We also thank our GCC allies for their care in hosting the thousands of British nationals who have returned home via their commercial carriers—Emirates and Etihad Airways—through the air corridor that they secured.

British nationals in the region, our assets and interests, and our allies continue to be on the receiving end of indiscriminate targeting by Iran’s despotic regime. As our friends in the GCC have said, the regime has pursued a nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programme, and sponsors terrorist proxies, whose destabilising activities across the region and interference in domestic affairs of state have threatened us all. The world would be a safer place free from the tyrants of Tehran.

While Iran attacks our military bases, targets British nationals, holds Lindsay and Craig Foreman captive and indiscriminately fires missiles and drones on its neighbours, we cannot stay silent or inactive. The UAE’s Minister of International Co-operation, Her Excellency Reem Al Hashimy, has called Iran’s actions “unhinged”. Our friends in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have rightly stated that Iran must stop the attacks on economic infrastructure. We have consistently called on the Government to work closely with our friends in the Gulf. We must back our allies in their attempts to safeguard their regional airspace, freedom of navigation and economic and national security. Given the concerns that they have raised in recent weeks, what assurances and confidence did the Foreign Secretary give our friends in the Gulf about the depth and reliability of our support to them? What specific commitments did she make to them about better protecting our bases and allies in the region? The way that our friends and close security partners who host British armed forces have been subjected to outrageous, unprovoked aggression has been painful to watch. Britain cannot stand by while our allies do the heavy lifting to protect us all.

Take Bahrain, for example, with whom we signed the C-SIPA—comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement—in 2024. I am yet to receive a substantive answer from the Government on how we are mobilising the agreement to better protect our ally and our naval base near Manama. What commitments has the Foreign Secretary given to ensure that British assets would be made available to bolster our allies’ defences? Will minehunter vessels be returning to our base in Bahrain, and will a destroyer, which can take down projectiles, be in the region?

What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli Ministers on the Iranian-backed terrorist organisation Hezbollah, whose actions are undermining regional stability and the Lebanese Government and causing terrible hardship for both the Lebanese and Israeli people? Can she advise the House on any actions that the British Government are taking to support practical efforts to see Hezbollah disarmed? What is her assessment of the capacity of the Lebanese armed forces to deal with this threat?

Earlier this month, the Minister for the Middle East summoned Iran’s terrorist representative in London. What was discussed? Will the Foreign Secretary summon him again? Has she held any direct discussions with her Iranian counterpart?

As well as threatening regional security, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatens our homeland. It has been designated a terrorist organisation by every corner of the world, including the United States, the European Union, many members of the GCC and our Commonwealth partner, Canada. At this time of war, why does the UK diverge from the rest of the world? What leverage over Iran are the Government exacting for taking the position of not acting? If the Government bring forward legislation to proscribe the IRGC, the Opposition will stand ready to work with them. That also applies to the source of funding of the Iranian regime—what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking with our partners to cut off the financial flows that fund the Iranian regime through the international financial system?

The Foreign Secretary referred to her conversation with Secretary Rubio. Can she confirm that Britain is being kept informed of US actions, both militarily and diplomatically? What kind of agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme would she find acceptable, given the Government’s preference for a negotiated settlement? What is her assessment of the international efforts to reopen the strait of Hormuz? I say that following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday about a new viable collective plan. What are the details of that plan?

Finally, Iran’s close friend Putin must not profit from this conflict in the middle east. What is the coalition of the willing doing to collapse Putin’s financial flows, make the shadow fleet unviable and stop refineries in India, China and Turkey buying Russian crude oil and funding Putin’s assault on Ukraine? Will the Foreign Secretary also join me in commending our Ukrainian friends for their support of our Gulf allies, when they themselves are under constant attack? This is a consequential moment for the world, and strong and consistent British leadership is required.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her questions; I will take each in turn. Not only are we working immensely closely with our Gulf colleagues and partners, but we are providing them with direct military defensive support, including with our F-35s and Typhoons, which are in operation over the region. We are taking action, including against drones, and providing basing support against the ballistic launchers and missiles that are targeted at the Gulf. We will continue to work closely with those partners, including looking to the future to see how we can support them with the latest anti-drone technology, learning from the experiences of Ukraine.

I have had discussions with the Israeli and Lebanese Governments on Lebanon and the threat from the terrorist group, Lebanese Hezbollah, and the threat from that Iranian-backed organisation is clear. Once again, it has been exposed in recent weeks as doing the bidding of the Iranian regime. Hezbollah does nothing to stand up for the Lebanese people.

On the IRGC, I gently point out to the right hon. Lady that she was Home Secretary for some time and did not introduce the legislation necessary to address some of the wider security issues. However, we continue to fully sanction not just the IRGC, but much more widely across the Iranian system, to keep up the pressure. We do so alongside our allies and alongside the defensive military operations that are in place. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. That would be a threat not just to the region, but to the world. That is why I, alongside my French and German counterparts, led the work to ensure that we could trigger the snapback response to reintroduce sanctions on the Iranian regime back in October, before this conflict started. We will need to keep our focus on preventing not just the nuclear threat, but the ballistic threat, the proxy threat and the threat to the strait of Hormuz.

The issues around the strait are complex; that is the reality. That is why we need to ensure not only that we are guided by military and commercial expertise, but that planning is in place, drawing together countries across the world because there is international interest in the strait, and that is what we will continue to do.

Finally, I could not agree more with the shadow Foreign Secretary on her point about Russia and Ukraine. Russia and Putin cannot be allowed to benefit from this crisis. We see the long-standing links between Russia and Iran and the threat that both countries pose. Today, as we welcome President Zelensky to London, we continue our steadfast and, I believe, cross-party support for Ukraine. That support must continue, because we know that Ukraine’s security is our security.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for her focus on the impact on our constituents from the fallout of this conflict. Specifically, what are our allies and partners in the region, who now find themselves under fire from Iran, asking of the UK Government, and are we able to deliver?

[Yvette Cooper]

When I met the Gulf Co-operation Council, our partners welcomed our support and our long-standing commitment to their security, stability and territorial integrity. At the moment, they face challenges from the ballistic missiles threat, so we are providing basing in support of the US defensive operations. They also face threats from drones and cruise missiles, so we are providing jets to help strike them down and some of the long-standing air defences that I saw in Saudi. They also face significant economic threats, because Iran is now deliberately targeting their economic infrastructure to escalate the situation more widely. That is why we are working closely with them on a way forward for the strait of Hormuz.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

The war of Trump and Netanyahu—cheered on uncritically by Reform Members and the Conservatives—has put our citizens and troops in the region under immediate threat from Iran’s reckless retaliation, and worsened the cost of living crisis for households here in the UK. The Government’s first priority must be to protect our citizens, our troops and our allies facing unprovoked attacks. They must also take action on the huge cost increases here at home. I wish to put on record my party’s thanks to our brave service personnel for their work to keep our citizens safe.

We also now face the possibility of another major escalation. Reports suggest that a ground invasion of Lebanon by Israeli defence forces is imminent. Hezbollah is a brutal terror organisation and must be disarmed, but that must be achieved by working with leaders in Beirut and through international organisations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps she will take to pressure the Netanyahu Government to cease their devastating strikes on Lebanon, and pull back from plans for a ground offensive? Will she also set out what new steps the Government are taking to halt and reverse the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank?

The IRGC is also a terrorist organisation and should be proscribed here in the UK. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why she has still not done that? We know that UK bases have now been used by the US to conduct strikes in Iran. The Prime Minister told this House that those strikes would be only defensive. To assure the House of that, it is crucial that the UK monitors the outcomes of US actions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the Government have been supplied with that information by US forces or, if not, will she confirm whether the Government have asked for it?

It was wholly predictable that Iran would retaliate by closing the strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump has now made a shameless plea that NATO allies should clean up the mess that he initiated. Liberal Democrats are clear that we cannot afford to be dragged by Trump into this costly foreign adventure. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government will seek to secure an emergency resolution from the UN Security Council, calling for a multilateral approach to reopening the strait of Hormuz? Will she commit to bringing a vote to this House before any UK forces are sent to operate in the strait?

[Yvette Cooper]

On Lebanon, as I made it clear in my statement, the threat from Lebanese Hezbollah is serious. This is a terrorist organisation that is doing the bidding of the Iranian regime, not standing up for the Lebanese people. The Israeli and Lebanese Governments have a shared interest in tackling Hezbollah, and there is an opportunity for both of them to engage in diplomatic talks and discussions, which we want to support. We urge Israel to support those talks and that process, and not to pursue the huge displacement of civilians, with all its humanitarian consequences. We want to see a shared set of operations against Hezbollah, including support for the Lebanese armed forces on that as well.

More widely, the hon. Member is right to recognise the support for our armed forces and the work that they are doing to secure the safety not just of British citizens in the region, but of our partners and the wider energy and economic infrastructure as well.

On the strait of Hormuz, the focus at the moment is on the practical measures that will help to restore shipping once the conflict subsides, and to ensure that Iran cannot continue with a long-term ability to hold the global economy hostage, which is affecting us here at home.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his decision not to get involved in this war of choice. While we are all distracted by Israel’s illegal bombing of Iran and Lebanon, Israel has also occupied the west bank and, in the month of Ramadan, closed Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the third holiest Muslim site. It is in East Jerusalem, which, under international law, has been declared as being illegally occupied by Israel. This is a particularly pernicious and vindictive action. Can the Secretary of State please tell us what discussion she and the Foreign Office have had with their Israeli counterparts, and will she ask them to please reopen the Masjid al-Aqsa and allow the worshippers in, especially as Eid al-Fitr will be celebrated by the end of this week?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise real concerns about the escalation in the west bank. This is a critical issue—both for the west bank and the rights of Palestinian people in the west bank, and when it comes to addressing concerns around illegal settlements and settler violence—and it is fundamentally part of the wider issues around the peace process for Gaza and the future of a two-state solution. As we deal with the ongoing conflict in the middle east involving Iran, it is really important that we do not lose focus on the 20-point plan and wider issues around the west bank. We are continuing to raise these issues with the Israeli Government and more widely in the region and beyond.

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

If an Iranian rocket attack—hopefully this will never happen—successfully penetrated our defences and caused severe damage and casualties on a British base, is the Foreign Secretary ruling out any response by the RAF against the source, such as a battery, from which those missiles had been fired?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will know that we are already taking defensive military action in support of our partners, against threats to them, and we take immensely seriously any threats to UK bases or military assets. He would not expect me to comment on operational issues, but he knows how seriously we take the UK’s military and defensive capabilities.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on her statement, and I thank her and her offices for the safe return of two of my constituents who were caught up in the original bombings.

I support what my right hon. Friend says about the Government’s position not to get embroiled in this war of choice, but I note her equivocation around potential involvement in relation to the strait of Hormuz. If we are able to have further details about that, as appropriate, it would be really helpful. To what extent does she think that the international community’s lack of action—that includes from the UK—in holding Israel to account for its illegal actions in the west bank and Gaza has potentially made its action in Iran more likely?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

On the strait of Hormuz, I should be clear that the discussions that are under way are separate from the conflict, as the US itself has made clear. One thing that is being looked at is what is possible as the conflict ends or subsides. On the wider issue of Israeli operations in the west bank, I have myself raised these issues in the UN Security Council, and we will continue to do so. We take these issues immensely seriously. We also have to recognise the ongoing threats and challenges from the Iranian regime.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary said that the situation in the strait is complex, and so it is, but it is not that complex. Her Government or military must have war gamed this in the past, because it was foreseeable. Can she say when a plan will emerge and who she is discussing it with? Will she please reassure the House that she is not simply talking to the United Nations, because if we expect the United Nations to keep the strait open, we will be here talking about this at Christmas?

[Yvette Cooper]

I said in my statement that we were having discussions about the strait with our European partners, our Gulf partners, the United States and other countries who also have a strong interest in supporting freedom of navigation. This is complex. The nature of technology, including new drones—sea drones and air drones—the different kind of threats and the issues around commercial confidence make all of this complex. That is why we need to do this based on expert advice and multilateral discussions. All these issues can only be addressed through international partnerships.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for confirming today that British foreign policy is being decided by the British Government and not outsourced either to Washington or to Tel Aviv.

At the weekend, Israeli police killed two young Palestinian brothers and their parents in the occupied west bank, shooting all four in the head and face as the family returned from a Ramadan shopping trip. Mohammed was five, and Othman, who was blind and had special needs, was seven. Their mother and father were driving them through their home town of Tamoun late on Saturday when Israeli forces opened fire. Eleven-year-old Khaled, who survived the shooting, told Reuters that Israeli police who dragged him out of the car said, “We killed dogs.” Does this not show the need for the UK to take tough action against Israel for the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank and the wider crimes being committed by settlers in the west bank?

[Yvette Cooper]

The case that my hon. Friend describes is deeply disturbing. It is essential that all Governments follow international law and maintain international standards around human rights and civilian protection. The case is extremely distressing and obviously needs full investigation.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

When there is no long-term plan for military intervention, it is civilian populations who pay the price. We know that from Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. Given the importance of international law, which I hope the Foreign Secretary supports, will she tell me what the consequences are for Israel for its actions in Lebanon? Just as importantly, when it comes to RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, what assurances has she been given that there will be no targeting of civilians from those bases?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK Government continue to follow and to be guided by international law—that is an important part of our principles and values. On RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, there are operational arrangements in place for our military, and an agreement was reached to use them for defensive purposes.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The illegal war started by Israel and the US is shifting focus away from the atrocities that we are seeing happen daily in Gaza and the west bank. This morning I listened to the mother of Hind Rajab. In the week when the film about her was nominated for an award, her name has become a symbol of strength for the children of Gaza. Investigations have shown that 355 bullet holes were found on the car in which Hind hid with dead members of her family—overwhelming evidence of the terror that she faced while trapped and frightened. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the horrendous actions of the Israel Defence Forces in this case, and so many others, as we have heard today, can only be described as barbaric and inhumane? Can she say what this Government are doing to challenge these atrocities and barbaric actions, and does she have more to say than just warm words?

[Yvette Cooper]

I heard part of that deeply distressing interview this morning. Not only does there have to be compliance with international standards, humanitarian law, international law and full investigations of any violations, but we have to ensure that there is a peace process, which is desperately needed, for Gaza and the west bank as part of a two-state solution. Only that will deliver peace and respect for human rights across the region.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

One of the most depressing things about the Foreign Secretary’s statement is that she seems to have failed to learn from the failure of her predecessors of both Governments, who were repeatedly warned that if the violence and cruelty in Gaza were left unchecked, it would spread out across the entire region and possibly consume it in flames. We find ourselves in exactly that position. I was struck by the passage of her statement concerning Lebanon, because it is almost completely the same as passages that were said about Gaza at the start of that conflict—“We are very concerned, we are protesting to the Israelis, and we are sending some aid, but there is really nothing we can do”.

I have three questions. First, we have been supporting the Lebanese armed forces for many years now, so do we believe that the Lebanese have a right to self-defence, and if they do, how will we support them in the defence of their civilian population? Secondly, what will the Foreign Secretary do to prevent Lebanon from becoming a new Gaza—a phrase that has been used by Israeli officials about this conflict? Thirdly, if she is not willing to do either of those things, how many Lebanese is an acceptable number for us to see killed over the next few weeks?

[Yvette Cooper]

Because of the immense scale of risks and the already horrendous humanitarian consequences in Lebanon, I have spoken directly to both the Lebanese Prime Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister in recent days about exactly that. That is also why we have identified the interest shown, and the steps that the Lebanese Government have taken to propose direct talks are really important. It is essential that the Israeli Government support those and take steps forward for those, instead of taking ground offensive action, and that countries across the world support that process. This should become a diplomatic opportunity in a way that we have not seen before. It would be devastating if that were instead thrown away by extended conflict and by the Israeli operations that we have seen.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I reiterate the thanks to the Foreign Secretary for reconfirming that Britain will make independent foreign policy decisions in the interests of our own people. Many of my constituents are still stuck in countries in the middle east and the surrounding areas because of the closure of airspace, and some are still struggling to gain visa extensions to stay in those countries where they are on holiday. What work is the Foreign Secretary doing with airlines to ensure that those people can get flights back? For many of them, it has been several weeks.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am happy to pursue further the cases that my hon. Friend raises. The work being done by the 24/7 crisis centre that the Foreign Office set up, by our rapid deployment teams and by our consular teams in the region has enabled an estimated 100,000 British citizens to return home since the conflict started. Some of that is through additional charter flights that we put on, particularly from Dubai and Muscat, and some through working closely with the airlines to ensure that there are flights to the UK and routes that British citizens can take. There have been some areas where airspace has been restricted again and there have been additional problems, but we continue to work with anyone who is finding it difficult to return home.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary, in all her travels, has been considering the effects on the United Kingdom, and not just on energy prices but on fertilisers. Has she, by any chance, engaged in any conversations with countries that are some of the world’s biggest suppliers of fertilisers, such as Canada, whose Prime Minister was here, or indeed with the United States? While events continue in the middle east and there is absolutely no indication that her words are having any effect at all in opening up the strait of Hormuz, there may be something she can do to open up markets that British people can benefit from.

[Yvette Cooper]

I can confirm that I am seeing the Canadian Foreign Minister later this week. There are many international discussions under way. One of the things that I discussed with the Saudi Energy and Transport Ministers, whom I met while in the Gulf, was some of the work that they are doing, for example, to look at re-routing on different commercial routes and so on to ensure that different supply chains can keep moving.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that fertiliser is one of the important issues here. Most people have been focusing on oil, but fertiliser is hugely significant for a lot of different areas, and we continue to work across Government and internationally on what routes there might be. Also, bluntly, we want this conflict to reach an end as swiftly as possible, so that these global arteries for trade and transport get moving again.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

The Government are right not to be drawn into this war and that it needs to end, including with a negotiated agreement. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the situation in Lebanon, where I used to live and work as an aid worker. Does she share my serious concern at the conduct of the Israeli military, with at least 28 attacks on hospitals and health facilities in Lebanon so far and threats of forced displacement? The tactics used in Gaza were criminal and must not be exported with impunity.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that the humanitarian consequences of the Israeli operations are extremely serious already. It is estimated that over 800,000 Lebanese civilians have been displaced from their homes, which is already causing emergency problems with shelter. I have discussed this with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as directly with the Lebanese Government, and it is why we are providing £15 million in humanitarian assistance, both to Lebanon and to other neighbouring areas, to support people facing displacement.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is reported that the UK’s national security adviser was in the room at Iran-US nuclear talks last month, just before the war began, and it appears that diplomatic options were still viable and there was no solid evidence of an imminent missile threat to Europe, or of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore believe that a negotiated path between Iran and the US was still possible at that time? If so, surely that means that the initial US-Israeli strikes were premature and therefore illegal.

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK did provide support for negotiations and diplomatic processes around the nuclear discussions; we thought that was an important track and wanted it to continue—that was one of the reasons for our position on the initial US strikes. Also, as we look forward, we need to ensure that the approach covers not just the nuclear threats but the ballistic and drone threats to the region, as well as the proxy threats and the threats to the strait of Hormuz. It is also of central importance that we prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Thomas More, a former occupant of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, once famously said that when we cut down laws to defeat the devil, we are defenceless when the winds turn against us. In conflict the enemy always has a vote, and Iran has chosen to restrict the strait of Hormuz. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to get back to a rules-based order and that the UN convention on the law of the sea should make it clear to Iran that firing upon defenceless maritime vessels and restricting passage in international waters is wrong, and that that provides us with an opportunity for a way forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree about the importance of maritime law, freedom of navigation and the law of the sea. Those are fundamental international principles and that is why the UK, as an international trading nation, has long supported them. It is also one reason why we have supported Bahrain’s UN Security Council resolution—we were a co-sponsor—because we also see the UN charter as part of the underpinnings of international law.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I am slightly struggling to see what it adds to the answer to the urgent question we had yesterday, but it is always nice to see the Foreign Secretary. When she asks the US Government to de-escalate, what do they say in response?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have long been clear that, ultimately, we need a swift resolution to this conflict. We are providing the basing support for the US to be able to take defensive action against the military launches and the weapons that are being pointed at the Gulf, and we are also providing broader defensive support, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need a swift resolution. We also know that, as the conflict ends, we will need a negotiated settlement that will prevent Iran from being able to rearm and pose an ongoing threat to the region and beyond. That is the best way to get stability and security in the UK’s national interest.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

While this war of choice is raging, Netanyahu’s forces have been murdering innocent Palestinians—men, women and disabled children —in the west bank, so what further action will the Foreign Secretary take to stop Israel repeating what happened in Gaza in the west bank and in Lebanon?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I set out in our concerns on Lebanon, we are urging the Israeli Government not to pursue further ground operations but instead to pursue the opportunity of talks and a shared interest with the Lebanese Government, who we continue to support. We have raised our deep concerns and condemned some of the decisions made by the Israeli Security Cabinet in the west bank, because they risk setting back the potential for peace and for the two-state solution that the Gaza peace process should have been an opportunity to move towards. We cannot let that process fall off track.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

In the Foreign Secretary’s statement—all six pages of it—there was not a single word of criticism of the illegal, reckless action of Trump and Netanyahu in launching the strikes that have set off this conflagration in the middle east. If the Foreign Secretary is not prepared even to criticise that, what hope can the British people have that the UK Government are standing up to the aggression of Trump and Netanyahu behind closed doors? Can she assure us that she and her Government are showing more backbone behind those closed doors? And can she assure us that she is investing in building a special relationship with allies we can really rely on, who believe in human rights, diplomacy and peace?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government take decisions according to UK values and the UK’s interests. I know that there are different perspectives on foreign policy. There are some who believe that we should agree to and join in with everything that the US does. There are some who believe that we should always criticise and oppose everything that the US does. We believe that it is in the interests of the UK and the people across the UK to pursue UK values and UK interests in a hard-headed, serious and calm-headed way.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the staff of the British embassies in Doha and across the middle east for their professional work in incredibly challenging circumstances. On a separate note, the economic crisis flowing from this war will have a disastrous effect on the poorest countries in the world, plunging people into deeper poverty and leading to an increased risk of conflict. Will my right hon. Friend explain what her Department is doing with international allies to mitigate those risks?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been monitoring and assessing the impacts, particularly of the restrictions on the strait of Hormuz and the restrictions around oil and fertiliser. We have been looking at the impacts that that can have, not just on the UK but on some of the most fragile and vulnerable countries across the world. We are monitoring that and looking at how we work with other countries to address that, and I would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with more information, because we have been considering this.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In June last year, Mr Trump told the world that the Iranian nuclear sites had been “completely destroyed”, but the last few weeks prove that he did not believe that to be true. Last week, the President told the world that the war was nearly completely won and that he needed no help. He has said in recent months that NATO is useless. He now appears to need both help and NATO. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me—and, I believe, with many in the House—that the President himself is becoming an increasingly unreliable and erratic ally and partner, and that the UK is therefore right to be strategically questioning and sceptical about his pronouncements and his motives? I also echo the view of many people across the House that our remaining sceptical and questioning should not be an excuse for sitting idly by, wringing our hands and offering earnest words but no action in support of humanitarian aid to safeguard the lives of ordinary Lebanese and Palestinians and those in the west bank, because to sit and do nothing would make us as culpable as the guilty.

[Yvette Cooper]

Our relationship with the US on security and the economy is deep and long-standing. I was first briefed on our security co-operation as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee more than 25 years ago, and it has strengthened and deepened since then. Our focus needs to be on the substance of that relationship and the real issues, not on rhetoric or statements. That is immensely important, and it is because we take seriously the humanitarian issues that we are now providing £15 million of humanitarian support for Lebanon and talking to the Lebanese Prime Minister. We are raising the issue of Lebanon not just with the Israeli Government but with the US, with European partners and with other Gulf partners.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and in particular for her commitment to Lebanon, which does not want this war any more than we do. Others have also noted that while the world is focused elsewhere in the middle east, Israeli forces have stepped up their deadly attacks on Palestinians in the west bank. The accounts of the killing of the Bani Odeh family in the village of Tammun are utterly harrowing. One witness described to the BBC the little kids crying before they were killed in their car on the way back from their family shopping trip. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure me that she will keep calling out these crimes and make it clear to the Government of Israel that this cannot continue?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend; we have seen these deeply disturbing reports. This comes against a backdrop not just of increased settler violence but of settlement expansion and the decision of the Israeli Security Cabinet to extend control over the west bank in a way that we strongly condemn. That is deeply damaging. It goes against all the long-standing international agreements and arrangements, it is counterproductive and it sets back the process of peace and the two-state solution.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In this overarching statement on the middle east by the Foreign Secretary, it is surprising that she did not take the opportunity to condemn the continuing genocide in Gaza, the brutality of the occupation of the west bank, the destruction of Palestinian villages there, the invasion of Lebanon by Israel and the continued supply of British weapons. Trump has declared war on Iran without any war objective or war plan, and we are involved in that. Can she end this nonsense about whether we are sending defensive or offensive strikes from this country? The reality is that if a bomber takes off from RAF Fairford and bombs civilian targets in Iran, we are involved in that act of aggression against the people of Iran. Should we not join Spain and say no to the USA?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have taken a different approach to the US and to Israel over this conflict, and that has been guided by our principles and our assessment of the UK’s national interest. But I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that there have been Iranian airstrikes against our partner countries—countries that were not involved in those initial strikes and countries where 300,000 British citizens were either visiting or resident—and strikes on hotels as well as on energy and civilian infrastructure in places across the Gulf. If the UK had done nothing, when we had the ability to take out the missiles and the drones while they were in the air, I think people would have found that extremely difficult to understand.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her wide-ranging statement, including the support she outlined to protect British nationals in the region and to ensure that humanitarian aid gets into Lebanon, and the efforts to ensure that British consumers with heating oil are protected from price rises. Over 1,500 properties in my constituency depend on that.

May I ask specifically about Iran? Iran has been a threat to the UK, around the world and to many of our partners. It has been a destabilising force directly and through its proxies for many decades. Is it her assessment now that whatever the circumstances of how this war came about, we have an opportunity to permanently de-escalate and neutralise the threat from Iran so that the whole world can benefit from more peaceful circumstances without it?

[Yvette Cooper]

Iran continues to be a long-standing threat to international security through its attempts to develop a nuclear programme and to regional security through its proxies and its ballistic missiles programme, but also to its own people in some of the brutal repression that we have seen. It will be important as this conflict subsides and as we come out of it that there is a medium and long-term containment plan to prevent the threats in all these different areas from Iran to its neighbours, so that we cannot see this kind of threat again.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that Ukraine’s security is our security. But in answer to the last question, she equally set out why the current regime in Iran is a threat to our security, both through proliferation—a level of enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon—and the IRGC, which not only slaughters thousands in Iran but has been responsible for plots, which have been foiled, on our own soil. It is all very well the Foreign Secretary saying that she wants to see a swift resolution, but when diplomacy so far has failed and the Government will not join our allies in the attacks, how does she think this will end?

[Yvette Cooper]

When there are important decisions to be made about UK forces and operations they might be a part of, it is immensely important to look at whether there is a purpose—a clear structure—to the operations and a lawful basis for them, and whether they are in the UK’s interest. We will continue to work with our Gulf partners, European partners and allies and partners across the world on how we maintain the pressure together for a swift resolution that not only restores security to the region, but ensures that we have economic prosperity as well as national security protected.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. It was reassuring to hear her say that we will not be outsourcing our foreign policy—something I think we should all agree with. Is she confident that the United States properly understands that its actions in the middle east have not only made peace in Palestine much more difficult to achieve, but have provided cover to Israel for its ongoing offensive in Palestine and its aggression against Lebanon?

[Yvette Cooper]

Because the regional stability and security issues around the middle east have so many wider ramifications, some of the Gulf countries, for example, that I have spoken to are not only immensely seized by the issues around the Iranian threat and the direct threat to their airspace and communities, but are raising with me issues around Palestine, Gaza and Lebanon. This ought to be a moment for intense international diplomacy in support of regional security and not for allowing wider escalation and regional threat that would pose long-term instability for the region.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

The one thing Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu knew full well when they entered this illegal war unilaterally was that the strait of Hormuz would be a place of strategic weaponry, if you want to call it that, for Iran to use against all other nations. Some European countries have unilaterally now decided to open negotiations with Iran, such as France and Italy. They have done that because they are not participating in any direct military action. My question for the Foreign Secretary is: if the Iranians said, “We would allow UK ships to pass through the strait of Hormuz, but you must prevent America from using your base,” would we comply?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can say to the hon. Member that we are working closely with our European allies, including France, Germany and Italy, on a range of these issues. I do not think that his characterisation of the situation is right.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I want to express my sorrow at the death and suffering of civilians, wherever that is happening in the region. I commend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and principled approach to this crisis, which is rooted in respect for international law. Could she expand on efforts that she, the Prime Minister and our allies are taking to de-escalate this conflict and to seek a diplomatic solution that will put the interests of those civilians front and foremost in our minds? We hear far too much about regimes and actors in this region; we need to hear more about the rights of civilians.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that at every stage we have been urging the protection of civilians. That is immensely important as part of this and is also why we need to work so immensely hard to prevent further escalation. It is one of the issues we have been raising particularly around Lebanon, where I am concerned that we are on the brink of what could be much greater devastating humanitarian consequences. It is also why we have been looking forward to what diplomatic process and settlement process could prevent Iran from posing a threat in future.

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

The morning after the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri, the Foreign Secretary said in the media round that the drone had struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri. I clarified that with the Ministry of Defence, which went on to confirm that it in fact struck the hangar. The hangar in question was widely reported in the media as containing the U-2 spy planes of detachment one of the US air force’s 9th operations group, which is tasked with flying intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over the middle east. To that extent, given that the Foreign Secretary stated that Cyprus is not being used in those US operations, could she clarify unequivocally whether Operation Olive Harvest is being used by the US to fly reconnaissance over the middle east in defensive support of these US operations? If she is sure that it is not, could she confirm what conversations she has had with the US that made her come to that assessment?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right about the strike around the hangar. The request from the US to provide basing support for the operations against the ballistic missiles was a request for RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia. The agreement that we have reached to provide that basing support is confined to RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia.

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

It is abundantly clear to any fair-minded geopolitical observer that the US-Israeli actions in Iran were commenced without the cover of law and without a plan to follow the initial impulse of kinetic violence. But it is equally clear that the United Kingdom was caught short in our responsiveness and preparedness, particularly in relation to the island of Cyprus. Following the drone attack on that particular hangar, the Cypriot Government expressed disappointment in the UK, and the Cypriot Foreign Secretary has openly speculated about the future of our sovereign base areas. What work has the Foreign Secretary or her ministerial colleagues done to repair the damage with Cyprus, which is, after all, an incredibly valuable diplomatic and defence ally?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is because regional instability increased in the early part of this year that, since January, we have been pre-deploying additional jets to Cyprus—to the sovereign base—exactly to provide additional protection for Cyprus, including additional air defence and radar capabilities. We took that issue very seriously and continue to do so. I have spoken with the Cypriot Foreign Minister on a series of occasions, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Defence Secretary has not only visited the sovereign base in Cyprus but met the Cypriot Government. We take our partnership with the Cypriot Government, and the defence of operations around Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean, immensely seriously.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I think, and hope, that everybody in this Chamber, including the official Opposition, now agrees that Donald Trump had absolutely no plan when he agreed, along with Israel, to this illegal invasion of Iran. Their first action was to bomb a school, killing more than 160 schoolchildren—mainly girls—and over 1,500 people have been killed and more than 20,000 injured. The whole region is in flames, and the obstruction of the strait of Hormuz is affecting the global economy. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no UK warships should join this illegal war, and that there should be no boots on the ground to deflect from what is essentially Trump’s “Operation Epstein Fury”?

[Yvette Cooper]

We took a different view from the US on this conflict. We also think it right to provide defensive support to partners in the region who were never involved in the initial strikes but are being targeted by the Iranian regime. We want to see a swift resolution of the conflict because that is in the interests of the region and of the UK.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I wholly appreciate that none of this is of our making or choice, but when the Foreign Secretary says that Iran’s action in the strait of Hormuz is an attempt to hijack the world economy, does that not put a direct focus on what is in the United Kingdom’s interest? If we take no action, we assist Iran’s attempt to hijack the global economy, but if we take action, are we not inescapably in this war?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is exactly because the strait of Hormuz is an important global artery for the global economy that we are working internationally with partners on a way forward. We recognise the complexity of the situation, and are taking a serious approach to the detail to ensure that partnership work is viable, effective and in the UK’s national interest, because we cannot afford to get it wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

14. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking to support Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

Last week I visited Kyiv to mark the fourth anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As well as meeting President Zelensky and his Ministers, I spoke to civilians, who have been targeted throughout the war, and I told them that Britain continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and its future, and threats to its security are also threats to the security of Europe and the UK. That is why we stand with Ukraine.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, we salute the fortitude and bravery of the Ukrainian people. As we see conflicts open up elsewhere in the world, particularly the current situation in the middle east, how do we ensure that Ukraine continues to receive all the support it needs to determine its own future, and that the future of the Ukrainian people does not slip down the agenda, leading to another frozen conflict?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is exactly right to raise the importance of continuing our focus on Ukraine. This is about our security, as well as Ukraine’s security. That is why last week I announced additional support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and additional sanctions to keep the pressure on Russia, particularly on its oil and gas system and its shadow fleet. That is why we are also continuing to provide Ukraine with significant military support. We will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for as long as it takes.

[Rachel Gilmour]

I would like to declare that I returned from Ukraine last week—I was part of a cross-party delegation—and my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect that.

The newspapers and the television are this week full of pictures of people hunkering in bunkers in the middle east, but it is worth remembering that the people of Ukraine have been doing that for the past four years. The Foreign Secretary will of course be aware of the close relationship between Moscow and Tehran. Russia continues to deploy Iranian-manufactured Shahed drones to terrorise Ukraine’s population. With the crisis in the middle east intensifying, will she set out how the Government now assess the implications of these recent developments for Russia’s war in Ukraine?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to point out that Iran has been a key enabler of Russia’s war in Ukraine by providing thousands of the Shahed-type drones used to inflict terror on the Ukrainian people, which are now being used to launch indiscriminate attacks across the middle east and the Gulf. That is why we are working with Ukrainian expertise to provide support for partners in the Gulf. We also recognise the importance of continuing to provide that support and working to develop that expertise with Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have shown remarkable resilience, and they have been underestimated for too long.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), I would like to note that my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will be updated to reflect the support of the UK Friends of Ukraine for our visit last week.

It was very good to see the Foreign Secretary in Kyiv last Tuesday for the very sad commemoration of the fourth year of the full-scale invasion. As the Ukrainian people have reminded us time and again, it is not just about territory; it is about their very identity. On our visit, we heard about the appalling inhumane treatment of Ukrainians who have been taken as prisoners of war by Putin. There have been constant violations of the Geneva conventions, including reports of torture and near starvation. What talks has the Foreign Secretary had and what more can she do to raise this issue in international circles and put pressure on the Russian regime to treat prisoners more humanely?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The fact that there was such a strong cross-party delegation to Ukraine for the fourth anniversary of the invasion showed the cross-party commitment to supporting Ukraine. Like her, I met those who had the most horrendous stories of having been held and detained during the war by Russian troops, and of having been tortured. We are providing support for survivors and to secure evidence that could be used in future prosecutions, because we must hold the perpetrators to account.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary mentioned the importance of Russian oil and gas and the need to disrupt the activities of the shadow fleet. Will she confirm that she is working with allies to ensure that as much as possible is being done to stop people using Russian oil and gas, because of how important it is to reduce the cash flows that are behind Russia’s war effort?

[Yvette Cooper]

I confirm that we are doing exactly that. We have raised that in discussions with colleagues and partners right around the world, because we know that Russia has continued to use oil and gas to fuel its war machine. That is also why we are strengthening the operations, sanctions and pressure on the Russian shadow fleet. We will also continue to pursue further action. We would like to see international support for a maritime services ban.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

As the Ukraine war passes its fourth year, we continue to salute the bravery and heroism of the people of Ukraine as they fight for their independence and freedom. This is the moment, however, for the Government to spearhead a new campaign with our allies to starve Russia of the funds it needs to wage war. It is clear that we need to target not only the shadow fleet but the refineries in Turkey, India and China buying Russian crude so that they rapidly diversify. Will the Government now take action with our allies to put huge new pressure on those refineries? With the foundations of the Russian economy crumbling away, that action would make it much harder for Putin to sustain the costs of his war.

[Yvette Cooper]

On my visit to Kyiv last week, I announced nearly 300 new sanctions to target Russian revenue streams and military supply chains. More broadly, we are targeting not just the shadow fleet and the oil and gas companies in Russia directly, but those who might support them in third countries. That was our largest Russian sanctions package since 2022, and it is important that we get other countries to support that as well.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

2. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking to help prevent the expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle the humanitarian situation in Sudan.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

When I visited the Sudan border a month ago, I promised the women that I met in the Adré camp that I would take their voice to the United Nations, and that the world needed to listen to Sudanese women, not to the military men who perpetuate this war. That is what I did two weeks ago, when I chaired a dedicated session of the United Nations Security Council, where we considered the horrendous fact-finding mission’s report on El Fasher and ensured that Sudanese women’s voices could be heard. As I told the Council members, we need a renewed effort from across the globe to end this brutal war.

[Kate Osamor]

With half of Sudan’s population under 18 and millions of children growing up amid widespread violence, Sudan is confronting what many now describe as the world’s largest child protection emergency. In that context, what concrete steps will the Department take to promote and defend the UN’s children and armed conflict mandate, so that the protection of children in Sudan remains a sustained diplomatic priority across the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we continue to champion the UN children and armed conflict mandate and its monitoring work. It is clear that children are the innocent victims of this horrendous and brutal war, and that is why the world must not look away from Sudan. It is why we need a ceasefire, it is why we need to prevent the arms flows, and it is why we need to continue the humanitarian support from across the globe.

[Irene Campbell]

We know that conflict can dis-proportionately affect women and children and exacerbate gender-based violence. We cannot let this crisis in Sudan be ignored. There has been an alarming rise in gender-based violence and sexual abuse against women and girls. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps her Department is taking to tackle this horrific abuse against women and girls in Sudan at this time of conflict?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right; the scale of the use of rape as a weapon of war in Sudan is truly horrific. Two weeks ago, prior to the Security Council briefing, I convened an event in New York in the UN building to include four women speakers who have been working to tackle sexual violence in Sudan, and also to hear, through video testimony, from a Sudanese woman who has been working to tackle the levels of sexual violence and provide support to survivors in Chad. I have announced a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan. The voices of Sudanese women must be heard.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the evidence from Samaritan’s Purse to the International Development Committee last week, which reiterated the issues on sexual violence. We also heard that in refugee camps, many people have to be naked because they have had no option but to sell their clothes to get food. I am sure she agrees that is completely and utterly unacceptable. In her last statement, she said that she was seeking to engage with the African Union and to bring it more into participation in bringing a resolution to the conflict. Has she made any progress in that regard?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will certainly look further at the evidence and the horrendous accounts that the right hon. Member describes. We are establishing, with international partners, a coalition for atrocity prevention and justice to work on Sudan and to work together on preventing atrocities and gathering evidence. We have been pursuing some of the findings in the UN’s report on El Fasher, which talked about systematic starvation, torture, killings, rape and deliberate ethnic targeting. The right hon. Member has added a further horrendous account to that, which is why it is important not only to pursue these atrocities but to ensure that there is basic humanitarian support. That is why we are prioritising Sudan for humanitarian support as well.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary has referred to the UN report published on 19 February, which said that the horrific events in El Fasher bore all the “hallmarks of genocide”. Does she agree with that assessment?

[Yvette Cooper]

The account in that report is truly appalling and shocking. It describes deliberate ethnic targeting of particular groups, as well as some of the most horrendous torture, and the use of rape as a weapon of conflict. The long-standing position of successive British Governments is that any formal determination on genocide is a matter for the courts. However, we should be clear that the evidence of atrocities committed by the armed forces across Sudan is staggering and horrendous, and the perpetrators must be held to account.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

4. What discussions she has had with her US counterpart on tariffs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure accountability for human rights violations against protesters in Iran.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

In recent days, we have seen Iran attack multiple countries that did not attack it. Just as Iran is a threat to the region and to the UK’s allies, it is also a threat to its own people. Time and again, it has responded to legitimate protests with brutal violence, as we saw in January when thousands of protesters were killed. That is why last month, alongside international partners, the UK led efforts to secure a special session of the UN Human Rights Council and imposed a sweeping package of sanctions to hold Iran to account for its human rights violations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out the action we are taking in response to Iran’s attacks on Gulf partners, where UK citizens are currently residing.

[Mark Sewards]

Not content with suppressing its own people, the Iranian regime now lashes out at civilians and our allies across the region. The new head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an internationally wanted terrorist, implicated in the 1994 attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in Buenos Aires and responsible for the repression of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022 in Iran. I urge the Foreign Secretary to urge the Home Secretary to implement the Jonathan Hall framework, so that we can proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible. Will she implement sanctions on those responsible for the bloody crackdowns in Iran, including Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary, I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review exactly because I thought that the legislation might need to be strengthened. He has concluded that it needs to be strengthened to broaden existing counter-terrorism legislation to include state and state-linked threats. We will be taking that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that we keep all proscription decisions under close review.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

When some of us campaigned for Hezbollah to be proscribed in full, Foreign Office officials and others said that it was impossible, because it would harm diplomatic relations. That was overcome. The same spurious argument was made with respect to Hamas. That was overcome. Imagine how foolish our country would look today if we had not proscribed Hezbollah and Hamas in full. The same argument has been made by the last Government and by this Government with respect to the IRGC. Will the Foreign Secretary be clear that she will not stand in the way of the full proscription of the IRGC, so that these dangerous criminals who harm our own people and our allies around the world have no place and no home in the United Kingdom?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just point out to the right hon. Member that I take the threats on UK streets immensely seriously, but he was a Home Office Minister and a Cabinet Minister during an entire period when we saw Iran-backed threats on UK streets. He did nothing to strengthen the legislation in so many years in government. This Government are now taking forward measures to strengthen that legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

It is currently unclear whether the turmoil unleashed by Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral military action will bring freedom and security for Iranians who deserve a better future, but we can be certain that the IRGC will seek to crush domestic opposition and, if given the chance, export terror abroad—and that includes the United Kingdom’s streets. Members of the Iranian diaspora here, and the UK’s Jewish community, have expressed their fears of attack. May I echo the words of Members on both sides of the House, and ask whether the Foreign Secretary will work with her colleagues in heeding the calls of the Liberal Democrats and other parties for emergency legislation to enact the recommendations of the Hall review and proscribe the IRGC?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Member that we are taking forward the legislation that Jonathan Hall has recommended, but I also tell him that we take immensely seriously any Iran-backed threats on UK streets, which is why our counter-terrorism police work extremely closely with our security services. They are pursuing live cases, and have been for some time, where Iran is suspected of being involved, and they will continue to do so, to keep all our communities safe, but particularly our Jewish communities that have been so targeted.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister updated the House on the conflict in the middle east and the Gulf. Overnight, we have continued to see Iranian strikes on Gulf nations.

The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority, and I want to update the House on support for British citizens who are in the region. As of this morning, 130,000 British nationals have signed up to the “register your presence” programme, which is vital to the FCDO’s ability to know where people are and to provide updates and advice. As Members will be aware, the airspace is still closed in many of these countries, but I am in close contact with my counterparts across the region. Yesterday, I spoke again to the United Arab Emirates about the excellent support that it is providing, and the departures that it is now securing as they become viable.

We are also working with airlines on increasing capacity out of Muscat for British nationals, with priority being given to vulnerable nationals. A Government charter flight will leave Muscat in the coming days, prioritising those vulnerable nationals. However, British nationals in Oman must wait to be contacted by the Foreign Office about these options. We will continue to work 24/7 on supporting British nationals in the region. This is a very fast-moving situation, and we have unprecedented numbers of British nationals in the region. I will continue to update Members and affected British nationals as the situation evolves.

[Lauren Edwards]

We are all deeply concerned about the escalating situation in the Gulf. Following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with her counterparts in the US, Europe or Israel about measures to secure any nuclear or radiological material in Iran, in the light of the possibility of its trafficking as a result of current events?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. It is extremely important to ensure that Iran is not able to develop a nuclear weapon, and there are obviously concerns about the security of materials as well. Obviously, we continue to work closely with our operational partners on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Government’s indecision on how to deal with Iran has left the UK weaker and has undermined our own security, but, as the House has already started to discuss, proscribing the IRGC will strengthen our position. I proscribed Hamas when I was Home Secretary, so I have dealt with state proscriptions.

Last year, in her role as Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary spoke about bringing forward the Hall review and recommendations, and about introducing a series of powers. Let me make a suggestion. When will the Foreign Secretary and her Government provide the parliamentary time that is essential if we are to have emergency legislation to proscribe the IRGC? If she desperately needs parliamentary time that has not been timetabled so far, will she scrap the Chagos surrender Bill so we can legislate to do that now?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I point out that we have had a record number of former Home Office Ministers—both Conservatives and former Conservatives—coming forward to call for things that they failed to do while they were in government. I say to the right hon. Lady that this Government are determined to introduce legislation to take forward the Jonathan Hall review, but it is legislation that the Conservative Government could have delivered over their very many years in office. We will also strengthen the action on the Iranian threat on our streets and internationally.

[Priti Patel]

Events in the middle east remind us how important to our collective defence and security the Diego Garcia base and the whole of the Chagos archipelago are, and nothing should be done to undermine that. Given the latest comments from the President of the United States on the importance of the base and on the folly of giving sovereignty away, will the Foreign Secretary finally do what is right for the defence of our country, British taxpayers and British Chagossians and tear up Labour’s terrible Chagos surrender treaty?

[Yvette Cooper]

I say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that this Government believe that decisions should be made in the UK’s national interest and according to UK values, not according to any other Government’s national interest, whether in Europe, the US, the middle east or beyond. We will take decisions on the Chagos islands in the interests of our national security. She knows the national security issues that are at stake here. Instead of simply travelling round the world trying to undermine the UK’s national security and the decisions that we are taking, perhaps she should start standing up for the UK’s national interest.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

T5.   My eight-year-old grandson Ronnie, along with his mum and dad, spent Sunday night on the bathroom floor at RAF Akrotiri until they got the all-clear at 3 o’clock in the morning. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that this country will not be dragged into another illegal war by the Americans, putting the lives of British servicemen and women, and millions of innocent civilians, in danger?

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to praise the UK armed forces in Akrotiri for their huge professionalism, and for the work that they do to defend the UK’s national security. We have already increased the deployment, with additional defensive capabilities including radar, F-35 jets, and air defence and counter-drone systems, and we work closely with the Cypriot Government on safety and security issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister argued that the Government were distinguishing between defensive and offensive operations by US bombers making use of UK bases. On issues of such gravity, clarity is essential to avoid mission creep. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will agree the target, and monitor the outcome, of each of these US sorties? Will the Government report those to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and can she confirm that if one were found to have hit anything other than a missile battery or missile store, the UK would suspend its agreement for the use of its bases?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have long-standing operational arrangements for partners and allies with which we work closely, and we ensure that those are implemented. The principles that we follow are about ensuring that there is a lawful basis for action and that it is in the UK’s interest. At a time when we have seen strikes from the Iranian regime on countries that were not involved in this conflict and where 300,000 British citizens are currently resident, I think we would find it extremely difficult to justify not taking action to support and protect British citizens who might be threatened with attack.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

T6. It was a pleasure to see the Foreign Secretary at last month’s Munich security conference, where, despite warm words on all sides, the trust gap between the European Union and the United States was absolutely palpable, impacting discussions on defence, procurement, technology, sovereignty, Greenland, the middle east and so on. Could she tell me how she sees the UK’s role: should we be trying to restore trust, because we have our own trust gap, should we pick a side—the European Union versus the United States—or do we forge an independent path dependent on neither?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK’s task must always be to act in the UK’s national interest according to UK values, but at the heart of that national interest and those values are things such as the NATO alliance—the transatlantic alliance—as well as our partnership with other European countries and other countries on our defence.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

T2.   I am deeply concerned about the British service personnel being put at risk by attacks from Iran. With US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warning that the hardest hits are yet to come, can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether any British personnel are on any US ships being used to attack Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

What I can tell the hon. Member is that we take the safety of UK personnel immensely seriously, and I pay tribute to their service for our country. That is why we have already increased deployments to ensure that there is added radar and air protection in Cyprus, for example. We will always continue to take safety seriously and ensure that operational matters are dealt with in the normal way.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

T7. At the Munich security conference, the Prime Minister rightly said that we must do more to work with our allies to build our collective European security. Given that moral imperative, is there an ambition for the UK and the EU to reopen negotiations on UK access to the EU SAFE—security action for Europe—defence mechanism?

Sudan

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

I wish to update the House on the situation in Sudan.

On Tuesday night, I returned from the border between Sudan and Chad, where I witnessed from the camp of 140,000 people in Adré—85% of them women and children who have fled the most horrendous violence and violations—the devastating human toll of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In January, Sudan passed 1,000 days of conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces. This is a regionalised conflict of power, proxies and profit, defined by unimaginable atrocities, by millions pushed into famine, by the horrific use of rape as a weapon of war, and by suffering that should strike at the core of our shared humanity.

That should mobilise the world’s resources and resolve, yet too often the response is to hold back and look away—catastrophically failing the people of Sudan, and Sudan’s women and girls. I am determined that we do not look away, and that we put the spotlight firmly on Sudan. That is why this week I travelled to the region to see at first hand the extent of the crisis, to listen to the testimony of traumatised women and children whose lives will never be the same again, to see how UK support is making a difference, and to see what urgently needs to be done by the international community to help arrest the spiral of bloodshed and drive urgent momentum towards peace.

In Adré, I met families who had been torn apart, mothers who had survived appalling violence only to find their daughters missing, and frightened children who had travelled vast distances in search of some semblance of safety. I met teachers, nurses, students, market traders, small businesswomen and political activists—impressive women whose lives and livelihoods back home had been stolen from them.

I met a mother separated from her children who told me she still does not know where they are and whether they are alive; a young woman who told me that most of the women she knew had been through “bad violence” on their journey, but they would not talk about it “because of the shame”; and a Sudanese community worker who told me she thought more than half the women in the camp had directly experienced sexual assault or abuse. I have heard from others in recent weeks, including a Sudanese emergency response room worker who described three sisters arriving at the response room who had all been raped. The oldest was 13, and the youngest was eight. This is a war waged on the bodies of women and girls.

But here is what I also saw: an incredible group of Sudanese women who have set up a makeshift support centre for women who have suffered sexual violence and for children with trauma. They have activities for children and support for mums. More survivors need that kind of help, so this week I announced that the UK will fund a new £20 million programme to support survivors of rape and sexual violence in Sudan, enabling them to access medical and psychological care, given the terrible stigma endured by survivors and children born of rape. That is part of our international action to tackle a global emergency of violence against women and girls.

What I did not see in Adré is just as disturbing: the fathers, husbands and brothers missing, either killed, drawn into the fighting or migrating further and leaving family behind. Reports from El Fasher after the RSF attacks were of atrocities so appalling that they could be seen from space—blood-soaked sand, multiple piles of bodies and mass graves—but aid agencies are still facing barriers to getting in. There are reports that the Sudanese Armed Forces are refusing to let desperately needed humanitarian aid through, even though right now some 30 million people need lifesaving assistance due to this war, and up to 7 million face famine. That is nearly equivalent to the entire population of London—every person across the entire city we stand in today.

In December, the UK provided an additional £21 million for food, shelter and health services, and we have committed £146 million to support over 800,000 people this year alone. Since the conflict began, we have reached over 2.5 million people, delivering water and medicine to hard-to-reach areas. We will continue to make Sudan a top priority for UK humanitarian support, and we will support reforms such as the steps advocated by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher and the International Rescue Committee to strengthen prioritisation and closer work through local partners on the ground. But for aid to save more lives, the deliberate barriers to humanitarian access must be lifted.

Aid alone will not solve this crisis; we need an immediate and urgent ceasefire, we need those responsible for these atrocities to be held to account, and we need a pathway to peace. There is no military solution to the conflict—that only results in devastation for Sudan—yet the military men driving this conflict still refuse to agree a truce, and there is disturbing evidence that they are seeking and getting hold of ever more dangerous weapons.

This crisis is compounded by regional rivalries and vested interests, with the real risk of further escalation within Sudan and beyond as fighting spreads to the Kordofan regions. I am very fearful that the RSF advances on the city of El Obeid risk turning it into another El Fasher. Co-ordinated and determined international pressure are needed to halt this bloodshed and pursue an immediate truce, with a halt to the arms flows, tangible pressure from all those who have backed the RSF and SAF or who have influence upon them to deliver a ceasefire, and pressure from the entire international community too.

The US has been working intensively to secure a truce, drawing together other Quad countries—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—and discussing humanitarian support, military withdrawal, civilian transition and action to stop arms flows. I am in close contact with all members of the Quad, including Secretary Rubio and the President’s senior adviser on Africa, as we urgently push for a way forward. The UK is particularly involved in a process to support Sudanese civilians to build their capacity.

African partners in the region also have a critical role. In Addis Ababa earlier this week, I met Foreign Ministers from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, Chad, and the African Union’s chairperson and peace and security commissioner, to discuss what more can be done by border countries, and their assessment of the action needed to achieve a ceasefire. We need to build the same focus and momentum behind a peace process for Sudan as we had last year around Gaza, with countries from across the world coming together to back a ceasefire. That is why I am so determined that the UK will keep the international spotlight on Sudan. This month the UK holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, and we will use it to press for safe, unimpeded humanitarian access, accountability for atrocities, and international co-operation for a ceasefire. We will use it to ensure that the voices of Sudan’s women are heard in the Security Council Chamber.

As we look to the third anniversary of this devastating conflict in April, the UK and Germany will jointly convene a major international conference on Sudan in Berlin. In November, UK leadership at the UN Human Rights Council secured international agreement for an urgent UN inquiry into crimes in El Fasher, following its capture by the RSF. Later this month we will receive the report of that UN fact-finding mission, because as well as pursuing peace, we must also hold the perpetrators to account.

Today I can announce new action that the UK is taking to apply pressure deliberately on the belligerents, with fresh sanctions targeting senior figures in the SAF and RSF who have committed atrocities across Sudan. We are also targeting a network of individuals operating behind the scenes to procure weapons and recruit mercenary fighters. These designations send a clear message that the UK will hold accountable those suspected of perpetrating and profiteering from the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law.

To look away from crises such as Sudan is not just against our values but against our interests. Wars that rage unresolved do not just cause harm to civilians, because their destabilising effects ripple across borders and continents through migration and extremism. Let 2026 be the year that the world listens to the women of Sudan, not the military men who are perpetuating this conflict. Let 2026 be the year that the world comes together to drive urgent new momentum for peace. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly, and Members across the Chamber want this awful, barbaric war to end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished, and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as El Fasher. War crimes are being committed, and appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict.

I must ask the Foreign Secretary, however, how she can come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls, when the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend, Peter Mandelson, a friend of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles, into the heart of Government and her Department. Is she not ashamed and concerned that our country’s credibility and record on this issue has been damaged because of the Government’s poor judgment, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein? With Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage that his actions have caused to the UK’s international and reputational interests, including our essential work to address the situation in Sudan? To her knowledge, did he at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning I am sure the Foreign Secretary will have seen reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour Government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of that? The UK’s credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her Government’s appalling judgment. That is why answers are needed.

This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use that position rightly to advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict? US-led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum, with a text being prepared of a plan to try to stop the fighting. Has she seen and inputted into that text, and what are her views on it? Has she set parameters to decide whether the proposals are the right ones, and has she spoken to other Sudan Quad countries about it? If acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April’s Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference in Germany?

We welcome the new sanctions of the RSF and the SAF, but can we expect further action against the leaders of those barbaric groups, their key operators and enforcers, who were all responsible for administering vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country? We all back the sanctions announced in December, but we need stronger action with robust consequences that deter the entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful war.

Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on how the UK is using international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? We note the £20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the Government for women and girls, so will she confirm whether that is drawn from money already pledged, or whether it is additional new funding? Which organisations are providing the programmes funded by that money, and what are the mechanisms for how the support service will work?

As well as supporting women and girls affected by sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape, is the Foreign Secretary working to help male victims, where there is also stigma that prevents them coming forward? More broadly, can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? What information has she received about what aid is getting through, and whether it is getting into the right hands?

The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience, and Britain must exert every ounce of its influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s words on Sudan. It is the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century, and the whole House should be united in wanting it to end. She asked about the work being done through the Quad, and the work led by the US. I am in close contact with the US special envoy, Massad Boulos, and I am keeping in close contact with Secretary Rubio on this issue. I have also been involved in discussions with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A lot of work is being pursued by the Quad, but, linked to that, the UK and Norway are also pursuing further work, particularly to build civilian capacity. We all want this to move towards a civilian political transition, but we need to build up the capacity of Sudanese civilians, who have faced the most horrendous devastation and had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict, and they need support as well.

As I said in my statement, we believe that this has to be an international effort, in the same way as in the run-up to the Gaza ceasefire, where there was work by the Arab League to say that Hamas should play no role, work by the UK, France and other countries to recognise the state of Palestine, and work by different countries to put forward potential reform plans during the summer, all of which was ultimately drawn upon in the 20-point plan put together by President Trump last year. We need the same intensity in relation to Sudan, with the same level of international engagement. That is what I want to see, and it is why I spoke to so many African Foreign Ministers in neighbouring countries this week. It is why I have been speaking to the African Union, and why I will be raising the issue not just at the UN Security Council when we hold the Chair this month, but at the Munich security conference, and as part of the Berlin conference. It is crucial that we keep that focus and energy in relation to Sudan. The £20 million announced this week is new money that will be used, in particular, for the survivors of sexual violence.

The right hon. Lady mentioned Peter Mandelson. As the House will know, I withdrew Peter Mandelson from his role as ambassador to the United States less than a week after I was appointed as Foreign Secretary. I am clear that his actions are completely unforgiveable. Given that at the heart of what Epstein did was the grave abuse and trafficking of women and girls, this is particularly disturbing. I will say something else: I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the height of the financial crisis, when everybody was busting a gut to rescue the savings and livelihoods of ordinary people across this country, so the idea that a senior and experienced Cabinet Minister, working alongside us, could instead be behaving the way we have seen is truly shocking. It is right that a police investigation is under way.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her impactful visit and for the sanctions that she has announced today. Earlier this week, the all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan met the Somoud civilian coalition. It stressed, as she has done today, that it is often civilians who are delivering humanitarian assistance, and it was civilians who were ejected from Government by the two generals who are currently slogging it out, at the expense of thousands upon thousands of slaughtered civilians, and millions of hungry and displaced civilians. She talked about the UK and Norway being focused on developing civilian capacity, but does she agree that cannot be a separate track to what the Quad is doing? Civilian voices must be involved in peace processes. We cannot see an empowerment of the generals, who have caused the crisis in the first place, which is what will happen if civilians are not engaged in what the Quad is doing now.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s points and pay tribute to the bravery of Sudanese civilians, especially those who continue to run the emergency response rooms, providing urgently needed support for desperate people in Sudan. She is right that civilian capacity has to be a central part of the peace process. In fact, members of the Quad have specifically asked us to play a role in developing that as part of the peace process. I also discussed that with the African Union this week, because we believe that civilians can only be supported with the assistance of the countries bordering Sudan, and with the African Union.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The situation in Sudan is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. I welcome the increased funding and the sanctions, which are long overdue, but why do the sanctions still fall short of the EU action? Why do they still fail to target the heads of the SAF and the RSF? Why has it taken this long? Will the Government now target those profiting from Sudan’s gold trade, which continues to bankroll the war economy?

Humanitarian aid must flow freely and independently. In its role as the United Nations Security Council penholder, what steps are the Government taking to secure a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can get through, and to expand the arms embargo beyond Darfur to the whole country? Will the Government expand their aid provision and ensure that aid delivery, including from UK taxpayers in my constituency of Esher and Walton, is distributed through the UN and the international non-governmental organisations, or through localised efforts, such as the emergency response rooms, and that the UN system is not undermined?

I welcome the steps that the UK has taken to ensure that Sudanese pro-democracy actors are not sidelined by external powerbrokers. Will she reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a civilian, non-military end state in Sudan? What is being done to prevent parallel diplomatic tracks from undermining UN-led peace efforts? Will the Government suspend arms exports to the United Arab Emirates, given credible evidence of its role in fuelling the conflict?

What discussions had the UK held with partners to ensure that humanitarian assistance is not being used to mask responsibility? How will accountability for atrocities be safeguarded with any peace process supported by the UK, including support for international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court? The UK has a long legacy in Sudan, and with that comes responsibility. Sudan’s civilians cannot wait. I urge the Government to act with ever more urgency and focus.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for her commitment to reaching peace in Sudan and her comments on the horrendous nature of the crisis. The sanctions that we have now issued bring us broadly in line with the EU. The US has gone further, so we are continuing to look at the issues. We are seeking to link our sanctions to the evidence on atrocities, to the evidence on arms flows and, crucially, to the peace process and the peace discussions that we want to take place.

I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of the UN. A few weeks ago, I met the UN Secretary General and the UN emergency co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to discuss Sudan and the importance of the work that the UN is doing. The UN is in close touch with the Quad on these discussions and is pressing for much greater humanitarian access. We certainly need to move towards a civilian Government. We need a political transition and a process to get there, but that has to start with a humanitarian truce. We have to start by silencing the guns and, as part of that, we need an end to the arms flows. I have seen evidence of a whole series of countries being involved in the arms flows to different sides, and we need action against that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit and her announcement about new money and the sanctions. Children are being deliberately and systematically targeted by both sides in this conflict: boys are being forcibly recruited, girls are subject to sexual violence, and even infants have been raped. Will she confirm that what we have seen during this conflict are not spontaneous acts of violence by the warring parties, but the orchestrated, industrial-scale use of rape as a weapon of war, deliberately designed to strike fear into the civilian population? Will she confirm that she will ensure that women are at the table during the peace negotiations?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard the most disturbing stories about the impact on children. Mums describe how their children just stay in their tents, even though they have reached the relative safety of the camp, because they are terrified to go out because of everything that has happened to them. We have also heard terrible stories about young children being raped and facing the most horrendous sexual assaults. I strongly agree that not only do we have to pursue peace, but we need to hold to account the people who have inflicted those atrocities on children.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I commend the Foreign Secretary for her proactive engagement with Parliament on this issue, because that is part of the way we will shine a light on these horrendous circumstances. I concur with the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of civilian engagement, that any ceasefire is linked to the development of a political process, and that perhaps there can be civilian engagement at the Berlin conference. Will the Foreign Secretary say more about how she intends to engage the African Union? There is a general view that if the African Union were more engaged, it would be a lot harder for Russia to veto UN Security Council resolutions.

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about civilian engagement. I assure him that we plan for civilian voices to be heard in the discussions at the UN Security Council, where I strongly believe we need to hear the voices of Sudanese women, and as part of the Berlin conference. He asks about the African Union, which is a priority for us. One of the reasons I went to Addis Ababa was to meet the head of the African Union and other representatives to discuss exactly how we can work with the African Union, and how Foreign Ministers from neighbouring countries can work together. They all desperately want to see peace in Sudan, because they can also see the destabilising effects of what is happening there on their countries and across the region. So yes, we need to work strongly with the African Union too.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me say to the Foreign Secretary that that was the most powerful statement this House has heard on Sudan over the 1,000 days of the conflict. I thank her for all her work in this area, but we know that this war is being fuelled by external actors with an interest in their own profligacy in Sudan. Can she say how she will engage with those actors, many of which we have trading relationships with? What leverage will she use to ensure that they withdraw their weapons and the supply of mercenaries into Sudan, which is fuelling this conflict?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. External countries and actors are fuelling the conflict through the support that they are providing to the warring parties, and that has to end. The reason why the warring parties are refusing to accept what everybody knows to be the case—that there is no military solution to this war—is that they keep thinking they can still secure additional weapons and advantage. That is why an end to the arms flow has to be part of this process, and why we are raising and discussing this issue in all the international discussions.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

How are the Government engaging directly with Sudanese civilian coalitions, including the Somoud coalition, to ensure that their proposals inform international mediation efforts?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are engaging directly with a range of civilian groups and seeking to provide support and bring them together. We are working with Norway to do that. This work is still at an early stage. Although we have kept in close contact with civilian groups throughout this process, we are now seeking, alongside the work of the Quad, to draw up a stronger process for the future to help to build that capacity among civilian groups. That is needed if we are to get a transition to a civilian Government.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

May I say how great it was to see that the Foreign Secretary was in Chad this week in support of Sudanese refugees? I particularly support the remarks at the start of her statement, when she said:

“I am determined that we do not look away.”

Can she tell us more about UK efforts to get our humanitarian aid to the millions who need it?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that, because we cannot look away. I fear that it has been too easy for the international community and for people across the world to look away—in particular to look away from the plight of women and girls and the way in which rape has been used as a weapon of war. That is why we are announcing the dedicated funding for survivors of sexual violence as part of the more than £140 million we are providing for Sudan. We are ensuring that that reaches local groups and organisations that can better deliver support on the ground.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, for her travel and for the prominence that she has given to this issue. May I thank her especially for her engagement with the victims of the conflict, not least the women and girls?

I welcome the action on sanctions, but obviously state and non-state sanctions and sanctions on individuals have to be a dynamic process. Can she assure us that she will engage with the civilians affected by the conflict and with civil society, which has worked on this issue for a long time? Will she also engage with this Parliament, because so many people across the Chamber have been engaging with this issue for a long time?

[Yvette Cooper]

The simple answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is: yes, I will. We will continue to look at the issue of sanctions and what more we can do, and we will certainly continue to engage not just with the House, but with anybody and everybody who has evidence that can support that process.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for such a strong statement this afternoon. She has rightly highlighted the disgraceful use of rape as a weapon of war in this conflict, but it happens in many other conflicts around the world, from Ukraine to Myanmar. May I urge her to use her office to lead international efforts to bring the perpetrators of this disgraceful violence against women and girls to justice, wherever that violence may be happening and no matter how long the process takes?

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It was 25 years ago when the UK led the drawing-up of the resolution on women, peace and security at the United Nations. Since then, successive Governments have highlighted the issue of violence against women and girls. I want to ensure that that is at the heart of our foreign policy not just in Sudan, but more widely. It was devastating to hear from one aid worker who told me that—although she had worked on conflicts for 20 years and had experience of dealing with sexual violence in conflict for very many years—this instance was by far the worst. She talked to all the women arriving at the camp, and she said it felt like almost every one of them had a terrible story of sexual violence to tell.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Over the last two-and-a-half years, there has hardly been a week when we have not had an urgent question, statement or debate on the situation in Gaza, yet the situation in Sudan has often been overlooked, despite the fact that at least three times as many people have been killed in Sudan as in Gaza. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but the key here is to ensure that an arms embargo exists across the world. Can she update the House on how many of our allies have agreed to such an arms embargo? What action will be taken against those who are frankly not our allies to try to prevent those arms from getting into Sudan?

[Yvette Cooper]

The energy that we have had on Gaza and the work that took place last summer are really important. They have helped to achieve a ceasefire that is still fragile, but a ceasefire nevertheless, and a peace process that is moving forward. We need that same urgency and intensity on Sudan. This needs to be global; we need the same sense of countries coming together internationally. That is why we will continue to maintain the spotlight on it.

Restricting and preventing arms flows has been central to many of the international discussions and some of the discussions in the Quad, and countries have made commitments about ending arms flows from neighbouring parties. My personal belief is that there is much more work to do in this area, given the number of countries involved in these arms flows.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for shining a light on the horrendous suffering of women and girls in Sudan. Does she agree that rape should never be used as a weapon of war? To use rape against children is a heinous crime. Children have special protected status under international law. Will she pursue the perpetrators in the international courts? Can she say more about the rehabilitation support that we will provide to those children?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the truly horrendous crime of rape against children. Rape that takes place against young girls and boys causes deep trauma not just at the time when the crime is committed, but for many, many years afterwards. That is why we want to support the work that I have seen being done on a very small scale already to provide support for children and mothers who have been victims of sexual violence, but we want to go much further. We want to ensure that there is psychological and practical support for those who are victims of these terrible crimes.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today, and particularly for her engagement with the African Union and regional partners. I know that she will be concerned by the possibility of broader destabilisation as a consequence of this conflict. In the light of reports of renewed clashes in Blue Nile state and the mobilisation of armed groups in the southern and western parts of that state, what is the view of Ethiopia and South Sudan on the actions that need to be taken to limit the destabilisation? What role, if any, can the UK Government offer to play to support them?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is exactly right to raise the risk of destabilisation. The impact is not just on the Blue Nile area, which he referred to; we have seen soldiers being killed in Chad as a result of incursions over the border. Many of the Foreign Ministers I spoke to, including the Ethiopian and South Sudanese Foreign Ministers, spoke about their deep concern that vacuums can be exploited by extremists, so regional destabilisation is a significant risk that they are concerned about. We discussed exactly how Foreign Ministers across the region can work together. Their understanding of and expertise in the dynamics within Sudan are crucial to the peace process, and they were all keen to be part of those discussions.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The Sudanese diaspora in Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme will welcome the statement today, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for her leadership in travelling to the region—we have to be seen to be believed.

I welcome the programme of sanctions that has been announced, because we must do whatever we can to end the murders, the evil and the bloodshed. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary met the African Union and regional Foreign Ministers, which is something for which I have pushed for several months, alongside other colleagues, when discussing these issues, and I thank her for unpicking those conversations. She has mentioned Germany and Norway, but can she further unpick what our European allies—France, Italy, Spain, Ireland and the rest—are doing to help us end this war?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that this must be treated as an international issue. I have discussed this matter directly at the G7, which includes France, Germany and Italy, and I have spoken about it directly with the French Foreign Minister. We are planning to use the Berlin conference as an opportunity to involve many other European countries and international partners. My hon. Friend will know that the Norwegians have a long history of working in Sudan to support civilians. There has to be strong engagement from every continent.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of the need to halt arms flows, and I listened very carefully to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). May I focus on one specific country? There is significant evidence of the use of Chinese-manufactured arms, such as the FH-95 strategic drone, in Sudan. How much time was dedicated to raising that matter with the Chinese during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China? Has the Foreign Secretary spoken to her Chinese counterparts about it? What reassurance can she give the House that it has not become an inconvenient truth in the Government’s attempt to reset the relationship with China?

[Yvette Cooper]

All I can tell the hon. Member is that we believe a whole range of countries have been involved in the arms flows in some way—whether it is in their manufacture and sale, in purchasing and financing or in transit routes. We continue to raise this matter in all our international engagements. I am particularly concerned about the use of drones and some of the more serious weapons; there is increasing evidence that they are being procured for use in Sudan. We continue to pursue this matter, and we are pursuing it with every nation.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for the sanctions she has announced today. Her account of the impact on civilians is devastating, with more than 21 million people facing high levels of acute food insecurity and 9.5 million internally displaced. What representations does she continue to make to parties to the conflict to secure unhindered humanitarian access, particularly for neighbouring countries that face destabilisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right, and we will continue to maintain the pressure because there has to be access. There must also be continuing support, which is why, in the run-up to the Berlin conference, we will discuss how we can ensure that there is also funding for the humanitarian support that is needed. One of the issues I heard about when speaking to people earlier this week was that families are still going hungry, and nobody should go hungry in the 21st century.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I very much thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement, her visit, the new sanctions and aid that she has announced, and for her clear, personal passion to keep the spotlight on the horrific suffering of women and children, in particular, in this conflict, as well as her clear determination to bring together the international community and this country to do what we can to reach a ceasefire.

I draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention specifically to the role of gold in financing the conflict. It is reported that, since the war began, gold production has grown more than tenfold, and that the vast majority is being smuggled out of the country, illicitly financing the arms imports fuelling the conflict. The countries involved include cross-border flows to Egypt and the UAE. What concrete measures is the UK taking—diplomatic, regulatory, sanctions—with partners, including those two countries, to highlight, call attention to and stop the illicit gold trade that is fuelling this horrific conflict?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right to raise these issues. We held an event with a group of Foreign Ministers and ambassadors from a range of countries neighbouring Sudan at which we discussed the economics of the conflict and the dangers of allowing a vile conflict to take such deep root over an extended period of time that too many players in the process end up profiting from something that is destroying lives. Therefore, part of the response and peace process must be to target those routes for profit, as well as the routes for arms flows, to bring this conflict properly to a close.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

The situation in Sudan is deplorable. Sadly, as is too common, women and girls are being terrorised and rape is being used as a weapon of war. The United Nations has reported that, horrifically, infants as young as a year old are being raped. This is hell on earth. The Secretary of State has mentioned that she is working with our African partners. Can she discuss what healthcare support will be provided to women and girls, from medical aid to paediatric care for children born from rape?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because sexual violence in conflict has too often been ignored, and it has been too easy to turn away from the women and children who are victims of these truly horrendous crimes. We are determined to ensure that that is not the case. I also visited, in both Ethiopia and Chad, some of the clinics and support services for victims of sexual violence, as well as some of the other services for which the UK continues to provide support and funding. We need to ensure that those services can also be provided to the victims in Sudan.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. Nobody could fail to be moved by the horrific tales from Adré. As she has said, accountability is crucial, and a future ICC court case will rely on incredibly hard work being done now to secure witness statements, preserve digital files, build structured casework and put in place strict and disciplined chain-of-custody mechanisms. All of that requires skill and expertise on the frontline. What is the UK doing to support the international effort to preserve and verify now, so that a future court case is possible and the perpetrators of these appalling crimes can be truly held accountable?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s incredibly important question. This is exactly why in November, at the Human Rights Council, the UK led on a resolution to establish a fact-finding mission into El Fasher. Teams have been sent to pursue and gather exactly that kind of evidence, and we are expecting their fact-finding report before the end of the month. While we continue to hold the chair of the UN Security Council, that report will inform our discussions. I do not yet know what it will have found or how much progress they will have managed to make, but from everything we have seen so far, I fear that its conclusions are likely to be truly damning and disturbing.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

I greatly welcome the statement made today and the actions the Government have taken in response to the conflict in Sudan, including sanctions against individuals linked to the most horrendous atrocities and sexual violence. The situation in Sudan is a devastating reminder of how often sexual violence against women and girls is used in both conflicts and peacetime. As a relative newcomer to this place, I am very concerned that, across the world, we still do not treat violence against women and girls as the dealbreaker it is. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that in wider diplomatic engagement with international partners, including when negotiating trade deals, this Government will always consider a country’s attitude to girls and young women?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which violence against women and girls has too often been discounted. Too often, people look away; we need to ensure that is not the case, which is why I have been clear that violence against women and girls and issues of equality for women more widely should be central to UK foreign policy and the discussions we have across the world. It is also why, as my hon. Friend knows, we have a domestic ambition and mission to halve violence against women and girls. We are now working with other countries to share experience globally, working together to tackle what is not just a national emergency but a global emergency.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I salute the Foreign Secretary’s commitment and passion on this topic, and congratulate her on her recent efforts. She has already mentioned the UK’s role as the penholder at the UN Security Council. With that in mind, I am sure she agrees that without the inclusion of Sudanese civic society, a long-term, peaceful and democratic resolution simply cannot be achieved. However, is the Foreign Secretary planning to support the African Union-led quintet initiative—which involves multilateral organisations, including the UN—to bring together Sudanese political parties and civil society to agree a joint position on a peaceful, civilian-led political transition? If so, what steps is she taking to support that initiative?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is exactly why I had meetings directly with the African Union, to make sure that the work to support civic society involves the work it is doing locally and also involves neighbouring countries directly. The hon. Member is completely right to say that if this simply becomes an ongoing stand-off between two military-led parties, we will not get a secure and sustainable peace for Sudan. The first stage has to be the humanitarian truce, but we have to have that civilian transition.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today and commend her on her leadership, particularly in travelling out to Sudan to see at first hand the atrocities that are being committed. We all know that in conflict innocent civilians will always get caught up in crossfire, but the distinction in this case is that children are specifically being targeted—children being raped as a weapon of war and young boys being kidnapped and forced to bear arms. I am sure the whole House welcomes the additional support we are giving in the form of financial aid, but it is a drop in the ocean given the challenges faced in Sudan, so what more are we doing with our allies to ensure we can maximise the aid that gets into Sudan? Also, given that we are now in pole position as president of the United Nations Security Council, is there any prospect that we can get UN troops to protect the civilian population, and children in particular?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s points about the horrendous way in which children are being targeted. Some of the most disturbing reports are of children and women who have managed to flee from one of the cities under siege. They are leaving—they are fleeing, they are running away—yet on those journeys, they are stopped and face rape, sexual violence and kidnapping. The most terrible crimes are being committed, so we are working on how we can strengthen support for children and use not just the work of the UN Security Council or that of the UN more widely, but any international forum we have, to raise the plight of children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary very much for her tone, her words and her obvious empathy and compassion for the Sudanese victims, which are greatly appreciated by us all.

The UN’s presence in famine-stricken Kadugli in South Kordofan and risk zones in Darfur and Kordofan in order to prevent mass atrocities and widespread sexual violence against women and girls, and a substantial increase in UK and international funding, are needed to avert catastrophic further loss of life and what the UN describes as the world’s largest and most neglected humanitarian crisis—I think many Members of this House, including the Foreign Secretary, would say that that is exactly the case. Millions have been displaced, famine has been confirmed in multiple locations, and over 12 million people are in desperate need. What can be done to help provide the humanitarian and medical aid that is needed, including to address the psychological impact on those women and girls? I cannot begin to try to comprehend that, but I think the Foreign Secretary acknowledges that and understands it better than most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

One of the disturbing things about El Fasher is that aid agencies said they expected to see thousands of people arriving who had fled El Fasher as a result of the siege. They never arrived, and no one yet knows what happened to so many of the people in El Fasher who did not arrive at neighbouring camps and safe places. I really fear that there is a risk of another El Fasher—that in the Kordofans, if there is not urgent action to establish a ceasefire, we will see more of those atrocities take place. That is why I continually say it is important that the world hears the voices of the women and children of Sudan, not those of the military men who are simply perpetuating this war.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I asked the Leader of the House my question this morning, I believe I should have declared that I am the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. I apologise to the House for omitting to say that—I was in a bit of a rush, because everyone was being hurried along.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

24. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure the continued delivery of aid in Gaza and the west bank.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is still dire, because of the winter conditions and a lack of urgently needed aid. Last month we were pleased to learn that UK-funded tents had entered Gaza to provide critical shelter for 12,000 people, and the Government are matching £3 million of donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east humanitarian appeal, but far more still needs to be done. We still need much greater access through crossings and the lifting of barriers to aid in order to deal with this humanitarian crisis.

[Anna Dixon]

We have all witnessed the unfolding catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Gaza, exacerbated by the collapse of the Gazan health system and the suspension of aid delivery. I am therefore shocked that the Israeli Government plan to prohibit some 37 international non-governmental organisations from operating in Gaza and the west bank, including Médecins Sans Frontières, ActionAid and the Norwegian Refugee Council. What steps have the UK Government taken to prevent this, and what more do they intend to do?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend about how incredibly damaging the deregistration of vital international NGOs is. They do incredible humanitarian work, which includes providing, through thousands of staff, lifesaving services worth hundreds of millions of pounds in Gaza. They simply cannot be removed or replaced, and it is extremely destructive to prevent them from operating. That is why I led a joint statement, on behalf of 10 countries, urging the Israeli Government to allow these essential international NGOs to operate in a sustained and predictable way, and we will pursue this as part of phase 2 of the peace process.

[Peter Prinsley]

Last year, my surgical colleague Mr Rahbour, of West Suffolk hospital, spent a month at the Nasser hospital in Gaza. When I met him last week, he gave a graphic description of the situation in and around the hospital. He is one of the brave NHS workers of whom we can all be intensely proud. As we have said, access to humanitarian aid is very difficult, and many internationally recognised agencies have lately been banned—as, indeed, I am myself banned. What further representation can we make to resolve this? Surely it is in the interests of all people in Israel and in Palestine for this fragile peace to be preserved.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to maintain the fragile ceasefire and to make progress towards peace and, ultimately, the two-state solution that is in the interests of the people of Israel and the people of Palestine. I, too, have heard horrendous stories about medical conditions from some of the brave doctors who were operating there, before the ceasefire, in the most difficult and dangerous of conditions. We are very clear that the humanitarian support that still needs to be surged must include medical supplies and healthcare support. Not only is this an issue that we raise continually with the Israeli Government; we are also raising it as part of phase 2 of the peace process.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her answer. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a welcome statement on the importance of sovereignty and the international rules-based order, yet within the state of Palestine, 37 international NGOs will no longer be allowed to deliver humanitarian aid, on the say-so of Israel. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK Government understand and accept that continued humanitarian access into Palestine must be determined by the Palestinians, and that it cannot be undermined either by Israel or by the board of peace? Can she say what concrete actions the Government intend to take to counter Israeli obstructions and give proper effect to the sovereignty of the state of Palestine?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the destructive impact of deregistering NGOs. Part of the 20-point plan that President Trump set out, which Israel and all countries signed up to, was about substantially increasing humanitarian aid and support in Gaza. Instead, the current situation takes us backwards. It is significant that the Palestinian National Committee for Gaza has now been set up. I have continually pressed, in all the international discussions, that the committee should be able to take responsibility for significantly increasing humanitarian aid.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Even during the ceasefire, Israel is blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza while pushing ahead with illegal settlements in the E1 area, which the UK Government have described as a

“flagrant breach of international law”.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, by these actions, Israel is essentially trying to bury the idea of a state of Palestine? Apart from good words, what concrete action are we going to take to prevent that from happening?

[Yvette Cooper]

As my hon. Friend knows, the UK took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine in the autumn. We are clear that ensuring there is a two-state solution also means tackling illegal settlement expansion and settler violence. Alongside 26 international partners, we have condemned the E1 settlement plan and the recent steps to further that plan. I urge Israel to listen to the weight of international opinion on this issue, because it needs to be part of delivering the 20-point plan and a just and lasting peace.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will well know that the terrorist group Hamas refuse to disarm—in fact, they have forced their brutal rule on the Palestinian people. Equally, aid trucks that are desperately needed in Gaza are looted by Hamas terrorists. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that the international aid that we all want to see given to the Palestinians is not looted and diverted to Hamas?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member raises two important issues. We agree that the decommissioning of Hamas weapons is a central and crucial part of the 20-point plan. That is why the three issues that we have continually prioritised are the establishment of the Palestinian National Committee, the increase in humanitarian aid and the establishment of the process for decommissioning Hamas weapons. We have put forward proposals based on our experience in Northern Ireland and our expertise, and I believe that we urgently need to make progress as part of phase 2.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

There are reports that this morning Israeli security forces arrived at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency compound in Sheikh Jarrah, in occupied East Jerusalem. Security guards were forced out of the premises, bulldozers subsequently entered the compound and began to demolish UNRWA buildings, and the demolitions are ongoing. If that is true, it is not only an unprecedented attack against UNRWA and its premises; it also constitutes a serious violation of international law, and of the privileges and immunities of the United Nations. What consequential action will the Foreign Secretary take if these reports are true?

[Yvette Cooper]

We had issues last month with Israeli authorities entering UNRWA’s compound in East Jerusalem without prior authorisation. UN premises are inviolable under international law, so we have already raised this and condemned it. It is immensely important that everyone recognises the important role that UNRWA plays, and this year the UK has committed £27 million to help it scale up lifesaving aid, including food, water, shelter and medical care.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Pressure on the UK to join the expensive and dodgy-looking Gaza board of peace has been ramped up by President Trump’s messaging overnight. Will the Government politely decline to join the Gaza board of peace while reviewing their position on Chagos, given the US intervention overnight?

[Yvette Cooper]

That was a slightly contorted question, but the right hon. Member will know that the board of peace proposal was originally in the 20-point Gaza plan. The proposals that have now been put forward are very different from what was previously expected for Gaza, so it is right that further international discussions are under way. All those details are being discussed, and we will see where that ends up. However, I think the critical issue is support for the Palestinian committee, because Gaza should be run by the people of Gaza—by Palestinians—free from Hamas. The crucial thing now is that we need to support it and ensure that Palestinians have not just humanitarian support, but the decommissioning of weapons and support for their long-term future.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The irony, of course, is that we already have a board of peace, and it is called the UN, but President Trump is undermining it at every step. Five days ago, a group of 22 UN experts deemed the ban on international NGOs to be

“part of a systematic assault on humanitarian operations…and another step in the deliberate dismantling of Gaza’s lifeline”.

Twenty-one children have died of extreme cold in recent days, and 7,000 tents have been swept away due to the weather conditions. We need to do more directly, and if these NGOs cannot do it, what are the Government doing to get tents, shelter and heating into Gaza?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let us be clear that nothing can replace the UN or its charter. The UN is the bedrock of multilateral co-operation and international law. I met the Secretary-General this weekend, while marking its 80th anniversary, to reaffirm our support for the UN and its work. On the humanitarian issue, over 3,000 people have been affected by a new wave of heavy rains and strong winds across the Gaza strip over the last week, with huge concerns about hyperthermia and collapsing shelter structures. That is why I have also discussed with Tom Fletcher, of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, what more we can do to ensure that support gets into Gaza, which has to be a priority for phase 2 of the peace process.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my right hon. Friend has said, hundreds of thousands of displaced families in Gaza are living in torn tents and roofless homes, being exposed to the rain and freezing temperatures, with further storms due. What further steps will she take to persuade the current Israeli Government to allow in the materials necessary for more robust shelter, particularly—and immediately—for families with young children?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important matter. When we see the really flimsy shelters that families are in, despite the terrible flooding and the winter conditions, we know the impact this is having, including in contributing to disease and further displacement. So we are continuing to urge the Israeli Government to change their restrictions to allow better-quality provisions and construction materials into Gaza, and to make sure we meet those basic humanitarian needs. That commitment was made in the 20-point plan not just by Israel, but by all countries, and we need action to support that.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Given the utterly extraordinary news yesterday that Donald Trump has invited Putin and Netanyahu to sit on the board of peace, does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the board of peace is unfit to contribute to the task of peacebuilding? Additionally, it includes no Palestinians and almost no women. Does she recognise that it would be inappropriate for Britain, or indeed Brits, to participate in it, and what does she suggest as an alternative?

[Yvette Cooper]

The most important organisation or network for the future of Gaza is the Palestinian committee —the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, made up of Palestinians. Gaza should be run by Palestinians. That is crucial, and that is what we should be supporting to take forward. On the wider question, Putin is not a man of peace and does not belong in any organisation with the word “peace” in the name.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The House needs the full facts regarding aid entering Gaza and why the Government are not more engaged with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to support the disarming of Hamas and secure the immediate release of the remaining hostage? Following White House announcements on the board of peace, including the involvement of Tony Blair, can she confirm what UK input there has been and whether any UK Ministers will be involved, and give a clear assurance that the UK would reject President Putin being on the board, given his illegal invasion of Ukraine and alliance with Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have actually answered every single one of the right hon. Lady’s points already, if she had listened. We have been one of the leading countries in driving forward proposals for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. We are working with other countries on that and will continue to do so because we think it is a priority. On the humanitarian work, work has been done by the CMCC, but it goes nowhere near far enough. We are seeing deteriorating conditions in many areas because of the winter conditions, and the removal of non-governmental organisations simply goes backwards. On the board of peace, it is different from what was proposed, and that is why international discussions are under way, and we will see where they end up. But let us be clear that it is the Palestinian committee and the Palestinian people who need to lead the running of Gaza going forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The composition of Donald Trump’s board of peace looks increasingly like a rogues’ gallery, with President Putin now having been invited to join. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have been left out of that board entirely, and it is increasingly clear that this is not about peace at all. I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary, which she has not yet answered. Can she tell the House whether Government Ministers have spoken with Tony Blair about his role, and will she categorically condemn these current plans and call instead for the United Nations to lead peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts in Gaza, with Palestinians at the heart of this?

[Yvette Cooper]

We strongly support the role of the United Nations. Many of these points were set out as part of a UN Security Council resolution, which had widespread support. We think it is important to have the underpinnings of the UN and international law more widely, and to maintain the international consensus that we need to move to the next phase. The proposals that have been put forward are different from what was described, and are not focused on Gaza. The focus now for Gaza has to be on the Palestinian committee and on key practical issues such as the surging of humanitarian aid and the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. Our focus needs to be on the practical next steps, and we will work with everyone to ensure that happens.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

3. What diplomatic steps she is taking to help Greenland strengthen its security.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

7. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking to support security in the Arctic region.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

As I set out in the House yesterday, we continue to support the people of Greenland and to make it clear that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We are working to increase the support for security across the Arctic region, which is why I visited Norway and Finland this week.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister attempted to justify the hesitant approach that is being taken to Greenland, the US and the EU as being in the national interest, yet there was nothing in the national interest about Brexit, a false-hope deal that has left us far away from our European friends, desperately clinging to a US Administration who do not care about our national interests. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the UK is nothing but a cork in the ocean, bobbing around at this moment of international crisis, neither here nor there—and all because of a disastrous, isolationist, self-sabotaging Brexit?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK works with our NATO allies, some of whom are part of the EU and some of whom—like us, and like Norway, where some of our closest partnerships are—are not. This is about strengthening our Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway through which the Russian northern fleet can threaten the UK, Europe, the US and Canada. Arctic security is a transatlantic security issue.

[Callum Anderson]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement yesterday. I welcome the renewed recognition of the Arctic’s strategic importance to Europe’s collective security, and of the need for NATO to develop a more credible deterrence posture. Will she provide a further update to the House on how the Government are using their diplomatic influence in NATO to drive a more coherent, long-term strategy for Arctic security, rather than relying on individual national responses?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We have proposed a stronger role for NATO on Arctic security. Just as NATO has a successful Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry, we are arguing for an Arctic sentry that co-ordinates operations and intelligence for countries right across the Arctic, and also countries like the UK, which are heavily affected by Arctic security, even though we are not part of Arctic security. That is why we are substantially increasing our presence in northern Norway and working with Norway on new, groundbreaking frigates.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

With his threats against Greenland and, now, against her partners, including the UK, Donald Trump has driven a presidential motorcade through NATO and the entire system of post-war security. I am pleased that the Prime Minister yesterday made his objections to Trump clear, but words are not enough. We must show President Trump that his actions have consequences, and that we will act in concert with our allies, as we are much stronger when we stand together. Yesterday, the Prime Minister ruled out the idea of preparing retaliatory tariffs for use only in the event that the President carries out his threats on 1 February. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should take no options off the table when dealing with a corrupt bully such as President Trump?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK Prime Minister will always act in our national interests. That means pursuing Britain’s security, prosperity and values. That is what he has done at every stage, and it is exactly why he was so firm with the President about our support for the sovereignty of Greenland. We are working continually with our international allies. We are co-operating closely with partners right across Europe to respond in a strong and firm way, in order to prevent a trade war that will cause damage to UK and US industry, and to build instead the collective partnership on security that is in all our interests.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking with international partners to help tackle forced labour practices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to support Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

The UK continues to support the Ukrainian people in the face of unrelenting Russian aggression, which includes the targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and civilians. On Friday, we were proud to mark the anniversary of the 100-year partnership that we agreed with Ukraine last year, and we will continue to provide military and economic support, as well as support for Ukraine’s energy security.

[Kirith Entwistle]

The Bolton branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain is situated in my constituency and helps families to settle and keep community ties strong. As the UK marks the first anniversary of the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership, what more is the Foreign Secretary doing, working across Government, to ensure that Ukrainians in the UK are provided with the support they need to rebuild their lives?

[Yvette Cooper]

The 100-year partnership is about people-to-people links and the long-term connections between the UK and Ukraine.

If I can just take a personal moment on this, Mr Speaker, I can report that one of the teenagers who came to stay with us in Castleford at the very beginning of the Ukraine war, and who has since returned to Kyiv, has continued her training to be an international-standard ballroom dancer and is back in the UK with her partner this week in the run-up to an international competition. I wish them both the very best.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

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

I am sure the entire House endorses what the Foreign Secretary has just said.

In a week when the Government are sadly letting down Hongkongers in London, Chagossians in exile and Northern Ireland veterans in retirement, can we absolutely rely upon continued support for Ukraine’s gallant resistance to atrocious Russian imperialism?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member should know better than to ask a question like that. As he knows, the UK has been continually strong in our support for Ukraine, for the people of Ukraine and for Ukraine’s continued military resistance. For too long, Russia has underestimated not only the people of Ukraine but Ukraine’s friends. That is why the UK, through the coalition of the willing, has been leading support for Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK is working very closely with our partners, through NATO and also more broadly, to ensure that Ukraine has the military support it needs, including weapons and equipment, and support for its energy infrastructure and intelligence gathering, where the UK plays an important role. We have set forward commitments alongside the French Government, and have that forward lean on the ability to support Ukraine if a peace agreement is reached backed by security guarantees. The UK is very much leading the military and wider support for Ukraine.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

In a few weeks’ time, we will reach the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine war. Extreme efforts have been made over recent months to pursue a just and lasting peace, but still we have seen no sign that Russia is willing to make peace. In the early hours of today, Russia attacked Ukraine with 34 missiles and 339 drones. That follows four previous nights in which Russia fired 537 drones at Ukrainian cities, largely targeting energy infrastructure. Ukraine’s energy system is experiencing its most acute crisis of the war, and Kyiv residents are currently receiving three hours of power, followed by 10-hour outages. On 16 January, as we marked the first anniversary of the 100-year partnership, I announced a further £20 million of UK support for vital energy repairs. Our commitment to supporting Ukraine is unwavering.

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful for that update. The brutal Iranian regime is dying and a new Iran is being born. We can assist that process, in the Iranian people’s interests and ours, by banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If the Foreign Secretary requires a new legislative instrument for a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies, will she bring that to the House? Will the Foreign Office prepare for the day after, convening Opposition parties to cohere them and mobilise expertise to decide on a future democratic—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Come on—the hon. Member has to help me to get others in.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know that as Home Secretary I commissioned a review of the legislation which recommended changes, because existing legislation is drawn up around terrorism, and we need to be able to deal with state-backed threats. I assure him that both I and the Home Secretary take the threats from Iran extremely seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Foreign Secretary will know that we have made the strongest of criticisms of the decision on Jimmy Lai. We continue to pursue that issue with the Chinese Government and to stress the urgent need for him to be released immediately on humanitarian grounds. She has raised the issue of the independent planning decision, and she will know the independent planning processes that need to be gone through. I understand that the Security Minister will be making a statement to the House on this topic shortly. All I would point out to her is that diplomatic consent was given by her hero Boris Johnson. She had many years as Home Secretary to pursue any concerns she had.

[Priti Patel]

In the light of the right hon. Lady’s remarks and the fact that Jimmy Lai’s sentencing is expected soon, does she agree that when the Prime Minister goes to kowtow to Beijing and comes back with no movement on Jimmy Lai’s release, that trip should be regarded as a failure of British diplomacy?

[Yvette Cooper]

We believe that it is exactly because we have deep concerns about the issues around Jimmy Lai and the need for his urgent humanitarian release, but also because of wider security issues, that we should engage with the Chinese Government. Refusing to engage with the Chinese Government, when we have such serious issues and concerns, would be irresponsible.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

T3. I recently visited the Lodge community centre in West Bromwich to meet five of the 25 young people who had arrived in the UK from Gaza to receive specialist medical attention—they were with their families at a fun day put on by the Yemeni Community Association. I spoke with them about their community in Gaza and their journey here to the UK. Can the Minister tell the House what learning the Department has taken from the programme so far, in particular about the support required by the young people and their families while they are in the UK, and whether it is the intention to expand the project further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

T4. Settler violence and expansion in the occupied west bank is a daily threat to Palestinian communities. In the face of persistent violence, entire villages have been forcibly displaced. This is ethnic cleansing, enabled by the Israeli state. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a ban on trade with Israeli settlements would show Israel that we are serious in opposing this disgraceful activity?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are deeply concerned about the escalating settler attacks and the fact that they have reached new heights, with more attacks last year than any year since the United Nations began recording such incidents. We need the Government of Israel to abide by their obligations around settlements and settler violence, but we also need to ensure that we pursue this as part of the broader peace plan process—the 20-point plan process—to build the greatest possible co-ordination around delivering not just peace for Gaza, but a two-state solution.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

T5.  Reflecting on the balance of forces in Europe, both allied and Russian, will the Foreign Secretary articulate the risk that she thinks the UK is taking when it has such a small military and is committing several thousand troops, maybe tens of thousands, to Ukraine through the coalition of the willing?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government are responsible for the biggest increase in defence investment since the cold war, because we recognise the importance of defending our national security. I would also say to the hon. Member that Ukraine’s security is our security. The threat from Russia affects us all.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

T7. It will be impossible to get the necessary aid into Gaza until the Rafah crossing is fully open. Will the Minister update us on progress in trying to persuade the Netanyahu Government to do the right thing and open the Rafah crossing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

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

[Yvette Cooper]

I gather that that sentiment was also expressed by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who has been with us in Parliament over the last few days. I think there are many people on both sides of the Atlantic, across Europe and north America, who recognise the vital importance of our NATO alliance to keeping all of us safe.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

T9. My constituent Pelin Omar has asked me about the ceasefire that was announced on Sunday between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces, which has already unravelled, with fighting resuming in less than 24 hours. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to promote humanitarian access, international monitoring and a long-term reconciliation between the Kurdish people in Aleppo and northern Syria and the Syrian Government? Do the Government support more devolved government as a solution to bring about lasting peace for the Kurdish people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the deep humanitarian concerns arising from the lack of adequate healthcare in Iran. Her point comes after what we have seen in recent weeks: the most brutal of killings by the Iranian regime and the deep concern about the safety of protesters. I can report to the House that we have secured a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, which will take place on 23 January and will provide an opportunity to raise exactly these issues.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

When President Trump was frustrated with President Zelensky last year, he withdrew intelligence sharing with Ukraine for a short period. Will the Foreign Secretary, who oversees GCHQ and MI6, assure the House and my constituents that should such a threat that intelligence sharing with the United Kingdom be withdrawn, even for a temporary period, develop from the White House at some point, she and her counterparts will remind the US President that the Five Eyes partnership also keeps Americans safe every single day of the week?

[Yvette Cooper]

I first had visits to Washington about the strength of the Five Eyes partnership, including meetings with the CIA and others, more than 25 years ago. Our Five Eyes partnership runs back many generations; it is deep and important, and it continues to take the threat from Russia in Ukraine incredibly seriously.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

With two out of three FCDO-funded programmes dedicated to disability inclusion coming to an end this year, what targets will the Government set to ensure that their remaining programming will prioritise and can be accessed by disabled people, 80% of whom live in the global south? Will the Minister offer some assurances that there will be sufficient capacity within the FCDO to support disabled people across the globe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Allies do not threaten each other, either militarily or economically, so the whole House will be troubled by comments made by the Trump Administration in the past couple of days. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to communicate with our NATO allies and the Trump Administration how unacceptable those comments are, and what are we doing to ensure the integrity of our NATO alliance?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister has spoken to the President and I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio. As I set out in my statement yesterday, tariff threats are no way to treat allies. It is also important now that we strengthen our international co-operation on issues like Arctic security, while respecting sovereignty and collective security, and that means putting the sovereignty of Greenland at its heart.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Israel is the only country in the world that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts, trying between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in that way each year. According to Save the Children, those children are at serious risk of contagious disease, hunger and abuse. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are doing all that they can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to end this practice?

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Will the Foreign Secretary explain why, if she rightly supports the self-determination of the Greenlandic people as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, she does not support the self-determination of the Chagossian people to remain a British overseas territory?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member likes to call himself a patriot. He has just joined the party that is the weakest on Russia—a country that threatens our country—and led by a leader who has continued to question the role of Russia in beginning the Ukraine war, the role of NATO and even in the Salisbury killings. He should look a little bit inwards before he tries to make points in here.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know that we have been doing extensive work to ensure that the Foreign Office is focused on the key priorities and on delivering for the national interest. She will also know that there was a quite significant expansion in the staffing, including the UK-based staffing, of the Foreign Office over the previous five years. It is right that we ensure the Foreign Office is most focused on the national security issues and prosperity issues as well as many of the issues that she and her Committee are concerned about around international development. We will continue to provide information to her Committee on this matter.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, the International Criminal Court’s deputy chief prosector said that atrocities in Sudan would be repeated from town to town unless impunity for belligerents ended. What measures have the UK Government been taking to make it clear to the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement North, as well as to the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces, that they must protect civilians and let aid through?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue, because the continuing humanitarian crisis and horrendous violence in Sudan are deeply troubling, and I worry that they are not getting sufficient international attention. This weekend, I discussed extensively with the UN Secretary-General what further action can be taken and what concerted pressure can be put on any country that has any influence on the warring parties. We urgently need a ceasefire, but we also need an end to the horrendous and brutal violence, particularly the sexual violence towards women.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

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

Arctic Security

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

I begin by expressing my condolences to all affected by the terrible train crash near Cordoba last night and thanking the Spanish emergency services who responded overnight and throughout today. I am sure the House will join me in thinking of the people of Spain at this distressing time.

With permission, I will make a statement on Greenland and wider Arctic security.

On the evening of Saturday 17 January, President Trump announced the intention to impose 10% tariffs on goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK over the future of Greenland. This is a serious moment for our transatlantic discussions and partnerships, so let me outline to the House the UK’s response, which rests on three key principles. First, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Its future is a matter for Greenlanders and the Danes, and them alone. This reflects the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity to which the whole House is committed. Secondly, the use or threat of tariffs against allies in this way is completely wrong, unwarranted and counterproductive. Thirdly, Arctic security is a shared concern and a shared responsibility for both sides of the Atlantic. It can be effectively addressed and maintained only through co-operation between transatlantic allies and, crucially, through NATO. So instead of divisions that only aid our adversaries, we now need a serious and constructive dialogue about our Arctic security that is built on respect for sovereignty and collective security and the rules that underpin our alliance.

As the Prime Minister set out this morning, the north star for the Government’s foreign policy is to stand up for the UK’s national interest and to defend and advance Britain’s security, Britain’s prosperity and Britain’s values, and we do so through the alliances and partnerships we build abroad that make us stronger here at home, including alliances where that transatlantic co-operation between Europe and North America has long been vital. As the Prime Minister has made clear, our close and deep-rooted partnership with the United States is a hugely important part of our security and our prosperity. The depth of our co-operation on intelligence sharing and defence helps keep us safe, and our trading relationship and the new agreements we have reached in the last 12 months are driving billions of pounds of investment in the UK, supporting jobs across the country. But the Prime Minister has also made it clear that we will be very direct about our differences, as he was in speaking to President Trump yesterday, because standing up for the UK national interest means defending the principles that underpin stable and enduring international co-operation. That means respect for sovereignty and respect for long-standing allies.

Denmark is a close ally of the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, Denmark has long been one of the US’s closest allies, a proud NATO member that has stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK and the US, including at real human cost in recent decades. Rooted in that partnership, the US already has in place a 1951 treaty with Denmark that provides for an extensive US security presence in Greenland. Alliances endure because they are built on respect and partnership, not pressure, and tariff threats like this are no way to treat allies.

The tariff threat has come following the co-ordinated preparations for the annual Danish programme of activities under the Arctic Endurance framework, which is focused on addressing Russian security threats in the Arctic. Last week, at the request of the Danish Government, one UK military officer currently based in Denmark joined a planning group visit in an observational capacity. These sorts of visits are a regular part of military planning ahead of exercises and operations—work among allies to strengthen Greenland’s security that should be recognised for its importance, not used as a reason to impose economic pressure.

A trade war would hurt workers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be in no one’s interests. Both sides of the Atlantic should be working together on Arctic security, not moving apart. That is why the Prime Minister and this Government are working intensively in the UK national interest to prevent this from happening and to reach a resolution.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke directly with President Trump, the Danish Prime Minister and other close allies and international leaders. Today, I welcomed Danish Foreign Minister Lars Rasmussen here to London for valuable discussions, and the Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with the Greenland Foreign Minister. I have also been in direct contact with the US, Canada, France, Germany and other European colleagues, and on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will visit Denmark. We will continue with this urgent diplomacy in pursuit of the principles I have set out.

We will also argue for the strengthening of our multilateral co-operation around Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway for Russia’s northern fleet to threaten Britain, western Europe and North America—threats to undersea cables and to critical national infrastructure. We have seen a greater presence of Russian ships and submarines making their way to the north Atlantic. We have seen Russian aircraft testing our air defence as shadow fleet vessels pass through our waters, trying to evade our sanctions and continuing to fund the war in Ukraine. Northern Norway, Finland and sea routes through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap have long been strategically significant when considering Russian threats. We know that the strategic significance of the Arctic is likely to grow as the melting of Arctic ice stands to open new routes through the Arctic ocean, and with new-found geo-economic competition for critical minerals and rare earths.

Arctic security is crucial not just to the UK but to the entire NATO alliance—of the eight countries north of the Arctic circle, seven are NATO allies—so across our alliance, working together, we can and should do more. That is why last week I travelled to Finland and Norway to discuss the threats they currently face, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was also in Sweden.

In Helsinki, I met the Finnish Foreign Minister and was briefed on Finnish border force activities to tackle a Russian ship that had damaged undersea cables between Finland and Estonia. In northern Norway, I met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. We signed a new agreement to strengthen our co-operation to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet, and we travelled together to Camp Viking to see the work of the Royal Marines and their Norwegian partners.

In the bitter cold of that unforgiving landscape, our commando forces are training and exercising, and preparing for contingencies. For more than 50 years, the Royal Marines have trained in the Norwegian Arctic, but we are increasing that commitment by doubling the number of marines there from 1,000 to 2,000 in the space of three years—I pay tribute to their phenomenal work. Alongside that, the landmark Lunna House defence agreement will see the UK and Norway jointly operate a new fleet of Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates to hunt Russian submarines and protect our critical undersea infrastructure.

In the autumn, the UK-led joint expeditionary force saw thousands of troops, including over 1,700 British personnel, dozens of ships, vehicles and aircraft, deployed from the Baltics to Iceland. The UK plans to contribute to a range of exercises in the north Atlantic and High North throughout 2026, because that is how we believe we will best strengthen our Arctic security for the sake of western Europe and North America—together, through alliances and partnerships, not through threats on tariffs or on sovereignty that simply undermine our collective security.

I welcome the messages of cross-party unity and the shared conviction that the future of Greenland must be determined by the Greenlanders and the Danes. Whether on Greenland, on tariffs or on wider Arctic security, we are clear in our views, firm in our principles and steadfast in our commitment to safeguarding UK interests. The UK will continue to pursue constructive ways forward, collaborating intensively with our partners and allies and pursuing our security, our prosperity and our values every step of the way. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I begin by expressing our condolences to the people of Spain following the devasting train crash yesterday.

The Conservative party is clear that the US Administration’s decision to announce tariffs on the UK over Greenland is completely wrong. People in the United Kingdom and the United States will face higher costs because of the proposed tariffs. The tariffs will be yet another burden for businesses across our country, and they go against the United States’ recent national security strategy, which says:

“It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and guard their sovereignty…We stand for the sovereign rights of nations”.

We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark. The future of Greenland must be for its people and Denmark—and for them alone—to decide. Denmark is a valued NATO ally and a leading contributor to Ukraine; indeed, it is one of the highest per capita donors. We have also worked with Denmark on Arctic security, and it is imperative that we and our European NATO allies now show a determination to go much further and back up our words with actions.

The security challenges in the Arctic must be tackled head-on, particularly the threat of Russia. Greenland is of geopolitical significance to every NATO member state, including the United Kingdom. The best way to tackle threats is to work together in unison, as NATO allies, because America’s national security is indivisible from NATO’s—they are one and the same. That collective security is the basis of our national defence architecture.

Collective action in the immediate term is how we should work together to address those challenges, so will the Foreign Secretary say what resources the Government will put in place to prioritise or repurpose their inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions? What are the Government doing to look at how, working with the US, we can build on existing joint defence agreements to broker a greater consensual military presence on Greenland from both sides of the Atlantic? What is the Government’s plan to help lead international efforts to secure the safety of Arctic shipping routes as they become more open, stave off exploitation of Greenland’s critical minerals by malign actors, protect the region’s fisheries, and boost digital connectivity and security, particularly at sea?

Has the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with Secretary Rubio and, if not, what will she propose when she speaks to him, including on the security issue in the High North? UK leadership matters at this challenging moment for NATO, and we should advance a push from all NATO allies to thwart Putin’s ambitions in the High North. It is incumbent on the United Kingdom to help to lead that charge, and our ability to convene outside the EU is a strength that we should put into play.

The Conservatives have also called on the Prime Minister to push for an urgent NATO meeting that includes the United States especially. Will the Government pursue that, so that a position can be reconciled behind closed doors and we can present a united front to our adversaries?

It is important for our economy and for businesses that the Government secure a reversal of the position on tariffs. This is not a moment for megaphone diplomacy, but can the Foreign Secretary share the Government’s strategy for bringing the US round to revoking those tariffs before their kick-in date? Can she also confirm the UK’s position on countermeasures?

Under the tariff deal agreed in the spring, the UK secured a reduced 10% tariff for 100,000 vehicles. Does the Foreign Secretary expect the 10% Greenland tariff to be added to that existing 10% tariff, effectively doubling the tax on British car exports to 20% from 1 February?

Pharmaceuticals were also a cornerstone of the agreement on tariff-free exemptions. Does the Foreign Secretary expect life sciences to be protected from the new baseline tariff, or will the 100% tariff threatened in late 2025 now be accelerated? What specific support will her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade provide for small and medium-sized business exporters, which could face an overnight increase of 10% in the costs for their largest export market? What assessment have the Government made of the potential economic impact of tariffs, and what can be done to mitigate that?

This is a time for cool but determined heads, because the stakes are significant and enormous for our country. This is not just a big geopolitical moment; it is a moment of real concern for businesses and exporters in our country. We are counting on British diplomacy to reverse the tariff situation and bring a swift end to the debacle over Greenland. The US is our closest ally: the way that our security agencies operate together is unparalleled in modern history and our bilateral trading relationship dwarfs every other. In this moment, we need to summon and leverage the strength and depth of that special relationship.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response and welcome her support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark and for the strengthening of support for Arctic security against the Russian threat, which she is right to highlight. She asked what work can be done to establish constructive discussions, and indeed, I talked to the Danish Foreign Minister about that today. Denmark has set out a process to have detailed talks with the US on how to strengthen security around Greenland, being very clear that the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable, but that there are many issues to be discussed around strengthening security.

I spoke to Secretary Rubio today and we agreed to take forward further discussions on the issue. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will be pursuing every avenue for discussions directly with the US and with all our close allies, the purpose being to prevent the tariffs and the trade war that would be in no one’s interest, and to replace the threats about sovereignty and tariffs with a constructive, shared approach to our security, including security in the Arctic.

There is a critical issue here. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to be able to threaten the UK, western Europe, the US and Canada. That is why this is a shared threat and requires a shared response. That is why, as part of the discussions in Norway and Finland last week, I proposed that NATO should establish an Arctic sentry, similar to the approach that NATO has taken to the Baltic Sentry and the Eastern Sentry, with co-ordination that brings together and looks in a strategic way at all the issues around security across the Arctic. We believe that it is through those partnerships and alliances that we can best strengthen our shared security against the threats that should concern us most.

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by the Foreign Secretary about the terrible rail crash in Spain? I thank her for her statement.

President Trump is acting like an international gangster, threatening to trample over the sovereignty of an ally, threatening the end of NATO altogether and now threatening to hit our country and seven European allies with outrageous, damaging tariffs unless he gets his hands on Greenland. This is an incredibly grave moment for the United Kingdom, Europe and our world. Without provocation or justification, the President of the United States is attacking our economy, our livelihoods and our national security. Trump has put British businesses and jobs on the frontline in his unprovoked aggression. The only people cheering him on are Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Only a few months ago, Trump hailed the special relationship at Windsor castle. Now, thanks to his actions, it is nearly in tatters.

How do we stop Trump’s damaging trade war? For a year now, the Prime Minister has tried a policy of appeasing Trump, flattering him, fawning over him and refusing to stand up to him, because—he argued—Trump would otherwise hit us with damaging tariffs. Well, the Prime Minister has tested his approach to destruction, and it has failed. It is time for the Government to change course.

We have to finally be clear-eyed about the sort of man Trump is and treat him accordingly. He is a bully. He thinks that he can grab whatever he wants, using force if necessary, and he is corrupt—the most corrupt president that the United States has ever seen. There are only two ways of getting him to back down: bribing him—with a new jet, perhaps, or a few billion in his crypto account—or standing up to him, like we would with any other bully, and standing together with our European allies to make him back down. That is the choice. Which one, Foreign Secretary?

[Yvette Cooper]

This is clearly a serious moment. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman actually saw the Prime Minister’s response this morning. He should know that it is because this is a serious moment that we respond in a serious way and that this Prime Minister responds in a serious, calm, robust and hard-headed way about what is in the UK’s national interest and how we work together in the alliances that are crucial for our security and prosperity and are underpinned by our values. That is why the Prime Minister has been so firm in the United Kingdom’s response and why I welcomed the Danish Foreign Minister to London today.

The right hon. Member’s description of the response of our Prime Minister and our UK Government is inappropriate. This is a really important time for parties to come together on how we ensure that we can respond to the situation that we are in, work closely with our allies and create a constructive approach to our Arctic security. That ultimately will depend on transatlantic co-operation and ensuring that those alliances and that transatlantic alliance respect the principles of sovereignty and collective security. We will do that in a sober and serious way.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

European nations, including our own, are witnessing a very rude awakening: if we do not invest in sovereign capabilities for defence and security and rely instead on others, sooner or later we will be bullied or blackmailed by larger nations. The question for us is: will we just kick the can down the road and trundle along with small, gradual increases in defence investment, or will we chart a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence in this Parliament?

On Arctic security, the Foreign Secretary intimated that only one British officer was involved in the Danish-led Operation Arctic Endurance in Greenland. Will she update the House on our current and future planned participation? Are there any political or practical constraints on that future participation?

[Yvette Cooper]

On the specific issue that my hon. Friend raised, that was not an operation; it was a planning process, as takes place very routinely, and that continues to be the case. We are arguing for a broader approach to Arctic security. In fact, the UK’s strongest contribution is around the north of Norway. Our partnership with Norway is really unrivalled. We have the commandos and the excellent work that I saw at Camp Viking and elsewhere, as well as the joint frigates. For a non-Arctic nation, our contribution to Arctic security is unrivalled. We see that as being part of the Arctic sentry and a wider approach to collective Arctic security.

My hon. Friend also raises the issue of investment. That is exactly why we have put forward the biggest increase in defence spending for very many years.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary is being rather mealy-mouthed about a situation that the President of the United States obviously sees as very simple. He believes that through extortion or military force—he is not denying that he may use military force—he can acquire Greenland, whichever way we look at it. As the Foreign Secretary will know, significant military assets owned by the United States are based here in the United Kingdom. Could they be used as part of an invasion of Greenland against our will? Does she recognise that when tariffs were first wielded as a weapon against the Canadians, we should have stood with them, rather than cut a snivelling deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

First, that is clearly not the situation we are talking about. We have been very clear about the importance of both sovereignty and collective security—that they are not just part of the NATO alliance, but fundamental principles that we stand for.

Turning to tariffs, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the work that the Prime Minister has led has been effective in addressing tariffs in the past. We will show the same determination and robust approach again, as we have done on other issues. It is important that we focus on the results that we can get by taking a hard-headed approach, and that is what we are continuing to do.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Knocking on doors in Denton, Westerhope, Arthur’s Hill and Wingrove, I found that, for the first time in my 15 years as an MP, the No. 1 issue was global insecurity. President Trump has succeeded in uniting the British people against his unwarranted attack on a close ally. My right hon. Friend is right to be calm and diplomatic, but will she reassure us that given the current President’s volatility, she and her Government will ensure that our sovereignty is not dependent on US capability, and specifically that our technology procurement —both civil and defence—will reflect this?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the very strong feelings on this matter right across the UK—of the need to protect sovereignty for the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark more widely, and the sense that to propose tariffs in this way is just deeply wrong. It is counterproductive to our collective security, but it is also deeply wrong.

My hon. Friend has also raised issues of UK resilience. She will know that on things like the Five Eyes partnership, there is very deep, long-standing co-operation and shared technology, but there are also areas in which we agree that Europe needs to do more for its own defence and its own investment, and that is what we are doing.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland. President Trump’s threat to annex Greenland either “the easy way” or “the hard way” is pushing Europe to the verge of one of the biggest political and security crises we have faced in decades. Now, his threat to impose punitive tariffs on those opposing his illegal annexation means that the President of our closest ally is using economic and military threats against the UK and other European nations simply for defending sovereignty, self-determination and international law. On what basis do this Government view this particular President as being a trustworthy and reliable ally?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have made it very clear that threats to Greenland’s sovereignty are wrong, and that threats of tariffs and economic pressure are also wrong, because allies should stand together and not face the kinds of threats we have seen. That is a particular issue for the UK, but also for Denmark, which has been such a close ally to both the UK and the US. We are taking a very robust, hard-headed approach to this matter, to work through what is in the UK national interest and get a resolution that can protect, defend and strengthen Arctic security, as well as UK security more widely. That is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for setting out the UK’s position that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Danes to decide. It is not right that one of our closest and oldest allies is threatening us with economic sanctions, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, how will she explain to the US Administration our interests and our actions at this time, and stop the sanctions and resolve the situation? Secondly, building on the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), might the Foreign Secretary take an interest in the Franco-British fast jet replacement programme and a company called Aeralis, so that we do not have to rely on an American solution?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been very clear, both to the US and more widely, about the importance of countries working together to strengthen security. That is exactly what Denmark has been seeking to do—to strengthen the security of Greenland as part of strengthening Arctic security against the Russian threat. Where countries come together to do so, that should be recognised as important and valuable, because Arctic security is a multilateral issue, not a unilateral one. It will only be strengthened by countries working together, so this is about our interests in that shared, collective security, but also our values of defending sovereignty and territorial integrity.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, NATO, the Danes and others have been commended for responding to this situation through the usual channels and the usual means. That would be fine if we had an occupant of the White House who understood and respected all that, but he laughs now not just behind his hand but blatantly, in our faces, as a result. While all that continues, we need to try to work out what makes this man tick. He is thin-skinned, he has an ego, and he does not like to be embarrassed. Should the state visit go ahead this year? Should football teams play in American stadia for the world cup? These are things that would embarrass the President at home. We now need to fight fire with fire.

[Yvette Cooper]

We heard from the Prime Minister this morning the approach he is taking. The approach that our Prime Minister and this Government have taken has already led to very big changes in the United States’ initial proposals on tariffs, which were substantially reduced and changed as a result of that engagement. As a result of our engagement we have also seen big changes in the US approach to Ukraine: considerable work has now been done to secure agreements around security guarantees that have been immensely important. That is the result of continued engagement, not just by the Prime Minister but by others more widely. We are clear about the importance of working in the UK’s national interests and pursuing different issues to make sure that we protect UK businesses and UK prosperity, as well as our shared values, including sovereignty.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As a proud member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I thank the Foreign Secretary for her visit to our Marines at Camp Viking in Norway, and for her unequivocal stance in support of collective security with NATO at its heart. I welcome the Rycroft review of foreign interference in our politics. In the context of NATO and Arctic security, does the Foreign Secretary agree it is vital that we get to the bottom of the role that Russian money plays in trying to subvert our public discourse on these hugely important issues?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that my hon. Friend and others have been raising this issue, particularly about the hybrid threats from Russia. There are the direct threats we see in the Arctic, but also broader hybrid threats, which range from sabotage—of undersea cables, for example—to foreign interference, including information interference. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing an important inquiry into this issue, and I look forward to its conclusions, but we have substantially increased UK sanctions to address some of the interference threats.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The post-war world order was based on the premise that like-minded western liberal democracies would stand up for each other, expand democracy wherever we saw it and lower the barriers to free trade, and that through NATO we would engage in collective responsibility—an attack against one was an attack against all. It is clear that the President of the United States does not share those values. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK should be closening our military and economic bonds with the European allies that do share those values?

[Yvette Cooper]

The transatlantic security relationship of North America—the US and Canada—and western Europe, and the whole of Europe working together around security, has been immensely important for a long time. We continue to have shared interests and shared threats—for example, Arctic security is clearly a shared security interest—but we are also strengthening our direct security and defence co-operation with Europe. Central to the EU reset was strengthening defence co-operation with our European allies, with whom we are bound by our close geography, as well as our shared values and interests. We will continue to strengthen those relationships.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Donald Trump’s appalling threats to seize Greenland, along with his disgusting bombing of Venezuela, are a new form of gangster politics that are set out in his new national security strategy, which also speaks of boosting support for the far right across Europe. We have to deal with that reality, and Trump’s threats of tariffs this weekend show how little we can rely on the so-called special relationship. Instead of blindly following US policy, as we have done all too often in the past, with disastrous consequences, is it not now time to stand up to Trump and forge a new independent foreign policy based on international law, peace and co-operation? Those important values are the antithesis of what Donald Trump stands for.

[Yvette Cooper]

I caution my hon. Friend against somehow suggesting equivalence in a whole series of different areas. I am disappointed that he has not, as part of his question, recognised the scale of the threat from Russia, which is the most serious threat the UK faces.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

We have to ride the Trump tiger as best we can until November 2028, but the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders. However, when the Foreign Secretary talks to her Danish interlocutors, can she ever so gently point out that small countries such as Denmark have historically spent little on their defence and on collective defence? Will she also, perhaps equally as gently, admonish Denmark? Along with most member states of the European Union, it has administered something of a punishment beating to this country since 2016.

[Yvette Cooper]

I was delighted to see the Danish Foreign Minister in London today. He is a friend, and Denmark is a close friend of the UK. Denmark has stood firm alongside the UK and the US, including by putting its armed forces’ lives at risk in Afghanistan and in other conflicts to support close allies. The Danes have shown immense dedication to the principles of collective security, they continue to show substantial support for Ukraine against Russia, and I want to strongly show Denmark the UK’s support.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

This week’s tensions highlight the strategic importance of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the urgent need for Europeans to fill the gaps in their ability to defend that space. Currently, that can be done only by the United States of America. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the Government’s discussions with our European counterparts on strengthening our defence industries? What discussions have there been on full access to Security Action for Europe?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend has immense expertise in this area and is right to highlight the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap as being crucial to maintaining the security of the Atlantic and as the basis for a lot of Arctic security issues. That is exactly why the UK and Norway are now jointly building new frigates as part of a major investment programme. It is one of the biggest defence contracts we have ever had. Norway is investing not just in jobs in the UK but, crucially, in an unrivalled partnership to strengthen our maritime security.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Madam Deputy Speaker:

“I will happily accept tariffs to oppose Trump and his corrupt regime.”

Those are not my words, but those of a Bath constituent who emailed me today. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the strong feelings of so many of our constituents? They are ready to stand up to the bully that Donald Trump is, and they want the Government to do the same.

[Yvette Cooper]

Across the country there are strong feelings about the tariff threats we have seen. That is why we have been clear that they are completely wrong. The impact of tariffs is felt by businesses, by consumers and by ordinary families in the US, in the UK and in other European countries. That is why tariffs are completely counterproductive, as well as being completely wrong.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s calm diplomacy this morning. It is right that only adversaries stand to gain from the fracturing of NATO. The Government do not believe that the US President is serious about using military force to seize Greenland, but even in just the past hour he has refused to rule that out. My right hon. Friend will also know that the President spoke about wanting Greenland in his previous term in office; he has long been serious about it. As the UK is the lead nation in the joint expeditionary force, can she assure me that, alongside NATO-level discussions, we are engaging fully with our JEF partners?

[Yvette Cooper]

We regularly engage with joint expeditionary force partners. Indeed, there were meetings around the joint expeditionary force last week, and I believe there are further such meetings later this week, which the Ministry of Defence is heavily involved in supporting. That is exactly because we take these shared security issues so seriously. We know that for a country like the UK our security depends on the alliances we build, including with close European allies through the JEF.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Greenland is being offered two options: to be sold or to be annexed. This is naked imperialism. The Government of Greenland have made clear that they will work with the US in any way necessary to protect our security and that of Europe, but I am afraid that beyond the vague diplomatic assurances of diplomatic activity and claims of being hard-headed, I am no clearer, from the statement, about what the Government are doing to keep us safe from tariffs and, more importantly, to protect our security and the sovereignty of Greenland.

[Yvette Cooper]

To be honest, I am surprised by that question from the hon. Lady, because she has experience in foreign affairs. She knows how diplomatic discussions take place and the urgency with which those discussions are taking place right now. She will understand the importance of those discussions. She will understand the importance of the collaboration with our allies and partners and how those discussions take place. She will also have seen the results of taking a similar hard-headed and robust approach to previous issues and the previous discussions we have taken forward. We will continue to do that. In terms of the people of Greenland, we have seen the protests on the streets in Greenland, and we have seen the strong views expressed by the people of the Kingdom of Denmark more widely. We will continue to support them and their sovereignty.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Section 21 in chapter 8 of the Greenland Self-Government Act 2009 states that decisions

“regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland.”

Therefore, no external coercion should be applied to Greenland’s people. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with our European allies to ensure that that Act is respected and that no major power can pressure the Greenlanders over their constitutional status?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. That is exactly why the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has been in touch with Greenland’s Foreign Minister, and why I had many discussions today with the Danish Foreign Minister about our support for the sovereignty of the people of Greenland. It is for them and the Danes, side by side, to decide their future, and not for anyone else.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we should be working with our allies—I welcome that approach—but I fear that Donald Trump does not agree with her. What are the Government doing to harden our infrastructure? We are heavily dependent on several American IT systems, including Palantir, controlled by Peter Thiel, who is well inside the coterie of Donald Trump’s Administration. On sanctions, we have seen that they could switch off Microsoft’s provision of services to the International Criminal Court. Will the Government look into ensuring that Palantir is not a single point of failure in our critical systems—in the health service, defence, the Cabinet Office and now the police?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take all issues involving critical national infrastructure immensely seriously. There are areas—for example, our security and intelligence Five Eyes partnership—where our technology partnerships go back many generations. I remember my first Five Eyes meetings in the United States to discuss these matters, more than 25 years ago, and those technology partnerships have strengthened since then. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should also consider key areas in which critical national infrastructure needs to be strengthened.

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

I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We all know that the geo-security issues in the High North are due to Russia’s threat to NATO. I am very pleased that the Foreign Secretary went to Norway last week, because we have two Russian bases on NATO territory in Svalbard. What discussions did she have with her Norwegian counterparts about the possibility of ending the Russian presence on that NATO territory?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the issues in the High North are about the Russian threats. That has long been the case, but we have seen those threats grow. There was a time at the ending of the cold war when, I think, everyone was optimistic that this might fundamentally change. Sadly, many years on, that has proved not to be the case, which is why the partnership between the UK and Norway is crucial for our security, the security of the whole of NATO, and the security of many of our allies as well. I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep a range of issues under discussion.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Foreign Secretary is, of course, absolutely right to insist that the future of Greenland is a question only for the people of Greenland, but does she acknowledge that this crisis is the consequence of our weakness—of decades of failure on the part of Europe and the UK to invest in defence, and, indeed, of a historic failure of statecraft on the part of the United Kingdom? One naval officer went to Greenland, and as a consequence, 10% tariffs are to be imposed on us. The Foreign Secretary mentioned a conversation that she had in Scandinavia last week. Did she offer to do more than simply co-operate with our partners and neighbours, and to actually lead in the defence of Greenland by committing a proper joint expeditionary force, led by the UK, with a proper commitment to ensuring the safety of Greenland?

[Yvette Cooper]

The biggest threat to Arctic security comes from Russia, and the hon. Member would have a lot more credibility in talking about any of these Arctic security issues if he and his new party looked inward at themselves and carried out the long-needed investigation of Russian influence in that party.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong response, and the assurances that we have heard from the Foreign Secretary today. She has rightly made it clear that Donald Trump’s claims to need to possess Greenland for security reasons are complete and utter nonsense. The United States already has access. The Foreign Secretary spoke of a multilateral approach to Arctic security; there is also the critical minerals element, which I suspect has a great deal to do with Donald Trump’s interest in the country. What are we doing to adopt a similar multilateral approach to critical minerals, as we seek to divest ourselves of reliance on China?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the broader issue of critical minerals. Many of the issues relating to Greenland are long-term issues, as opposed to immediate critical mineral issues, but there is a wider need to ensure that we have security around our critical mineral supply chains, and to work with other countries to prevent any country from having a chokehold on the supply of those critical minerals. That is crucial in connection with new green technologies, but it is also crucial more widely when it comes to our economic prosperity and economic security for the future.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

All relationships, particularly special relationships, must have a foundation of respect and mutual consent. What is the view in NATO on economic measures being used to force the annexation of a sovereign NATO territory?

[Yvette Cooper]

NATO allies need to respect each other. That is a core part of the NATO alliance, and it is what makes the alliance effective. Not to do so simply aids our adversaries.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome both the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning. It may be surprising that neither Greenland nor the Arctic featured as a strategic priority in the United States’ national security strategy, published in November, although transatlantic trade did. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the United States Administration that its goals of prosperity and the long-term security of the Arctic can be achieved only through close co-operation with allies—not through dangerous rhetoric, and actions that risk weakening the collective strength on which we all rely?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The economic prosperity of the UK, Europe, the United States, Canada and our other NATO allies is strengthened by trade, rather than by tariffs, and our security is strengthened by co-operation through NATO, and by respect for each other’s sovereignty and collective security.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that NATO allies should not threaten one another, and she is also right to highlight the threat and potential harm caused by trade wars and the imposition of tariffs, but does she understand the bemusement of Northern Ireland Members? She talks strongly about sovereignty, but it was this House that diminished the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and placed us in the European Union customs code, and I hope she recognises that there is a double-edged sword when it comes to tariffs for Northern Ireland.

The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who will address Parliament tomorrow, said very clearly at the weekend that while he has heard what President Trump has said, he does not know what his aspirations are in relation to Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary?

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope that everyone, not just in the United States Administration but throughout the United States, would agree that we should have shared aspirations for our shared security in the Arctic. We should recognise that that includes respect for sovereignty and for collective partnership. Addressing the Arctic security threat, much of which is maritime, depends on countries working together. It depends on an ability to address issues relating to the eastern end of the Arctic, northern Norway, the western end of the Arctic, and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Only through co-operation is it possible to keep the Atlantic safe, and to keep all our countries safe.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

As possibly the only MP with American grandchildren, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary agrees that whatever disagreements may arise between this Government and the Government of the United States about Greenland, the bonds of friendship and kinship between the peoples of this island and the peoples of the United States are historic, vital and enduring?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the strength of our people-to-people bonds, but also the deep historical bonds and the continuing bonds of co-operation. Even today, the US and the UK have been discussing terrorism threats in northern Syria and the need to tackle Daesh. We have so many shared interests and a shared history, which is why it is so important that we pursue this disagreement in a robust and constructive way.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

In pushing back against the tariffs, will the Foreign Secretary and others make it clear to the US that it is not just the potential imposition of these tariffs, but the bandying about of the threat of tariffs, that is so disruptive and difficult for major British businesses that export to the US, such as those in the Scotch whisky industry? The tariffs might be just game-playing or tactics, but they are causing real damage right now.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member about the impact that threats can have, and the instability that they can cause. Stability and respect in relationships is a crucial underpinning of the economy.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

If this was truly a debate about the security of the Arctic, we would be talking about more than the sovereignty of Greenland, which is clearly a matter for the Danes and the people of Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that our collective interests and security are best served by working collectively through NATO, rather than creating division in that alliance, which will only help those who want to do us harm?

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I saw for myself the immense co-operation between the Royal Marines Commandos and our Norwegian colleagues in the north of Norway. They briefed me on where the threats and concerns are, the way in which we need to respond to them, and the way in which the response in the north of Norway also helps with security right at the other side of the Atlantic, in the US and Canada.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Trump is certainly an unreliable and unpredictable ally, and his comments yesterday about the Norwegian leadership make us all wonder whether he is of sound mind, but what can we do? We have to deal with him.

I am sure it has not escaped the Foreign Secretary’s notice that the messaging from Congress is quite different from the messaging from the White House. Divisions were exposed in the passing of the Defence Appropriations Act before Christmas. Can she reassure me that conversations are being had, not just with the Administration but right across Congress, in which we have quite a lot of allies who are willing to support our position?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to say that there are many different perspectives across the US system, both in the Administration and in Congress. As he will know, we have always had very close engagement with all aspects of the US system, including Congress. Indeed, the House Speaker is in Parliament today.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record my gratitude for the leadership that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have shown on this issue as it evolves. Does she share my confusion about why Members of this House who claim to be patriots would join a party that blames NATO for starting the Ukraine war, that has a leader who admires Vladimir Putin, and that has a former leader in Wales who is serving 10 years in prison for taking Russian bribes?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be very clear about where the threat to UK security comes from, the threat from Russia to our security—be it through the Arctic or through Ukraine—and the impact that has on Europe. Frankly, the fact that Members of this House who call themselves patriots have joined a party that is so soft on Russia is just astonishing.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Donald Trump rides roughshod over international law and international alliances. The PM has said that a trade war is in no one’s interests, but we all know that if you give ground to a bully, you get bullied even more. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that after a full year of attempting to appease Donald Trump, the strategy has comprehensively failed; that it is time to replace submission to the US with strength and solidarity with our European partners; and that the UK needs to make it clear to Donald Trump that there are red lines, and that if he engages in hostile activity towards the UK, it will have practical consequences, not least in trade?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK’s security is strengthened by the NATO alliance—the transatlantic alliance. I know that some want to reject Europe, and some want to reject the US and North America. We know that the transatlantic partnership keeps us safe and is crucial, which is why we believe in continuing with NATO. I know that some parties want to ditch it.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the calm and robust approach to our American allies from the Foreign Secretary, and from the Prime Minister this morning. State sovereignty, respect for territorial integrity and the right of self-determination have been the bedrock of global affairs since the end of world war two; indeed, it is why a Ukrainian victory against Russian aggression is so important for global stability. Can the Foreign Secretary set out how, in order to deter further Russian aggression, we are working with our Arctic partners—in Norway and Finland, for example—to further protect our own continent?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We are doubling the number of UK marines based in the north of Norway in the space of three years, we are jointly building frigates in order to strengthen our Arctic security, and we are working through NATO, through the coalition of the willing and with the US on security guarantees for Ukraine, because that is crucial to delivering a just and lasting peace.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The western world must remain united to keep us all safe from both Russia and China. Regrettably, we are far from united right now, and many of our constituents will be concerned about the risk to our country and critical infrastructure. At the same time as trying to reinvigorate our relationships with our NATO partners, should our worst-case planning assumption be that the USA may not be by our side if and when we need it in the future? If it was not clear before this week, surely it is clear now that spending on defence must rise immediately to at least 3% of GDP. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government are responsible for the biggest increase in defence spending for many years. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Conservative Government, the level of investment in defence did not reach 2.5% of GDP throughout their period in office and the defence infrastructure was hollowed out for too long. It is right that we invest in it for the future, but it is also right that we build our partnerships.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As the Foreign Secretary has alluded to, the 1951 agreement allows the US to construct and operate military bases across Greenland, house personnel, and control the movement of ships and aircraft. Will she do all she can to urge US counterparts to use that agreement to provide enhanced protection for NATO’s northern borders and to drop the outrageous threat of tariffs, which is causing very damaging uncertainty for our industry? If implemented, they would not only hit our industry but further fuel inflation for the US consumer.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The 1951 agreement has huge flexibility and provides for considerable joint working between the US, Denmark and Greenland on strengthening security in that part of the Arctic. I know that many countries will be keen to work with them on exactly that, which is why we think the talks that began last week between the Danish Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State and Vice-President were an important opportunity to explore the 1951 treaty.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Diplomacy relies on rational actors, yet even in the last fortnight we have seen Donald Trump declare that he is not bound by international law, only by his “own morality”. He has deployed paramilitary forces against his own people, and he speaks of cancelling elections. How apt! We have also seen the unilateral kidnapping of the President of an independent country. We are not dealing with a rational man; he responds only to shiny baubles, as we have seen with the incredible saga of the Nobel peace prize. I agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and ask the following question: will the Government consider removing the King’s visit to the United States and boycotting the world cup? The only thing to which Donald Trump responds is his own pride.

[Yvette Cooper]

We have long had deep interests and partnerships with the US that go back many years. The engagement the Prime Minister has led with the US Administration and the President has led to important results, including billions of pounds of tech investment in the UK and crucial security co-operation—for example, on Ukraine, with the development of security guarantees in support of the work of the coalition of the willing. However, this is an issue on which we strongly disagree, and the Prime Minister has made that absolutely clear. We will be very direct about the areas on which we disagree, and we will set those out. We will also work intensively with our allies to address them, because the sovereignty of Greenland is a vital principle that we will defend.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

President Trump’s threats to Greenland must be taken very seriously. Given Trump’s banditry in Venezuela, I fear the Prime Minister’s hopes of “calm discussion” may fall on deaf ears. Will the Government stand firm with our European allies and the people of Greenland in opposing rampant American territorial expansionism?

[Yvette Cooper]

We work closely with our European allies, which is exactly why I have had discussions with the Danish Foreign Minister today. I have also had discussions with the US Secretary of State today, and we will have further discussions. It is also why the Prime Minister has had discussions with European leaders and President Trump. However, I say to my hon. Friend that the role of the Government is to pursue the UK’s interests in a calm, robust and hard-headed way, which is about getting results and ensuring that we build the partnerships, including with the US and with Europe, that make all of us stronger together.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Trump and Putin both respect strength; neither of them respects international law. In the light of that, I welcome the work undertaken by the Prime Minister and leaders from Canada and Europe on the coalition of the willing. The Secretary of State has outlined what we are doing to strengthen our capabilities and those of our neighbours, but can she explain how the coalition of the willing will become the coalition of the capable to make us stronger?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for his support for the coalition of the willing. He will know that the UK and France set out a declaration of intent, and further work is under way on the security guarantees. I caution him against drawing an equivalence between the US and Russia, which I hope he did not mean to do, because it is obviously Russia that poses a significant threat to Ukraine and the whole of Europe, while the US is a long-standing and close ally in defending security in Europe.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the strong statement she has made. I have been disappointed to hear so much politicisation of a national security issue in this House, but can she confirm that, just as the future of Ukraine should be determined by the Ukrainians, the future of Greenland should be determined by Denmark and the Greenlanders?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right that there are principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, underpinned by the UN charter, but also by the rules underpinning so many of our alliances, including the NATO alliance. At the heart of this is the very simple principle that the future of Greenland is for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but in all sincerity can I ask her how, as per her statement, she intends to have

“serious and constructive dialogue…built on respect”

and rules with a man who wants to drop peace and go to war simply because he did not win a prize?

[Yvette Cooper]

In NATO, we have a long-standing alliance—a long-standing partnership—not just with the US, but with western Europe, and we continue to discuss with the US the issues affecting peace around the world. I would give the hon. Member the example of Sudan, which I do not think has had the level of international attention it needs. However, the US is putting in considerable efforts to seek a ceasefire in Sudan, and the UK is working not just with the US, but with other members of the Quad to support a desperately needed ceasefire.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Last week, I was delighted to lead a debate on the very topic of the High North and Arctic security, highlighting that, because of our geography, the UK should be considered a frontline nation in the ongoing war with Vladimir Putin and that we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as a frontline nation, we must urgently increase public awareness of the threat we face and the effect that will have on our constituents? Will she discuss with the Defence Secretary and our allies the possibility of urgently increasing the capability of the joint expeditionary force to defend both the UK and our High North allies? I know that would be welcomed by countries such as Estonia, which I visited at the start of the year.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Increasing our presence in the north of Norway—increasing the number of marines from 1,000 to 2,000 over three years—helps support the joint expeditionary force. It is also a crucial part of our co-operation across not just the Arctic, but the Baltic, and that work was welcomed in both Finland and Norway, where I was last week.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

President Trump has stated that he no longer feels an obligation to think “purely of Peace”. He has threatened a trade war with the UK and Europe, and he has refused to rule out military force against Greenland. This shows that President Trump and his Administration cannot be trusted. Will the Government therefore consider a review of the UK’s intelligence sharing with the US at this very dangerous and volatile time, and until Trump is no longer in power?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me be really clear with the hon. Member: our Five Eyes intelligence and security partnership is vital and keeps us safe. It keeps us safe every single day of the week and every single day of the year, and that is vital. It is particularly close with the United States, but it is also with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and our security depends on sustaining and continuing that Five Eyes partnership.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their clarity today on the future of Greenland. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that, while recent comments from the United States have generated understandable concern, the correct response is not panic or escalation, but calm diplomacy grounded in the clear, simple principle that Greenland’s future is a matter for the Greenlandic people? Does she also agree that the real strategic challenge in the High North remains Russia, with its militarisation and aggression, which NATO must continue to confront together as partners, not opponents, of the United States?

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. We need to be purposeful in our response. It is for all of us to recognise that the greatest threat to UK security, as well as to European security and North American security, does come from Russia. We have shared alliances, and the US is a close partner in strengthening our security against Russia.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I absolutely agree with the sanctity of territorial integrity and how fundamental it is to sovereignty. Indeed, those principles provide a powerful basis to challenge the US’s posturing. I do not at all dissent from the Foreign Secretary’s statement. However, I am intrigued as to how this Government are properly so exercised about America’s disrespect for the territorial integrity of Greenland, but so disinterested about the disrespect of the territorial integrity of our own country, whereby the European Union imposes its laws, as on a colony, in 300 areas of law on a part of the United Kingdom and insists on an international customs border to partition this United Kingdom. Now that the Government have got hold of the importance of territorial integrity, can we look forward to their reasserting it in respect of our own country?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman’s views, but the Windsor framework was about sustaining the Good Friday agreement, which was a shared agreement underpinned by principles and peace.

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her statement, as well as to the Government for their commitment to Arctic security and recognition of the threats that we face. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the partnership with Norway—that includes the £10 billion contract for Type 26 frigates secured by this Government and set to be delivered on the Clyde, including by some of my constituents—makes clear that, beyond the rhetoric we are hearing at present, the Government are absolutely committed to playing their part within NATO to uphold our collective global responsibilities?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the £10 billion contract. That will support thousands of jobs in his constituency and across the UK. It is driven not just by the strength of our defence industry, but crucially, by the strength of our joint co-operation with Norway and the shared operations we will be able to take forward in future.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and her commitment to Greenland, which is not for sale. President Trump’s threat of tariffs is an alarming escalation and strange behaviour from someone who the Foreign Secretary describes as a close ally. France and Germany have suggested imposing retaliatory tariffs, but our Prime Minister has dismissed this. He says that he does not want to start a trade war with the US. Could the Foreign Secretary tell the House which side the UK will be on, if our European friends and neighbours decide to pursue this retaliatory course of action?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have always been clear that a trade war between any nation—certainly between the US and European countries—is deeply damaging and not in anyone’s interest. That is why our first priority right now should be to stop this happening and stop the tariffs, and to build a shared sense of security.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should send a message of reassurance to our children and young people, who will undoubtedly be feeling concerned and scared about the developments in the Arctic and Greenland, and more broadly regarding our international system? Does she agree that they know instinctively that international co-operation, standing up for our allies, international friendship and defending a rules-based system is the right way for our world? Does she agree that they should take some reassurance from the fact that our Government, this House and our allies agree with them?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s framing of this around the interests of our young people and the values of shared co-operation. It is co-operation with allies that makes us stronger.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I commend the Government for standing firm with our European allies in supporting the principle that the future of Greenland is a matter for her people and her people alone. I know that the Government will make every diplomatic effort to avoid the imposition of these punitive tariffs, but if they were to be imposed upon us, will it be the policy of the Government to pursue a co-ordinated approach with our European allies in any countermeasures that may prove necessary?

[Yvette Cooper]

At all stages, we have discussions and co-ordination with our allies, but the Prime Minister made it clear this morning that our focus has to be on preventing a trade war and additional tariffs being introduced, and on building a constructive approach to our shared security.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

How many times do my Lib Dem colleagues and I need to come to the House and tell the Government that Trump cannot be trusted? His behaviour is that of a spoilt child, bullying his allies while looking to swell the coffers of those closest to him. By working with our European partners in NATO, we must persuade Trump that his aggressive approach to Greenland and the threats of tariffs is not acceptable behaviour from our closest ally. I ask the Foreign Secretary to try to persuade the Prime Minister that we need to stand up to this bully in the White House before he causes untold damage to the UK and to Europe.

[Yvette Cooper]

The job of Government is to pursue the UK national interest and build alliances to work with our allies both in the US and in Europe to promote the UK’s prosperity, our security and our values. We do that in a serious, hard-headed way, and not in the way that, unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats have taken.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

To say the very least, Donald Trump’s actions in Greenland and the related sanctions on the UK are not befitting of a trustworthy ally. Does the Foreign Secretary now accept that President Trump does not respond to weakness, and that, as Canada has shown, we must stand firm against this bullying behaviour and, as the Liberal Democrats have argued for months, work more closely with our EU allies?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I would say that our strength, security and prosperity depend on things such as the NATO alliance, in which we work closely with our North American allies—the US and Canada—and our European allies. That strong relationship, and the fact that the UK works so strongly at the heart of that relationship, as opposed to rejecting one side or another, is what makes us stronger.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

President Trump questioned the Danish right of ownership of Greenland, saying:

“There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago”.

Although Trump may today be challenging Greenland, on that basis, what assurance can the Foreign Secretary give that our overseas territories and those of our other allies would not come under a similar challenge from President Trump?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been very clear that the principle of sovereignty—of territorial integrity—is fundamental. That is why the Prime Minister has made clear our strong disagreement with President Trump on this issue, the importance of issues such as Arctic security being collective, and that threats are no way to treat allies.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister insists that a trade war is in no one’s interest, yet we know that the US has declared sanctions on our economy, in spite of the so-called special relationship. If these sanctions come to pass, can the Secretary of State say what concrete measures will be put in place to protect UK businesses from their detrimental effects?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Prime Minister has already discussed this issue with President Trump and made clear our position, and we are working through diplomacy and continued different avenues to stress the importance of respecting sovereignty, collective security, and the fact that tariffs benefit no one and are completely wrong in this situation.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The Secretary of State has rightly outlined the importance of co-operation with our allies over this serious issue, but as we have seen, there is not a consistent approach on retaliatory tariffs. Can she describe to the House the discussions that the UK Government had with our European allies before ruling out retaliatory tariffs?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK is continuing to hold discussions with European allies, exactly as I have been doing today with the Danish Foreign Minister, and as the Prime Minister has been doing throughout the weekend. He also made clear our strong view to President Trump and the US that we need to prevent these tariffs in the first place, and that we need to take action together to make sure that that happens.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Exactly two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary told me that I was quite wrong to describe Donald Trump as a threat to liberal democracy. Since then, we have seen the horrifying shooting of Renee Good, trumped-up charges against the chair of the Federal Reserve, and direct threats to Denmark and this country. I understand that the Foreign Secretary cannot publicly agree with me, but if the Government are serious, why are we not seriously re-arming, especially when that will help our economy anyway? Is the Foreign Secretary worried that the hour is getting too late to act?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think the question the hon. Member raises is about the increase in defence spending, which is exactly what we are doing. We are investing—we are introducing the most substantial increase in defence spending for many years. Defence infrastructure was hollowed out under previous Governments, and that is exactly why we are increasing investment now.

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

A week or so ago I asked the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box: where was the red line? What was the Rubicon that would have to be crossed to lead the UK to hang together with our values-based allies in opposition to the imperialist ambitions of Donald Trump? I have to confess that I felt a brief moment of pride yesterday when I thought that Rubicon had been reached, but I have been filled with increasing fear today. I fear that we might again allow ourselves to be picked off, that we might allow ourselves again to prostrate ourselves in front of the President as we beg not to be treaded upon. So, I ask the Foreign Secretary again: what is the Rubicon that would have to be crossed? This is not just an academic question. We are, through our overseas territories in the Caribbean and in the south Atlantic, a western hemispheric nation. Is the red line the Falkland Islands?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just say to the hon. Member that what we have seen from our Prime Minister is a serious level of international leadership that is immensely important: a robust and hard-headed approach to the UK’s national interests that is the way we achieve results and have achieved results in a series of different areas. He set out this morning the principles that guide us, including the strong defence of the principle of sovereignty, and that the future of Greenland is for the Greenlanders and for the Danes to decide.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary has talked a lot about military co-operation today, less so about economic security co-operation. She will remember that the Prime Minister abolished the National Security Council sub-committee on economic security. I was pleased that the Minister with responsibility for economic security was here for a time, but he is not part of the National Security Council. How are these economic security questions and co-ordination with partners being handled and managed in Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as the Foreign Secretary, I take economic security issues immensely seriously. It is why we are strengthening the work around critical minerals and the economic security that comes from international supply chains. He will know that there are issues around critical national infrastructure that also underpin our economic security. This is taken immensely seriously right across the Government, including on the National Security Council.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience in getting us all in; it is much appreciated. I also thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I agree that the sovereignty of Greenland is a matter for her own people, but I understand the dangers present, with the Russian threat and aggression. Rather than simply making statements of support for Greenland’s sovereignty, will the Foreign Secretary outline how we in this country, as close allies of the USA and as a nation that relies on the security of that area, will liaise with the USA and Greenland on enhancements of security and greater strategic facilitation, recognising that diplomacy is more than words but action, and actively seek solutions we can achieve?

[Yvette Cooper]

This is an important question to finish on, because the UK is proposing an new Arctic sentry as part of NATO. We already have a Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry that pull together operations and co-ordination in a strategic way to look at the defence of those regions and how all NATO allies can pull together to support that. We believe the same is now needed for the Arctic. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to threaten the whole of the transatlantic alliance. That is why we believe an Arctic sentry would be in everyone’s interests.

Iran

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the disturbing developments unfolding in Iran. Horrific reports suggest that potentially thousands of people have been killed and many more arrested in the most brutal and bloody repression against public protest in Iran for at least 13 years.

On 28 December, protests began on the streets of Iran following a plunge in the value of the country’s currency. Over the following week, the protests grew in scale, intensity and geographic spread. Crowds surged on to the streets, from major cities to rural towns, with voices ranging from shopkeepers to university students protesting for change. Instead, they have been met with the most bloody repression.

A total internet shutdown instigated by the Iranian regime from 8 January, together with restrictions on phone communications, mean that the full facts are not yet clear, but I am fearful that the reports that we have seen may underestimate the full scale of the horror, as further evidence and testimony reaches the outside world. Videos are still emerging, including of what appear to be protester corpses lined up in body bags outside a hospital on the outskirts of Tehran.

The Iranian regime has called for a three-day period of national mourning, but only for its security forces. There has been no acknowledgment of dead protesters; instead, the regime peddles its manufactured narrative of foreign manipulation and seeks to portray peaceful protesters as criminals and terrorists while pursuing a brutal and relentless crackdown on its own people. It takes huge bravery to protest and to speak out in the face of such oppression, especially for women who continue to endure severe repression in their daily lives. The United Kingdom therefore condemns in the strongest of terms the horrendous and brutal killing of Iranian protesters and we demand that the Iranian authorities respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens.

On Friday, the Prime Minister joined with the German Chancellor and French President in condemnation of the violence and to call for its end. I also delivered that message directly to Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi yesterday, setting out the UK’s total abhorrence at the killings, violence and repression that we are seeing and urging Iran to immediately end the violence and change course. Today, as further reports come through, the Minister for the Middle East, at my instruction, has summoned the Iranian ambassador to underline the gravity of this moment and to call Iran to answer for the horrific reports that we are hearing.

This latest conduct by the Iranian regime is no aberration and it is no outlier; rather, it is all too in keeping with the fundamental nature and track record of the regime. It is consistent with its previous conduct towards its own people, as we saw during the lethal repression of protesters led by Iranian women following the death in custody of Mahsa Amini at the hands of Iran’s so-called morality police. It is consistent with Iran’s destabilising actions towards its neighbours in the region, as we have seen in its backing of terrorist and extremist proxies— Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis—and of militia groups in Iraq and Syria, and from Iran’s barrage of missile attacks on Israel. It is consistent with Iran’s malign global impact, whether in weapons support for Russia against Ukraine or its nuclear programme. It is consistent too with Iran’s state threat activities on UK soil, posing danger to dissidents, journalists and the Jewish community here in the UK, with more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots over the last year alone, as tracked through the vital work of the UK’s security agencies.

Let me set out the action that the Government are taking in co-ordination with allies in response to the consistent threat that the Iranian regime poses to stability, security and freedom and to the UK national interest. First, on domestic security threats, we will not tolerate any Iran-backed threats on UK soil. In May, three Iranian nationals were charged with offences linked to the Iranian regime under the National Security Act 2023. I thank the police, security and intelligence services for their tireless work to keep us safe. Last year, we placed Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to detect, deter and disrupt malign and undeclared efforts to undermine our democracy, we sanctioned the criminal Foxtrot network for the violent threats it posed against Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe on behalf of the Iranian regime, and we have geared up the UK’s security infrastructure to better tackle hybrid threats. As Home Secretary, I commissioned the review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, into what more needed to be done so that we could apply counter-terrorism-style powers, including on proscription, to state-backed threats as well. We announced last year that the Government will take forward the recommendations so we can deal with all the UK-based threats that we face.

Secondly, on support for British citizens, the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of our citizens, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working tirelessly to ensure the safety of British nationals in Iran. I spoke yesterday with the UK’s ambassador in Tehran about the vital work that he and the team are doing on the ground, and my Department is in contact with the relevant Iranian authorities regarding detained British nationals. Their welfare in Iran remains a priority. We are, of course, deeply concerned that Craig and Lindsay Foreman have been charged with espionage in Iran. Just yesterday, the Minister for the Middle East met members of the Foreman family, and we continue to raise the case directly with the Iranian authorities.

Thirdly, there is the co-ordinated economic and diplomatic pressure on the regime. This Government and our predecessors have continually raised human rights violations in Iran through the UN and international forums, including, most recently, in the autumn, resolutions calling for an end to the regime’s reprisals against women, journalists and human rights campaigners. In October, alongside our E3 partners, France and Germany, the UK triggered the snapback process, which saw the reinstatement of six previously terminated UN sanctions resolutions on Iran. We did so because of the repeated failure by the Iranian regime to comply with its nuclear commitments. On 1 October, we updated domestic legislation to reapply extensive sanctions measures contained in the resolutions, going further by designating 71 individuals and entities in sectors that have links to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Overall, this Government have imposed over 220 Iran sanctions designations since coming into office, and we back strong sanctions enforcement. Just last week, the UK provided support to the US’s seizure of Bella 1, accused of shadow fleet activities and Iran sanctions breaches. When the sanctions were reinstated in October, I also urged those in the Iranian regime, even then, to change their approach and to work with the international community to comply with their obligations. I told them then that it would take time to fully implement the UK sanctions and that, during that window, they should start compliance and engagement with the international community and end the deception and obfuscation. They have not done so. Weapons inspectors still have not been given access and, far from changing their approach, we have instead seen a reversion to the most brutal forms of repression on their own streets.

As a result, I can confirm that the UK will bring forward legislation to implement full and further sanctions and sectoral measures. The UK has already designated key players in Iran’s oil, energy, nuclear and financial systems, and further measures will target finance, energy, transport, software and other significant industries that are advancing Iranian nuclear escalation. We will work further with the EU and other partners to explore what additional measures might now be needed in response to developments.

I also send a message to other countries that have sought to avoid implementing UN sanctions or to undermine the legitimacy of the UN sanctions reinstated following the snapback process. No one should be supporting the kind of approach that the Iranian regime is currently taking, and all member states should be fulfilling their UN obligations on such a grave and serious issue.

Let me say something else about the events of recent days. Just as in 2022, it is absolutely clear that the Iranian regime is trying to paint the protests as the result of foreign influence and instigation. It is using that accusation to try and whip up opposition to the protests among anti-western Iranians, and to try to justify the vicious and sickening attacks on the ordinary civilians marching in the streets. This is nothing but lies and propaganda being spread by a desperate regime and it must not be allowed to undermine a genuine grassroots movement drawing together people from all parts of Iranian society and spreading across multiple cities and regions.

That is why we and other Governments across the world are determined not to play into the hands of the regime or to allow our words or actions to be twisted to support its lies and propaganda. With a functioning embassy on the ground in Tehran and British nationals being held in Iranian jails, we recognise that responsibility, as previous Governments have always done. In the last 18 months, we have taken stronger action to tackle Iranian threats at home and abroad than any recent Government, and we have done so with broad cross-party support. That must continue. The world is watching Iran. The UK will continue to confront the regime’s lies, to call out its repression and to take the steps necessary to protect the UK’s interests. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me sight of her statement earlier. Every day for the last two weeks across Iran, we have seen brave and courageous men, women and children standing in defiance of a cruel, barbaric and despotic regime that has suppressed lives and freedom for over five decades. People are being arrested, attacked and murdered in the streets. It has been reported that over 2,000 people have now been killed, with one report even suggesting that the real figure is over 12,000, and over 10,000 have been arrested, according to Human Rights Activists in Iran.

Towns have been flooded with soldiers to suppress protests, and hospitals are overwhelmed with the injured and murdered. Thousands upon thousands of Iran’s young, including the 23-year-old fashion student Rubina Aminian, have been shot, killed and buried by the side of roads as they called for a free Iran. We have seen reports of executions due to take place for those arrested just days earlier. As we mourn the victims of Tehran’s atrocities, we cannot let their dreams be buried. These were ordinary Iranians doing extraordinary things, fighting for their freedom. We stand with those brave Iranians. We back their calls for freedom, and we join in demands for the regime to end.

This is a regime whose cruelty goes beyond the brutality we have seen in recent days. The theocratic terrorists in Iran have for too long threatened regional security, with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis backed by Iran. They have backed Putin’s war in Ukraine and China’s campaign of repression. They have ignored demands to stop their nuclear weapons programme as they circumvent sanctions. They are holding British nationals Craig and Lindsay Foreman in cruel captivity. Iran is a hostile state. It is a threat to our country, to the middle east and to the world, and Britain must have the resolve to deal with it.

I ask the Foreign Secretary: where is the Government’s resolve to stand up to Iran, to back those protesting and to work to bring about the end of the regime’s cruelty? As Iranian citizens are sacrificing their lives in the fight for their own liberation, what message of hope and reassurance does she give to those risking their lives on the streets of Iran each day? What is being done to challenge the Iranian regime over its violence? What is her assessment of the numbers killed and injured? It is right that the Iranian ambassador has finally been summoned, but why has this happened only today? The Foreign Secretary says she has spoken on the phone to her counterpart. What was his response? Did she raise the Foreman case with him? What was his response?

The Iranian regime now claims to have the protest under “total control”. What assessment have the Government made of this claim? Britain and this House should stand with those campaigning for a free and democratic future, and if change comes, we should be ready to support this change. Given the statements from President Trump, what discussions have taken place with the US Administration over their plans, and are we aligned with the US and our regional partners? Are all scenarios being considered and planned for, including the potential use of UK/US military bases to stop the brutality of the Iranian regime? If the regime is being weakened, what assessment has been made of the risk of Iran retaliating and escalating plots to undermine our security here?

Last year, the US and Israel took direct action to protect western and regional interests from Iran’s nuclear threats. The Government refused to give a view on those actions at the time. They sat on the fence in a feeble attempt not to upset their Back-Bench MPs. As people die fighting for their rights and for democracy, this is no time for weakness. Britain should be robust in cutting off the Iranian regime and removing the funds it relies on. I know that the Foreign Secretary has touched on some of this, but will she state what further direct sanctions will be placed specifically on the regime and particularly on its key henchmen? Will she confirm that no one from that regime will ever step foot in our country and threaten the security of Britain, should they try to flee Iran? Why has it taken so long to implement the reintroduction of sanctions under snapback?

On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in opposition Labour said that it would proscribe the IRGC, but it has not done so in government. It is incumbent upon the Government to share with the House their reasons for not doing so. The Foreign Secretary referred to the report from Jonathan Hall, which she says they will take forward, but that was eight months ago, so when is this coming and why was Downing Street briefing yesterday that proscription would not happen? Will the IRGC be proscribed?

The Opposition will work with the Government in the national interest, and in the interests of global security and stability, to pass legislation and other measures needed to keep us safe from Iran and put maximum pressure on its despotic regime. I have a suggestion for the Foreign Secretary. Instead of legislating for the £35 billion surrender of Chagos, will she use the time we have in this House to deal with the IRGC and the Iranian regime, in order to keep us safe? Will she use that £35 billion to bolster our defences, because at this critical moment Britain must do all we can to stand with Iranians fighting for their freedom, and to protect them and us from Tehran’s threat.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Like Members across the House, I feel humbled by the courage shown by so many Iranians to stand up to the tyrants in Tehran. That bravery was also shown after the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022 at the hands of the religious morality police—a crime showed the regime’s particular violence towards women.

It is abundantly clear that the regime in Tehran is utterly illegitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people, and it is deeply shocking to learn that thousands of protesters have now been killed by regime forces and that further executions have already been scheduled. At this critical moment, we must take all the action available to us to support these brave protesters. We must also ensure that those in the UK who campaign for freedom and democracy in Iran, and members of the British Jewish community, are safe here. I welcome the new sanctions that the Government have committed to today. In the light of the grotesque efforts to brutalise these protesters, will the Government now personally sanction Iran’s senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Khamenei? I hear the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to new legislation. When it is in place, will she commit to proscribing the IRGC—an organisation committed to suppressing dissent at home and exporting intimidation to our shores?

Iran’s decision makers must be held to account for their attacks on peaceful protesters, and the UK must take a lead to ensure that justice is delivered, so will the Secretary of State call on the UN Security Council to open an International Criminal Court investigation into crimes against humanity committed by the Iranian Government against their people? Will this Government also commit to using the UK’s satellite capabilities to record evidence of human rights abuses, which could be used to support such an ICC investigation?

The Foreign Secretary is right to avoid giving the regime any excuse falsely to claim foreign influence. Yet we know that Donald Trump has proposed direct US military intervention. Does the Government consider that that would be merited politically and legally, and would it reduce or increase the risk to the brave protesters? As evidence of the violence being perpetrated by the regime continues to reach international media, the safety of British nationals in Iran must remain a priority, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that plans are in place to support British citizens in Iran, and I thank our ambassador and his staff for all their work.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s support for the ambassador and his staff, who obviously work in very difficult conditions, but I also particularly welcome his support for the bravery of those who have protested and who have now, we fear, lost their lives as a result of their courage in the face of such a brutal regime.

The hon. Member asks about the process for the future. We will take forward the legislation around sanctions, and I have set out measures in the statement that we will take forward, but we will also look further in conjunction with the EU at what further measures we can take. He will understand that there are processes we need to go through around sanctions, and that the proscription process is always one for the Home Office, but I strongly want to ensure that we have legislation in place that ensures we can deal different kinds of threats. We now no longer face only terrorism threats; very often, we also face hybrid threats and state-backed threats on UK soil. We are looking further at the satellite issues, as I have said. We will continue to work closely with countries across the world, and we urge the international community to come together in condemnation and action.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

People in Hornsey and Friern Barnet have written to me in absolute desperation. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with partners to co-ordinate efforts to promote human rights even in these desperate times, including the treatment of prisoners, many of whom have been detained so brutally since last month?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been having many discussions with our partners. On Friday, the Prime Minister put out a statement in conjunction with France and Germany, as part of the E3, because it was as part of the E3 that we took the action in the autumn on the snapback and on the introduction of new sanctions on Iran. In the autumn, we also pursued action through the UN and resolutions around human rights, particularly condemning the repression of women and journalists. We will continue to do that; this is the top issue that we are discussing with our international partners at the moment.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The technical issues around proscription are well understood, as they were understood by the last Government. But eight months ago, Jonathan Hall KC offered a remedy to get around them: his statutory alert and liability threat notice vehicle. When will the Government bring that forward because it is now urgent? Does the Foreign Secretary envisage it being used for the IRGC overall or simply its constituent entities that are particularly problematic, such as the Basij militia and the Quds Force?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member will understand that I cannot pre-empt the proper proscription processes that take place, or the use of future legislation in decisions that need to be taken by the Home Office and the Home Secretary, but I hope that I have conveyed to him that this is something I feel very strongly about. We need this legislation in place because of the nature of the complex and hybrid threats we face.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. It is good for us as a united House to send the strongest condemnation of what we are seeing—the little we are seeing; we know there is a lot more. She mentioned support for British nationals. Many of my constituents have contacted me, including one who said,

“In our household my partner is Iranian… I have seen the fear in her and her family, which I really understand given their experience… she fears for her family back home and—as a family here in Lambeth—it will mean the world if things change for the better…My son could then visit the country of his mother’s birth without fear of abduction.”

They equally want the mass shootings against the protesters to stop. The Foreign Secretary outlined additional sanctions. Will she ensure that those sanctions hit the Iranian authorities responsible for this brutal violence instead of the innocent protesters who are trying to get their points across?

[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.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

Iran is a remarkable country with a rich history and culture. Its people have been living under tyranny for decades. They are now fighting to rid themselves of their chains. Britain is a friend to the Iranian people. Our aim should be to stop the regime massacring its citizens and to set the people of Iran free for a democratic future. These are messages that the people of Iran would welcome. The Republic has declared war on its people. They are being murdered in the dark, and we must be a force for light. Given the internet blackout, what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that the people of Iran can hear her message, and this country’s message, of friendship and support? Some Iranians are talking about the return of Reza Pahlavi. What conversations have the Government had with him?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend’s point about the need to restore communications is crucial. It is crucial that we are able to find out the sheer horror of what is happening, and it is crucial for the people of Iran to be able to communicate with each other and to be able to speak out to ensure that their voices are heard. Obviously, the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, but at the moment the regime is not allowing the Iranian people’s voices to be heard. We need to see an Iran that does not repress the rights of women, kill peaceful protesters, aid Russia’s aggression or support lethal threats on the streets of Britain.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement to the House. She is surely right that there are things that we can do to help the desperately brave people on the streets who want their country back. Should we not make it clear that the UK and all Europeans will impose every possible further sanction and restriction on this neanderthal pariah regime? Should we not help to break the communications blackout through Starlink, satellite and other technology, and ensure that details of the regime-led barbarity on the streets is widely known? Finally, as her colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), said a moment ago, we should stop ignoring Reza Pahlavi. His is a name that is being chanted on the street. He is not seeking a restoration of the Peacock throne; he wants to help to usher in a new era. Will she and her colleagues at least meet with him?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member is right to condemn the horror and brutality that we have seen. We are talking to other countries about what can be done through access to Starlink, for example, to restore some form of communications. We are also talking to our allies about what further sanctions, additional pressure and other measures can be applied. Clearly, for the reasons that I set out in the statement, the future of Iran is for the Iranian people to decide, but let us be clear: we need to see fundamental change and an Iran that does not repress its people so brutally but believes in the opportunities of its people for the future. That is not what we are seeing now.

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

The hope on seeing the Iranian people fighting back for their freedom has turned to horror as we see the images of the body bags piled up. Over the weekend, anxious constituents have contacted me because they are unable to contact their friends and family after the regime’s imposed internet blackout. The regime is using that as a weapon to enforce silence so that the world cannot bear witness to the horror and slaughter of its own innocent citizens. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the British Government are putting the strongest possible pressure on Iran’s regime for its appalling human rights violations and the oppression of the Iranian people, and reaffirm Britain’s steadfast support for the Iranian people in their fight for democracy?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can confirm that we are continuing to raise our total condemnation of what is happening through every possible avenue—directly with the Iranian regime, but also through the different international forums—as the horrors that emerge with each day become more deeply disturbing and troubling. That is why it is so important for the international community to come together and speak with one voice.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Iran is a remarkable country and its people are remarkable, but I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the actions of the Iranian regime are no aberration. She was absolutely right to say that. Will she consider proscription of the IRGC? As others have said, we proscribed Wagner. That was the right thing to do. Will she bring us more information about the targeting of the shadow fleet, which is crucial? Finally, will she look longer-term at support for civil society, which will be crucial in any rebuilding efforts?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Foreign Secretary responds, I remind Members that we have six hours of protected business on the Finance (No. 2) Bill, so this has to move much faster—we need shorter questions. This statement will finish in about 40 minutes.

[Yvette Cooper]

I set out in another response the importance of changing the legislation around proscription. We are working on further measures on the shadow fleet. The hon. Member will have seen the action that we have taken to support the US interdiction on the shadow fleet. He made a really important point about support for civil society. That is where the strength of the Iranian people lies.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The scenes we have seen in Iran are heartbreaking, terrifying and, I fear, just a fraction of what is happening, given the media blackout. The Foreign Secretary says that the world must come together, and she is right. I understand her point that proscription in this country is a matter for the Home Secretary, but given the measures that are being talked about in the European Parliament, which has banned representatives of the Iranian Government from attending, can she confirm that she is talking to our European counterparts about co-ordinating proscription measures?

[Yvette Cooper]

I assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly continuing to talk with our close allies, including in Europe, on the action that is needed. We have sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC and placed not just the IRGC, but the whole of the Iranian state, on the enhanced tier of FIRS. That also gives us the ability to put in place all sorts of other restrictions and ensure that there is pressure in place.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Can the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that freedom and justice—rather than the pursuit of oil and gas, however important that might be—will remain at the heart of British foreign policy? I stand with her in standing up for those who are courageously and bravely standing up for freedom in Iran. Of course, freedom is not a western construct; it is a universal right. It does not emanate out of London or Washington; it emanates out of the hearts of men and women across this planet. I ask the Foreign Secretary to draw on the lessons of history going back to the 1950s and Operation Ajax—the Shah and his family have been referenced here today. It is important that, were we have seen regime change and changes of leadership in the middle east, whether in Libya, Iraq or Syria, we learn the lessons of mistakes we have made as a country, even though we stand by those in Iran today.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member is right: there are many lessons to learn from history. He is also right to highlight the core values of human rights, freedom, justice and, frankly, basic humanity—people are being killed in the most brutal circumstances.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It is telling that, in the past few weeks, we have heard absolutely nothing from Your Party, the Greens, the Socialist Campaign Group or the “stop some wars” coalition. Where have been the marches in solidarity with the Iranian people? You cannot claim to be a progressive and to care about social justice if you do not want to see the total and immediate fall of this despotic, theocratic regime. Will the Foreign Secretary listen to the advice of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who I think the whole House would agree is a fantastic advocate for the Iranian people, by talking with other partners and—I hope—with Iranian activists here in the UK, about what we can do, if the regime falls, to support the Iranian people immediately to build a better future, as we are trying to do in Syria?

[Yvette Cooper]

We want to see a better future for Iran and the Iranian people. We must be clear: it is the Iranian people who are expressing that urgent desire for a better future. The future of Iran must be in their hands. We will continue to work with international allies in support of action against the brutality we have seen. That is exactly why we are considering further sanctions measures.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

When the US President tells the Iranian protesters that

“help is on its way”,

as he has just done, does that include British help? Will the Government rule out the UK taking part in any planned US military intervention without multilateral authorisation?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Lady will know, I cannot set out the US foreign policy approach—that is for the Americans to do. What I can do is set out the action that we are taking, the further sanctions that we will implement, and the work that we are doing, with international allies, to sustain and increase economic and diplomatic pressure in the light of the regime’s brutality.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I place on the record my thanks to our diplomatic staff working around the world to support people during this difficult time. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having with our G7 and European allies about what more we can do to use new technology to record, capture and document the horrific abuses of human rights that are happening, so that when the right moment arises, we can show our leadership by holding the current leadership of Iran to account for them?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are already talking to our allies about how communications could be restored. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s question about technology is looked into.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I very much associate myself with many of the things that the Foreign Secretary has said, but may I ask her to move beyond people’s hope for regime change? A recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to the Gulf highlighted how worried Gulf countries are about instability, and that it may not be one Government that runs Iran. What meetings and conversations are taking place for the security of the whole region, including the states that will feel under threat in the event that the regime falls?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member is right to raise the broader instability across the region, which has been fuelled by the Iranian regime’s actions, including some of the extremist proxies that it has supported. He is also right to say that the instability in any country in the middle east has implications for the Gulf, causing much wider security ramifications and instability. We are alert to all those issues, and are discussing them with allies.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

After the false dawns of the Arab spring and the “zan, zendegi, azadi” movement, I ask my right hon. Friend to stand firmly with the Iranian diaspora here—many of whom came after the ’79 revolution—against this brutal, repressive and tyrannical regime, particularly those who are critical of it from here? The TV station Iran International—which is all the more needed at a time like this—had to move from its Chiswick headquarters because of kidnapping and threats to its journalists. It is at a fortress-like undisclosed location now that there is a communications blackout.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the strong action that my hon. Friend the Security Minister has taken on transnational repression, including from Iran. People who live in the UK need to feel safe on our streets and safe to debate and communicate, and they should not feel that they are in any way under threat from an overseas regime.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

We sometimes talk about political courage in this country, but that pales in comparison with the courage shown by young people in Iran, such as 26-year-old Erfan Soltani, who reports suggests is to be hanged today, alongside other protesters. I know that these situations are complex and carry political risk, but given the risk that those young people are facing, will the Foreign Secretary commit to showing whatever political courage she can to help them in all sorts of different ways if opportunities arise in the coming days?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the incredibly disturbing reports of potential executions. We are urgently calling for the violence to end, including the reported executions and brutality. It is essential that this violence ends. The whole world is watching those horrific scenes.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Given the mass protests, blackouts, social media censorship and the estimated death toll of 2,000 civilian in Iran, will my right hon. Friend set out what co-ordinated diplomatic response she is pursuing with the US and middle east allies, and what contingency plans there are should a dangerous power vacuum develop?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue: the risk of instability and what happens more broadly. We want to see stability across the region, and safety not just for the Iranian people but for people across neighbouring states—the safety, basic freedoms and humanity that everyone should have a right to enjoy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not think that Members quite understood what I said earlier. Questions must be short.

[Yvette Cooper]

It is clear that some of the greatest bravery and courage has been shown by women in Iran, who face additional repression in their daily lives. I pay tribute to them for their bravery.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and condemnations. Some Exeter residents are desperately worried about family members in Iran, as will I. The Iranian regime is one of the chief exporters of violence and instability in the region. Of course, as the Foreign Secretary set out, we are not immune to that here. Money and effort are expended online in particular in order to undermine our democracy. What are the Government doing to combat the regime’s malign activities in this country, including through the work of the new joint state threats unit?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that. The hybrid threats that we have seen include Iranian state-backed activity such as proxies, interaction with criminal gangs and activity, and behaviour that can resemble terrorist threats. That hybrid nature is why we have been increasing co-ordination to deal with joint state threats and why the Security Minister has been driving forward action in this area.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

We can all see the brutality of the Iranian regime, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is not just who we are against but who we are for? If we look at the signatories to the Abraham accords—Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in particular—we see that they point to an alternative path for peace and stability in the region, so does she agree that we should be standing four-square behind them? While I am at it, does she agree with the excellent point from the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor)? Does she think that those hundreds of thousands of protesters who came out in support of the Palestinian cause might come out in support of Iranian dissidents? I will not be holding my breath.

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope we can see strong support for the people of Iran and for peace and stability across the region. It was significant that we saw so many countries come together around the peace process in Gaza, and we saw an international consensus build around that. It is still fragile, and there is much work still to do. Nevertheless, there has been an international consensus around that. We are stronger when countries work together, including in standing firm against brutality and repression.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary will know that Hampstead and Highgate has a sizeable Iranian community, and they are very worried about their friends and family in Iran. One of the questions my constituents have asked is this: what is the FCDO’s thinking in terms of an official registration service for dual nationals currently stuck in Iran? I know that the internet blackout makes this very challenging, but I would still like to know the Foreign Secretary’s thinking, in case the situation escalates and those people want to come back to Britain.

[Yvette Cooper]

The point my hon. Friend makes is one of the reasons why I highlighted in my statement that the work of our embassy is so important because it is also about the safety of British nationals, and that includes the safety of dual nationals. This is something that we take immensely seriously. It is why we support the continuing work of our embassy, and I pay tribute to the work that our embassy staff are doing to consider all these issues.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

We join the Foreign Secretary in her support for the brave Iranian protesters standing up against this brutal regime. Will she confirm that if the United States does take targeted military action, she will join us in supporting it in that action?

[Yvette Cooper]

Obviously, it is for the US to set out its approach. I have set out the approach that we are taking here. I welcome the hon. Member’s condemnation of the brutality that we are seeing not just in Tehran but across Iran. I would just say that her party’s comments on this would have more credibility if its Members spoke with the same strength of feeling about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, especially given the close and disturbing links between Iran and Russia, which are one of the most troubling aspects of the Iranian regime. That is why we should stand firm on all these issues, and I am disappointed that she will not.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Reform Members should note that the Iranian regime, which they have decided to be against, very much supports their Russian friends with the Shahed drone.

I welcome the news that we are working with allies to discuss using Starlink to overcome some of the communication barriers. The British-Iranian community are trying to donate to people back in Iran, but they cannot do so because of sanctions. Can you assure me and the House that you are looking at the specific issue of how the British-Iranian community can donate back to Iran?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Thomas, you used the word “you” twice. I am not here to respond to your questions.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will understand the importance of having an effective sanctions regime. I am happy to talk to him further about the point he raises, but as he will understand, the most immediate issue is how to support the re-establishment of communications and end the brutality that is taking place.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the Iranian regime employing foreign militias from countries such as Iraq and Lebanon to crush internal dissent? If that is happening, what is the international community doing to limit this activity?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a wider issue of the impact of Iranian regime activity across the region, including supporting terrorist and extremist proxies and other organisations. We are particularly sensitive to that, and it is part of what makes this a broader issue about how we properly get peace and stability in the region. That will continue to be a central part of the discussions.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

When I was in Balerno on Saturday, a constituent politely reminded me that I had a moral obligation to be optimistic—not always easy when you are Scottish, I am afraid. But I do hope that what has happened in Iran will bring the international community together to take action and bring this horrible regime to an end. I hope the Secretary of State will commit to that. These murders are fuelled by oil exports, which were worth $78 billion in 2024. To what extent can we reduce that in the coming years? We have heard about tankers being apprehended, but is there more we can do? Surely that is not just an event.

[Yvette Cooper]

As we have seen with the case of the Bella, which was interdicted by US forces with the support of the UK, there is often a nefarious link, including through the shadow fleet, with the Iranian regime, Russia and more widely. We are continuing to increase pressure on the shadow fleet and the broader threats posed.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The horrendous loss of life in Iran this week has to be mourned, as does the horrendous loss of life of Palestinians in Gaza over the past two years. The British intervened in Iran in 1952 and brought about regime change. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that external regime change attempts in Iran are very unlikely to work and will actually create a much worse situation? Will she give us an undertaking that Britain will not be involved militarily with either Israel or the USA if they try military activity in Iran now?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me say again that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people. We should also be clear that it is not currently—there is not currently any opportunity for the Iranian people to have their voices heard, because when they have sought to do so, we have seen this incredibly horrifying, brutal repression. That is why we are urging an immediate end to the violence and fundamental change in Iran.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the people who have taken to the streets of Iran, particularly in the face of industrial-scale violence and repression from this regime, as the Foreign Secretary stated. However, given the malign influence of Iran in the region, which she has acknowledged, and the risk it poses to British citizens, particularly those of Jewish extraction and from the Iranian diaspora, may I urge the Government to move at greater pace on the issue of proscription of the IRGC?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that we take immensely seriously the state-backed threats here in the UK, including the Iranian-backed threats against Jewish communities in the UK and its own nationals in the UK as part of the transnational repression. That is why, as well as sanctioning the IRGC and putting it on the enhanced tier of FIRS, we have substantially increased the training for police forces across the country on state-backed threats. This is something that our counter-terrorism police, who do an excellent job, take immensely seriously.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Right now, peaceful protesters who are unarmed are being gunned down on the streets not just of Tehran, but of every city and town in Iran. They are being hunted down to hospitals if they are injured, or hunted down to where they live. The difference between 2022 and now is that this is a nationwide protest calling for regime change. What people desperately want to hear—I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement—is not more words, but action. We are told repeatedly that the Home Office and the Foreign Office cannot agree on proscription of the IRGC, but could the Foreign Secretary go away, speak to the Home Secretary and get that organised now as a demonstration that we will not tolerate this, and that we will stand four-square behind those brave people of Iran who just want liberty and freedom?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to talk about the difference being the way that this has spread right across Iran, including small towns in different parts of Iran as well as the capital city. On proscription, there is clear, strong agreement between the Home Office and the Foreign Office about the importance of ensuring that we have the right tools to deal with state-backed threats, just as we have for terrorism threats. That is what the Jonathan Hall review was all about. I gently remind the hon. Member that the previous Government did not address this issue, and did not change the legislation for many years. I know that is something he has highlighted over many years, and I hope there will be cross-party agreement on the importance of addressing it.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The people of Iran are courageously fighting for their freedom against an oppressive regime, and we all stand with them. The brutal response from Tehran highlights the need to take action against the IRGC. I know it has been addressed multiple times during this session, but when do the Government plan to bring forward the legislative framework proposed by Jonathan Hall that will give proscription-like powers to the Government to deal with the IRGC and its malign influence in the UK?

[Yvette Cooper]

We should be clear that this is not just about the IRGC; this is about the whole of the Iranian regime—we have looked at the brutality and at what has been taking place. I have also set out the importance of us ensuring that we have a broad breadth of powers in the UK, and that we use the powers we have. That is why the IRGC is already sanctioned, and why counter-terrorism police and security services already pursue any threat and any malign activity here in the UK.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Annette from Wincanton contacted me at the weekend, deeply worried about her extended friends and family living in Iran. She told me that many there feel that they have nothing much to lose, as they come out on the streets to protest against the repressive Iranian regime. At this volatile moment, what measures is the Secretary of State taking to support ordinary Iranian citizens who are protesting against their Government, while holding the Iranian regime accountable for their repression and human rights abuses?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I set out in my statement, we have summoned the Iranian ambassador to account for the horrendous reports that we have seen emerging this morning. That follows the co-ordinated work that we have been doing with our international allies to make clear the strength of our condemnation of the brutality, and to pursue further sanctions and economic pressure on the Iranian regime.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary join me in firmly rejecting the instincts of some, including hon. Members in this House, who blame the current situation on the United States, the UK, Israel and the west, and does she further agree that blame for the current situation lies squarely with the oppressive regime in Tehran?

[Yvette Cooper]

Responsibility for what we have seen, and for potentially thousands of deaths and the killings that we have seen, lies squarely with the Iranian regime.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Like her, I condemn absolutely the repressive, violent, vicious crackdown on protesters by the Iranian regime, and pay tribute to the bravery of so many Iranian citizens who, over so many years, have protested, advocated, campaigned and been on the streets calling for fundamental rights and freedoms for all citizens. I welcome the new sanctions against the regime that she has announced today. She also talked about sending a message to other countries that seek to break those UN sanctions. Is she considering other concrete measures against such countries that engage in sanctions busting, such as sanctions against them?

[Yvette Cooper]

The action that we saw with the vessel that was interdicted by the US was an example of enforcement of sanctions that was supported by the UK, and as we saw, that vessel had links not just to Iran but to Russia. The hon. Member is right to say that we need to call on all countries around the world to respect the UN sanctions process and to realise that this is not a time to be supporting this Iranian regime.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her strong words. Like many hon. Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are very concerned about not being able to contact friends and family who are still in Iran. I join my right hon. Friend in applauding and congratulating the female activists in Iran, who have been relentlessly targeted by this oppressive regime, on fighting very bravely for their freedom this week. When the time comes—I sincerely hope it comes very quickly—will she ensure that their voices and their actions can be part of building a new democracy in Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is the 25th anniversary of the women, peace and security resolution at the United Nations. At the heart of that resolution is not just that we should stand up for women victims of conflict, repression and persecution, but that women’s voices need to be heard as part of any positive peace and reconciliation process.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Not only is the despotic Iranian regime gunning down protesters in the street, but it continues to support terrorist proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, it provides drones to the Russian military in Ukraine and it remains a very real threat to this country. While I welcome the statement, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the police and the security services have all the tools that they need to keep Britain safe from Iran and its proxies?

[Yvette Cooper]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the police and security services have our full backing in all the work that they do to keep us safe from state-backed threats, including Iranian-backed threats, on our soil. We always need to look at how we can keep up with rapidly changing hybrid threats, in order to ensure we can keep our country safe.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) about the regime’s severance of communications adding to the distress of many of our constituents, who are trying to establish the safety and personal liberty of loved ones. I appreciate that there may be things that cannot be said in this place lest they inadvertently inform the regime, but will my right hon. Friend give the House the assurance that all practical measures are being explored to increase the quantity and the quality of information going into and out of Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

We want the people of Iran to be able to communicate with each other. This is about the people of Iran, their courage and their most basic rights to be able to communicate with each other—that is what we want to support.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. We are appalled at reports of thousands of state killings in Iran, and we support the fundamental right of the people of Iran to self-determination. President Trump says that help is “on its way”, and there are also reports that the Prime Minister is set to accept a place on President’s Trump’s board to run Gaza. Given that, can the Foreign Secretary guarantee that her Government’s priorities in the region will be peace and stability alone?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

It is exactly because we want peace and stability in the region that we supported the 20-point plan to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. As I have said, that is still fragile and there is a huge amount of work still to do, including a humanitarian surge in support and the decommissioning of weapons from Hamas, and it is important that the whole international community comes together to support that.

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

In March, it will be the fifth anniversary of the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership between Iran and China, an unholy alliance between religious fanatics and communist totalitarians, to whom we are regrettably about to award a super-embassy, complete with secret dungeons, in London. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what estimate the Government have made of the dependence of the Iranian regime’s survival on its support from China, not least the huge export of Iranian oil to China?

[Yvette Cooper]

I urge China to support the UN sanctions process that was triggered by the snapback that the UK, France and Germany instigated in October. It is essential that China does so, because we have seen the pressure that is needed around the nuclear programme, which affects all our safety and is immensely important. It is not just China but countries around the world who should support that sanctions process.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am appalled by the actions of the murderous Iranian regime, but I am deeply concerned that the financial secrecy of our overseas territories is enabling sanctions dodging. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that she is doing everything she can to secure greater transparency in the overseas territories, uphold effective international sanctions and end any complicity in the flow of blood money fuelling this regime?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have strongly pushed for greater transparency, including in the overseas territories. My hon. Friend the Minister covering the overseas territories continues to do that with all the overseas territories. The action that some of those territories have taken has been extremely important in implementing sanctions and has demonstrated what can be done and achieved. That is one reason why we are determined to see further progress around transparency more widely.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The people of Iran have suffered for far too long. They have made it clear that enough is enough, and we stand with them. For too long, this Government have remained largely silent on the oppression of Christians in the middle east generally. Many countries, including Iran, murder and maim any person who does not conform to their dictated religion. Will the Secretary of State assure this House that in her diplomatic efforts for peace in the region, she will prioritise religious freedom and the rights of Christians to exist and practise their religion without fear of persecution?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is exactly because we take so seriously the issues around freedom of belief that we have appointed a UK envoy to keep pursuing this matter, because it is so important. These are basic rights and a basic part of our humanity for Christians and for people of all faiths and religions across not just the middle east but the world.

Venezuela

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

I want to begin by expressing my condolences to all those affected by the terrible tragedy in Crans-Montana, and my support for the Swiss authorities. The British embassy has been supporting the family of Charlotte Niddam, who was educated in Hertfordshire and in north-west London. I can confirm that yesterday Charlotte’s family were given the devastating news that her remains had been identified. Charlotte was just 15. The whole House will be thinking of her and her friends and family now.

Let me turn to Venezuela. Over the weekend, the United States conducted air strikes on a series of Venezuelan targets, and confirmed that it had captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They have been indicted on narcoterrorism, drug smuggling and weapons charges. I can confirm to the House that the United Kingdom was not involved in these operations.

UK policy on Venezuela has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people, maintains security in the region and is in line with international law. That remains our position and our determined view about what must happen in Venezuela now. Over the weekend I discussed this with the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the UK Government are in close contact with our international partners on the issue.

The first duty of government is the safety and security of our citizens, and my Department is working tirelessly to ensure the safety of British nationals. Over the weekend I also spoke to the UK chargé d’affaires in Caracas. All our embassy staff are safe and accounted for, and working to support the approximately 500 British nationals in Venezuela. Our travel guidance currently advises against all travel to Venezuela, and British nationals in Venezuela should closely follow that travel advice, which will be kept up to date.

We should be under no illusion as to the nature of the Maduro regime. A once functioning democracy has become a hub for very dangerous organised criminal gangs—corrupt links have involved Iran, with Hezbollah increasingly present in recent years, as well as malign support from Russia—and a regime that has facilitated illicit finance, sanctions evasion and organised criminal activity, including narcotics trafficking and illegal gold trading. That undermines the security of the whole region, including UK overseas territories, as well as the United States and other regional partners. The country has been driven into economic ruin, with an 80% drop in its GDP in a decade. More than 8 million people have left, which has caused instability elsewhere in the region.

We have seen Maduro’s regime systematically dismantle democratic institutions, silencing dissent and weaponising state resources to maintain power through fear and corruption. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into possible crimes against humanity, following reports of hundreds of extrajudicial killings, including at the hands of Venezuela’s security services and paramilitary groups under the regime’s command. UN investigators have repeatedly reported a pattern of arbitrary detentions, tortures and killings.

In the July 2024 presidential election, millions of Venezuelans voted, but the official results have never been published. The opposition leader, María Corina Machado, was banned from standing by Maduro. International observers cited basic failures of election integrity. Independent tallies covering 80% of polling stations showed a clear victory for Edmundo González, yet Maduro claimed victory.

Most recently, in October, the UN independent fact-finding mission reported on state security forces using firearms against protesters after the elections 18 months ago, where 25 people died. González has been forced to leave the country and claim political asylum in Spain. Machado was forced into hiding for her own safety and had to be spirited out of the country to receive her Nobel peace prize in Norway last month.

These are the hallmarks of a regime that clings to power through fear, coercion and violence, not through democratic consent. That is why, as the Prime Minister said on Saturday, we can shed no tears for the end of Maduro’s rule.

Let me turn to UK policy. The UK has long been an advocate for a democratic Venezuela and a vocal critic of the Maduro regime. Since 2019, successive UK Governments have refused to recognise the regime. Through the G7 and the UN, with partners and directly, we have continued to call out the Maduro regime and its appalling human rights violations.

We have also, in some areas, taken a different policy approach from some of our allies. Our other Five Eyes partners have closed their embassies, but we have maintained our diplomatic mission in Caracas at a much more senior level than many of our partners and are seeking dialogue, sustaining direct contact with the opposition, supporting Venezuelan civil society and advocating for British interests.

A year ago, around Maduro’s inauguration, the UK acted alongside partners and announced a wave of new sanctions. We targeted 15 individuals, including judges and senior-ranking officials in Maduro’s regime responsible for undermining democracy and the rule of law, and for human rights violations. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, but not on sectors of the economy, and we have not supported or been involved in blockades or strikes against drug boats. We have continued to directly promote the interests of the British overseas territories, which need to see stability in the region.

Of course, throughout we have promoted and maintained support for international law. The commitment to international law, as the Prime Minister set out on Saturday, is immensely important to this Government. Those principles guide the decisions that we make and the actions that we take as part of Britain’s foreign policy. That commitment to international law is part of our values; it is also strongly in the UK’s national interest. Our manifesto talked about a foreign policy that is progressive and is also realistic, engaging with the world as we find it, in the interests of UK security, prosperity and our values. That means upholding international law and defending democracy, and it means confronting the complex, evolving and hybrid threats that we and our allies face in the world today.

Those principles and values also guide the conversations that we have with our allies across a range of issues where we agree and disagree. In my discussions with Secretary Rubio, I raised the importance of complying with international law, and we will continue to urge all partners to do so at every stage. It is, of course, for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions. The UN Security Council is discussing Venezuela this afternoon. These issues will continue to be matters for international discussion.

I discussed with Secretary Rubio what should happen next and our continued commitment to a transition to a peaceful and stable democracy. Our collective immediate focus must be on avoiding any deterioration in Venezuela into further instability, criminality, repression or violence. That would be deeply damaging for the people of Venezuela, our own overseas territories, our allies in the US and other regional partners.

The UK has long been clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people, so the international community must come together to help achieve a peaceful transition to a democratic Government who respect the rights and will of their people. That must mean action on the economic crisis, the release of political prisoners, the return of opposition politicians, an end to political repression, respect for human rights, and plans for the holding of free and fair elections. I urge the acting President, Delcy Rodríguez, to take these steps forward, because the people of Venezuela have a right to decide their own future.

The US Secretary of State and I discussed the particular role that the UK can play to support a peaceful democratic transition and stability. Drawing on our embassy in Caracas and on the work that we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities and regime, and of course our relationship with the US, to that end I have also spoken today with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. Her unwavering fight for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Venezuela, and against oppression, is inspirational. We will keep in touch over the days and weeks ahead.

Finally, let me turn briefly to another matter. The House will have seen recent comments from the United States and from Denmark regarding Greenland. Let me be very clear on the UK’s position: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Our close European partners, our long-standing NATO allies and all our countries work closely together on security issues and will always do so. The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes, and no one else. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

I would like to start by associating myself with the condolences expressed by the Foreign Secretary about the awful tragedy in Crans-Montana. I also thank her for her statement on Venezuela, although I am disappointed that it was not the Prime Minister who delivered the statement, because many of us in this House and beyond want to know how he is going to respond to the situation.

Nicolás Maduro was a tyrant who criminally abused the Venezuelan people and destabilised the region. It is no surprise that there is jubilation in the streets, because Venezuelans remember what their country was like before it was ravaged by years of socialist dictatorship. For years, the Conservative Government refused to recognise the legitimacy of Maduro’s horrific regime of brutality and repression, and we were pleased to see the Labour Government follow suit. However, we are in a fundamentally different world. The truth is that while the likes of China have been strategic and aggressive in strengthening their influence across the world, including in South America, the west has been slow.

Foreign policy should serve our national interest. It should be about keeping Britain safe. We should be clear-eyed. The United States is our closest security partner. We must work with it seriously, not snipe from the sidelines. The Opposition understand why the US has taken this action. As the Foreign Secretary said, UK policy has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy. That never happened. Instead, Venezuelans have been living under Maduro’s brutal regime for many years.

The US has made it clear that it is acting in its national interest against drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including potential terrorism. We understand that. However, we have concerns about what precedent this sets, especially when there are comments made about the future of Greenland. It is important that the United Kingdom supports its NATO ally Denmark, which has made it categorically clear that Greenland is not for sale, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks in that regard.

What is critical now is the stability of the region and the wider world. It is important that we listen to those who have been risking their lives for freedom and democracy in Venezuela. Opposition leader María Corina Machado, when asked about US action, said that Venezuela had already been invaded: by Iran, by Russia, by drug cartels, and by Hamas and Hezbollah. It is clear that Venezuela had become a gangster state.

I am pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary has spoken to María Corina Machado, but can she also update the House on whether the Prime Minister has spoken to President Trump? I ask that because the Government talk up their relationship with the US, but we keep finding that we are not in the room when big decisions are made.

We should be under no illusions, because a democratic transition in Venezuela will be far from straightforward, so when the Foreign Secretary speaks of democratic transition, what does that actually mean to the Government in practice? Can she also set out what will now happen to the UK’s Venezuela sanctions regime.

In a world changing as it is, we must be serious and responsible about our security and standing. We know what the strategy of the President of the United States is, because his Government set out their national security strategy last year. The US is acting in its national interests, and we need to do the same. We should be working to protect the rules-based order, and we should be standing up to hostile actors that want to undermine us, but what are our Government doing instead? They are giving away the Chagos islands, and paying £35 billion for the privilege, with no strong legal basis to justify doing so.

Last year, the Defence Committee warned that the UK was not adequately prepared to defend herself from attack. The Government are still stalling on defence spending. The Conservatives want to see defence spending increase to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, given the changing world. Why have the Government not matched that commitment?

It has never been more important for the UK to have a coherent foreign policy strategy. Right now, Labour does not have one. If it does, we would like the Foreign Secretary to tell us what it is, because I did not hear anything that sounded remotely like one in her statement. Let us be honest: old strategies will not work. We are living in an increasingly dangerous world, and the axis of authoritarian states seeking to undermine us respects just one thing: strength. Britain must be ready and willing to defend our own interests, to protect ourselves from those who would undermine us, to protect the unity of the western alliance, and to support democracy and freedom around the world.

[Yvette Cooper]

I must just say to the Leader of the Opposition that, while I obviously welcome her support on Switzerland, Greenland and Denmark and so on, it felt like the tone of her response was very poorly judged. It was really all over the place. Many times when we were in opposition, we set out our agreement with the Government in the national interest and recognised that there are some cross-party issues. I suspect that had the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), responded to our statement, she probably would have done that.

In fact, on the different issues the Leader of the Opposition talked about, she seemed to agree with us. On Venezuela, she said that the Maduro regime has been deeply damaging, corrupt and deeply destructive, and therefore that no one should shed any tears for its going. She also—I think this was implicit when she talked about the rules-based order—recognised the importance of precedents, the importance of international law and the complexity of the world we face. She also said that she thought we should show support for Denmark and Greenland. In fact, I could not see in her response a single detailed thing that she disagreed with, except for the fact that she seemed to want to express opposition for opposition’s sake.

On the overall approach, I think everyone recognises the leadership this Prime Minister has shown on the international stage: chairing the coalition of the willing, and leading the European and international support for Ukraine against Russia; and agreeing three trade deals with India, Europe and the US, after her Government ripped up the trade and co-operation deal and trashed the UK’s reputation across the world. We have the biggest increase in defence investment since the cold war, properly supporting UK security, and we have had the most successful state visit of the US President, leading to major tech investment in the UK. The Prime Minister talks frequently to the US, and we have deep partnerships on security, intelligence and the military. There is now our close working on Gaza and the peace process, on the crisis in Sudan and, of course, fundamentally on Ukraine.

Many times in the past we took a cross-party approach, and I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to do the same on what really matters for the future of this country. This Government will continue to stand up for Britain’s interests, our prosperity and our values.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the tragedy in Crans-Montana.

When President Reagan invaded Grenada, Margaret Thatcher said that

“we in…the Western democracies…use our force to defend our way of life, we do not use it to walk into other people’s countries... We try to extend our beliefs not by force but by persuasion.”

I am disappointed that we have heard nothing as clear and courageous from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, or from today’s Conservative party.

Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator, but that does not give President Trump a free pass for illegal action. This was not about liberating the Venezuelan people. Trump’s refusal to back Nobel prize winner María Machado, Maduro’s brave liberal opponent, shows that Trump has no interest in Venezuelan democracy. This is about Trump believing he can grab anything he wants—this time, oil—and get away with it. We know what happens when an American President launches an illegal war under the pretext of an imminent threat. It is why we opposed the Iraq war, and why we condemn Trump today.

National sovereignty matters and international law matters. Without them, the world is far more dangerous and we are all less safe. Anyone who thinks Trump’s actions will make China or Russia think twice is either hopelessly desperate or desperately naive. Putin and Xi will be using this precedent to strengthen their hands in Ukraine and Taiwan. Anyone who thinks Trump will stop with Venezuela has not read his new national security strategy. He is already threatening Colombia, Cuba and Greenland, and even democracies across Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary not realise how ridiculous it looks to refuse to call this what it is: a clear breach of international law? Will she at least publish all the advice the Government have received on the legality of Trump’s actions?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do, I hope, agree on the brutality of the Maduro dictatorship and that it is better for Venezuela not to be led by somebody like Maduro. Therefore, the most important thing now for Venezuela is for it to have a transition to democracy. I have spoken directly to the US Secretary of State about that and also about the potential role the UK can play. Unusually, we have a very senior and experienced chargé d’affaires in Venezuela, who has long-standing relationships with the Venezuelan opposition and the regime, and also, of course, we have a close relationship with the US. That puts us in a particular position and gives us a particular responsibility to ensure progress keeps being made towards that democratic transition. Stability will not be maintained unless there is a transition that has the will of the people.

We have made very clear our commitment to international law and the way that it must guide our decisions and UK foreign policy. We will continue to raise it with our partners, both in public and in private. It is important that we do so. As for Government legal advice, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the ministerial code is very clear about the Government not publishing or commenting on different legal advice.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

Nobody in this Chamber wants to defend the regime of Maduro, but what some of us want to do is to stand up for the importance of a rules-based international order. I might add that because my parents were born overseas, I take the question of national sovereignty extremely seriously. We cannot have a situation where a country, because it is bigger and stronger, walks into a smaller country, snatches its political leadership—whatever people think of that political leadership—helicopters it out and puts it on a show trial in an outside country. That cannot be something that this Government are prepared to support.

Let me add, I know that the Opposition are blithe about what Trump is doing—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

My question is: what would the Foreign Secretary say to British voters—ordinary British voters; not left-wing British voters in particular—who do not understand why a British Prime Minister is not willing to stand up for an international rules-based order and is not willing to defend national sovereignty?

[Yvette Cooper]

What I would say to my right hon. Friend is that support for a rules-based international order and for international law is a central part of our foreign policy and the decisions the UK Government make and the actions we take. There is an approach that says, “Look, this is a new world of great power politics and spheres of influence,” and rejects the role of international law. That is not our view not only because we believe it is right and part of our progressive values, but because it is in the UK’s interests. It is why we believe not just in the UN charter but, more broadly, in international law and a rules-based framework. It is why we believe in rules-based alliances and the maintenance of those alliances. Contrary to the great power strategic hemispheres approach, we believe in the transatlantic alliance and the NATO alliance. That is why we are taking such a strong position on Greenland and Denmark, but also why we work with close allies and talk to them on many issues privately as well as publicly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

At the end of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I am no wiser on whether the Government approve this action, or on whether they believe that it breaks international law. The Prime Minister is such a devotee of international law that he is not prepared to defend our borders from the small boats, and to take the necessary action there. Why is there one law for the American President, when he is doing what is right for his country and defending it, but a different law for us? My simple question is this: do the Government believe that this breaks international law, and do they approve this action?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I said in my statement, and as the Prime Minister said on Saturday, there can be no tears shed for the Maduro regime, given the damage that it has done over many years. It is for the US to set out the legal position following its actions. We were not involved in those actions. We continue to be guided by international law in our approach, and we continue to work on the most important issue: getting a transition to peaceful democracy in Venezuela.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It was the Prime Minister who decided to disregard the United Nations charter when it came to Trump’s bombing and killing, and his kidnapping the Head of State. It speaks volumes that the Prime Minister has chosen not to come to this House to explain his decision. The reality is that if it were Putin doing this, the Prime Minister would not be saying, “It’s up to the Russians to decide whether or not this is legal,” but that is exactly what the Prime Minister has said in relation to Trump’s disgusting attack on Venezuela. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister is willing to ditch international law and side-step the United Nations charter in order to appease Donald Trump, and does not that cowardly, craven approach drag this country’s reputation through the dirt?

[Yvette Cooper]

I find it hard not to remember my hon. Friend’s support and welcome for the Maduro regime, a regime that is currently being investigated for crimes against humanity.

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

Most people’s thoughts on Maduro’s capture will be, “Good riddance”, and I would have liked the Government to have been more categorical in supporting US action to remove an illegitimate and evil dictator, but if the new US approach extends to the annexation of Greenland, the sovereign territory of a NATO member, it could mean the end of the alliance, with disastrous consequences. How much planning is going on at the Foreign Office to make sure that such a disaster does not happen? We understand that discussions between allies have to be private, but from the outside, it looks like Europe is weak and divided. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that the right conversations are happening, and that we are not just hoping for the best?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me reiterate our strong support for the Greenlanders and for Denmark. Greenland is part of the kingdom of Denmark, and its future is for them to decide, not anybody else, notwithstanding any of the things that we have heard the US and others say. We are very clear about that. I have raised this issue internationally, and we will continue to do so. We are very firm in our view on this point.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My constituents do not mourn the removal of Nicolás Maduro, who oversaw the violent repression of his people, a fraudulent presidential election and horrific human rights abuses for many years, but they are alarmed about the unilateral regime change sought by the Trump Administration in order to access Venezuelan oil resources. Two wrongs do not make a right. What measures is the Foreign Secretary taking to support Opposition leaders, including 2025 Nobel prize winner, María Corina Machado?

[Yvette Cooper]

Our country has particularly strong relationships with the Venezuelan Opposition as a result of the work of our chargé d’affaires and our embassy in Venezuela, which we have maintained when other countries have not maintained theirs. As I have said, that puts us in a particularly significant position, in terms of being able to support a transition to democracy, which is what we have always argued for. That is exactly why I have spoken to María Corina today. We will keep in close touch, so that we can recognise, as a first step, their call for an end to political repression in Venezuela, which must happen.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I will not mourn the passing of the Maduro regime, but I will mourn the passing of the rules-based international order. If we accept the premise that a big-power country can do what it wants without any ramifications, anywhere in the world, then we accept the behaviour of Putin over the past two decades, and the behaviour of Xi Jinping in the future. We cannot allow that to stand. It is clear that our future security lies in closer co-operation with our European allies, so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that the UK is in lockstep with those who do share our values?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have strengthened our relationships with our European partners—indeed, I have been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister today on the issues around Greenland—and we will continue to support the rules-based international order, the UN charter and international law. I would warn Members against making equivalence here with what Putin has done in Ukraine; Russia invaded a country led by a democratically elected President Zelensky, and thousands of children have been kidnapped. We should be careful about what we say and its implications.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on an incredibly complex international situation. Maduro stole elections and murdered opponents, and 9 million Venezuelans were forced to flee their country. Venezuelans will be both fearful and hopeful for the future. This episode shows the US shifting to the western hemisphere, leaving European security more exposed, and the willingness of the US to interfere in foreign states, with serious implications for our NATO ally Denmark. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that what the UK can now usefully do is use any influence we have to pursue Venezuela’s transition to democracy, learn from this event, and accelerate the meeting of our defence and national security commitments?

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Whether it is Venezuela, Greenland, Ukraine, Palestine or Taiwan, the UK Government are right to champion international law, but we must face facts. The global rules-based order is crumbling before our eyes, as nations increasingly disregard those rules and national interest trumps long-standing alliances. In this new era of strongman politics, whether we like it or not, military strength is the ultimate guarantor of our security and sovereignty, so I ask the Secretary of State what steps the Government are taking to accelerate investment in defence, and to send a clear signal, so that we are respected by both friend and foe globally.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the global rules-based order is under pressure from different directions, as I said in a speech just before Christmas; however, we believe that it remains important, and is in the interests and nature of our country and history, as well as forming a fundamental part of our values. We believe that international law and the rules-based order are fundamentally a foundation for peace and security across the world. We have to engage with the world as we find it, and not as we would like it to be, which means continuing to advocate for international law with people right across the world, including directly with our allies, and increasing our investment in defence. Fundamentally, protecting our national security has to be the most important priority for the Government.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Surely the real story coming out today and over the past few days is the revelation—one we should all have known—that this country has opted out of protecting the international rules-based system. We have not significantly invested in defence, and even the commitment the Foreign Secretary speaks of does not keep pace with defence inflation. As the Prime Minister revealed on Sunday, he has not even spoken to the American President. Does this not reveal the simple truth that the Americans did this without us because they do not give a damn what this House thinks?

[Yvette Cooper]

I guess I would just have to ask who it was who did not significantly invest in defence over the past 14 years. This Government are substantially increasing investment in defence, chairing the coalition of the willing, and showing leadership on the international stage. What has struck me since becoming Foreign Secretary, and having had discussions with Governments from across the world over the past few months, is how often those Governments say how welcome it is that Britain is back.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Maduro was an illegitimate president. In The New York Times today, Colette Capriles, writing from Caracas, describes a “struggle for survival”, a “primitive capitalism”, a

“web of bosses, private loyalties, corrupt practices and institutional ruins that have replaced public life”

in Venezuela. I ask the Foreign Secretary: what can the UK do to support the development of strong civic institutions there that can help to build a new Venezuela?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a real risk of instability in Venezuela now, and it will be crucial to build civil society and give people in Venezuela hope, rather than fear. We should ensure stability, building up capacity and work with Opposition parties and other organisations. That is something we are advocating strongly for. I have discussed this with the US Secretary of State, and said that we will continue to make that a priority, based on the work that our excellent chargé d’affaires has been doing over many years; now we need to do that extensively, including in discussion with Opposition parties.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It would be hard to find an occasion on which a British Prime Minister has looked as irrelevant and spineless on an era-defining international issue as this one does on this occasion. We are witnessing an existential threat to the international rules-based order, and the Prime Minister cannot rouse himself to give it even the meekest of defences. France, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and the UN Secretary-General have all been clear that the Trump Administration have violated international law. When will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary find their voices and join that chorus of condemnation?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Prime Minister’s response has been very much in line with the leaders of countries across not just Europe but the world. We continue to stand up for and highlight the importance of international law and focus on the realities in Venezuela, where huge damage has been done over a long time, including by the interference of Iran and Russia. We are focusing on what should be the priority of all of us now: getting a democratic transition for Venezuela.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. We speak today from the heart of our democracy, where power transfers peacefully according to the will of the people. Does she agree that democracy is the right of all people, no matter where they live? Does she further agree that it is for Venezuelans to decide what their future holds?

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree. The people of Venezuela have been denied that democratic right for far too long. Election results have not been respected, and Venezuelans have faced some of the most horrendous political repression, including on an industrial scale. The July 2024 elections were clearly not respected, and the official results were never published. That is why we are continuing to talk to the opposition parties and others in Venezuela about the importance of getting a democratic transition in place.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Of course quite a lot depends on what now happens, but Mr Maduro stole the elections in Venezuela in plain sight, is a narco-terrorist and has destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens and of those more widely and made huge amounts of money out of it. Is not the world a better place with him before the courts in New York, and in this case do not the ends justify the means?

[Yvette Cooper]

Venezuela is in a stronger position without Maduro leading it, especially given the horrendous human rights abuses and the huge damage to its economy, but as the right hon. Member implied at the beginning of his question, what happens next is really important. The UK is determined to do everything we can to ensure that there is a transition to democracy and stability, because Venezuela will not have stability without a proper democratic transition.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that the role of the Government has been to uphold international law. Part of upholding international law is to call out crimes when they are witnessed. Article 2.4 of the United Nations charter is explicit about the illegality of entering into a foreign state with armed force. That is why I found it shameful, I have to say, that the Prime Minister and Ministers in the news rounds have refused to condemn this action. I think that Trump will interpret our not condemning this action as the green light to go in wherever to steal the national assets of those countries. As a result, we are all in a more dangerous place.

[Yvette Cooper]

Promoting international law in the most effective way also means promoting the rules-based order and the rules-based alliances that we have. It means being able to raise issues around international law both publicly and privately in a way that has the greatest results to defend the rules-based order. That is what we will continue to do, and that, frankly, is what is in the UK’s interest.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Venezuelans are relieved to be free of Maduro’s tyranny. However, Venezuela risks remaining a failed state, rather than being a free state, unless the international community comes together. Oil companies are not state builders, nor are they capable of democratic capacity building or enabling political transitions. I was surprised that there was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement of plans to evacuate British nationals if possible or of how many British nationals are in country. What phone calls has the Foreign Secretary had since this action with the leader of Guyana, a Commonwealth country and nation with whom we have an important relationship? If she has not spoken to that leader, why has she not?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I think I set out in my statement, there are an estimated 500 British nationals in Venezuela. We did look at all possible crisis responses over the weekend. We stood up the crisis facility in the Foreign Office to ensure that we were ready to respond if necessary at any point. The response did not go beyond the changed travel advice, and over the weekend British nationals were advised to shelter in place while what might be happening next was assessed. We have had some consular contact, but it has been very limited. We have been available to any British nationals who want our support, as we would continue to be.

We are also in contact with Commonwealth countries and overseas territories. The Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is following up with overseas territories that are particularly affected by instability in the region.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her remarks. She has talked about instability in the region and the need for grassroots investment in order for there to be a peaceful transition. Will she share with us the assessment she has made about the impact of economic instability in the region and the role of businesses in the region and how that instability could feed into and damage the possibility of a peaceful transition?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The nature of the economic crisis in Venezuela over the last decade has pushed huge numbers of Venezuelans into extreme hardship. It is one of the reasons why so many Venezuelans have left the country; an estimated one in four Venezuelans have left the country over the last 10 years as a result. This should be a country with a very strong economy. It is very important to build that economy up, but crucially it has to be to the benefit of the people of Venezuela, not criminals or corrupt regimes.

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

This is about being principled. What if we were to learn from the White House that Greenland had been the source of cocaine or fentanyl flowing to the United States? Even if we do not expect a fabricated pretext on Greenland or imminent US intervention there, will the Government please condemn the unilateral action in Venezuela by the Trump Administration before we see a complete breakdown of the rules-based order?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will have heard me setting out very strongly in my statement our position on Greenland and Denmark. We will continue to do so, because we are very clear that this is about the NATO alliance, the rules-based order and our close ally.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that she will abide by international law. I would not expect her to publish the legal advice that she has received from the Law Officers and others, but I would expect her to set out the Government’s own analysis of whether and how the acts of US forces towards Venezuela comply with the rule of law, so will she now do that?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know the constraints in the ministerial code regarding discussing legal advice. As I have said, it is for the US to set out publicly its legal basis for the actions that it has taken. We have raised the issue of international law—I have directly raised it with the US Secretary of State—and set out our views and concerns and the importance of urging all partners to abide by international law.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The essay question is not whether Mr Maduro was a good man, which is a clear no-brainer, but whether, as others have asked, the actions of the US President were legal. America cannot be expected to mark her own homework, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, what body or bodies would she identify as being responsible to adjudicate on the legality of the American action? Secondly, as the vice-president of Venezuela, whose hands are as tainted with the previous regime as Maduro’s, has this afternoon been sworn in as the new President, what read-across should this House have from that incident?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The UN Security Council has been discussing Venezuela today, and I am sure that those international discussions will continue. On the vice-president being sworn in, we continue not to recognise the legitimacy of the Venezuelan regime. We want to see stability and a transition to democracy. We are urging the vice-president now to take the steps for that transition to a democracy that respects the will and human rights of the Venezuelan people.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I accept that Venezuela is a brutal, failed and highly dangerous state, but the implications of this action will be deeply destabilising across eastern Europe. In the Foreign Secretary’s discussions with the US Secretary of State about international law, did she reference the message that this action sends to Putin about Russia’s ambitions in Europe?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will know that we continually discuss the threat from Russia and the importance of the transatlantic alliance supporting Ukraine with the US. I have discussed that many times with the US Secretary of State and the Prime Minister has discussed that continually with the US President. We are clear about the importance of defending Ukraine. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will be part of the coalition of the willing, which is exactly about supporting Ukraine. As we build those international alliances, we must ensure that we do so in the most effective way to support Ukraine. I assure my hon. Friend that I raise international law and the concerns we have with the US Secretary of State.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I think it is clear that the Foreign Secretary supports the end, if not the means. I think it is also clear that she accepts the outcome, though she cannot bring herself—nor can the Government—to condone the actions of President Trump. But today we learned that the Chinese have warned against touching Venezuela’s oil resources and demanded the return of President Maduro. Does she see that as sabre rattling, or is she concerned?

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that there have been many concerns about engagement in the oil industry in Venezuela, particularly of Iran and Russia. The right hon. Member referred to issues around China and the position of the Chinese Government. The oil industry in Venezuela should be benefiting the people of Venezuela, not other countries or corrupt regimes.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The truth is, the warning signs that the rules-based order is at risk have been there for some time. In evidence to Congress during the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, the former White House adviser on Russia and Europe, Fiona Hill, claimed that an informal offer was made by Russia to withdraw its support for Venezuela in exchange for America withdrawing its support for Ukraine. In the light of these events, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that that specific allegation has been raised in her conversations with our American counterparts? What response has she had?

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to have important discussions with the US about Ukraine and support for Ukraine. Many of those discussions have been about the security guarantees that the US would provide as part of a peace agreement for Ukraine. Those security guarantees involve the US providing that support, working with other European countries. That will continue to be a central objective of our foreign policy.

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

To those who still harbour illusions about an idealised world of international rules that will be abided by all, should we not just say, “Welcome to the real world, where might often proves to be right and we have to face the circumstances that we are in”? May I therefore give my support to the Government’s ambivalence, as supported by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who also rightly criticised—it was all she disagreed with the Government about—the slow pace of rearmament? Will the Foreign Secretary avoid blowing up the bridges we have with the United States and use that influence? Does she not agree it really would be stupid to slag off President Trump now when we want to have influence over what he does next?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me address some of the hon. Member’s bigger points about the international rules-based order and global power politics. He and I are old enough to have experience and reflections on the cold war, which was all about great power politics and difficulties. Alongside those big military global tensions, we had worked hard post the second world war to develop a rules-based order. This has been a part of global history for a long time: the tensions between how we maintain international law and an international rules-based order and how we engage with different competing interests, sometimes from some of the biggest countries in the world and sometimes from some of the smaller countries in the world who have particular power in particular areas.

In terms of the UK’s approach, we continue to believe in the importance of a rules-based order and of such an international framework. We also engage with the world as it is—the world as we face it. We need to be able to do so and to be agile in responding to that.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Regardless of what is said in this place, it is clear for all to see that Trump’s illegal actions in Venezuela are a blatant violation of international law, and now he has Greenland clearly in his sight. Frankly, the response from the international community and our own Government has been shameful. How can we pretend to defend international law when we refuse even to condemn the most blatant of violations and do not apply it equally?

The reality is that we are sending a green light to say that international rules no longer apply. Let us call this what it is. Trump’s actions are not about democracy; they are about oil and old-fashioned colonialism. I give the Foreign Secretary the opportunity again. If she truly believes and wants to stand up for international law, she should stand at that Dispatch Box and condemn these illegal actions. If she does not—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think we have got the gist. We really need to have shorter questions, or not everyone will get in.

[Yvette Cooper]

I remind my hon. Friend that the Maduro regime was deeply authoritarian and corrupt, and it allowed countries such as Russia and Iran, as well as Hezbollah, to intervene and increase their influence in that country. We should not shed a tear for the end of the Maduro regime; what we should do is work for democracy. That is in our values, and that is what we will continue to do. We will also continue to stand up for international law.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The last time I saw this degree of agreement between Government and Opposition Front Benchers in relation to foreign policy was in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and we all know how that ended. But I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about being clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people. So when she spoke to Secretary Rubio, did she condemn President Trump’s assertion that he should run Venezuela for the foreseeable future?

[Yvette Cooper]

Obviously, in practice the US does not have boots on the ground in Venezuela, and the vice-president has been sworn in. We continue not to recognise the vice-president’s regime as legitimate in Venezuela and we are continuing to press for a democratic transition. I discussed with the US Secretary of State the importance of a democratic transition, the importance of working with the opposition, and the role that the UK could play in doing that. Ultimately, this has to be about ensuring that the will of the Venezuelan people is respected.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Article 2.4 of the United Nations charter states:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, even when a President lacks democratic legitimacy, any peaceful transition in Venezuela must be in the hands of its people and not dictated by foreign Governments, who must follow international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

A peaceful transition is essential, and it has to be a transition to democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people. That is why I have spoken today to María Corina Machado, and that is what we and our embassy in Caracas will continue to press for.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Government use any influence that their silence on Venezuela is buying to impress on President Trump that, while it may be expedient for the UK to acquiesce in the removal of a hideous old tyrant, Nicolás Maduro, hemispheric proto-colonialism that threatens UK interests or the integrity of any Commonwealth country or European neighbour would destroy the special relationship that has existed between our countries since the second world war?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think the right hon. Member is referring to Greenland and Denmark. Let me be really clear: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. We have said so extremely strongly and we will continue to do so. The Prime Minister has said so today, and I have been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister today. The right hon. Member will have seen the strong statements not just from the Danish Prime Minister but from other leaders, particularly across the Nordic states. This is immensely important to us. We are all NATO allies and we all need to work together. That is part of how we strengthen our security.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

There is a central question here, which can be simply put: if we do not condemn the American actions in Venezuela, what is to stop dictators around the world acting in a similar way against our allies and our interests? Does the Secretary of State agree that rules do matter?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think I have been clear not only that rules matter and that international law matters, but that we need to ensure that we look at the different circumstances of different situations and rightly approach each one in turn. That is why we have today set out our position on Greenland. I caution hon. Members against creating equivalence between different situations in different parts of the world and between very different circumstances in very different countries. We have to be realistic about the differences between them in the approach that we take.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Has the Foreign Secretary had an opportunity to study the United States national security statement that was made at the end of November, in which it appears to give itself the right to intervene in any country in the western hemisphere in order to exploit raw materials and minerals? Is she not concerned about the overt threats that are now being made against Colombia and Cuba, as well as about the illegal kidnapping of Maduro? Is she going to make any representations to the USA about that as well?

[Yvette Cooper]

On Colombia, for example, we have worked closely with the Government of Colombia. We continue to be the penholder on Colombia at the UN and continue to work closely with it. We have also made representations on aspects of the US national security strategy, where we take a very different view from the US. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long history in this area, but it has included support for the Maduro regime, which is now being investigated for crimes against humanity.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

Compliance with international law is not an either/or, and I am extremely concerned that the action of the United States shows utter disdain for international law and leaves enormous uncertainty over the future of Venezuela. It removes a leader whose rule was corrupt and cruel, but rather than celebrating, many people there are now stocking up on food and medicines out of concern for what comes next. Trump’s rationale around stopping drug trafficking rings hollow following his pardon for ex-Honduran President Hernández. What specific actions will the Government take to stabilise the situation so that the Venezuelan people can decide their own future, and also to ensure that President Trump does not act on his threats against Colombia, Cuba and Greenland?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have responded to questions on the other countries. The critical issue now is to ensure that Venezuela can be on a track towards a democracy that respects the will of the Venezuelan people and also their human rights. The first step has to be the ending of political repression and the release of political prisoners, and that is an issue that I have discussed with the leader of the Venezuelan opposition. I have also raised it with the US Secretary of State, and we will be pursuing that through our embassy, where we have particular weight and expertise.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Can the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about engagement with the Commonwealth? Not only are there two Commonwealth countries immediately adjacent to Venezuela, but there is an important Commonwealth network across the Caribbean. Surely there must be a danger at this moment that some of those countries might think that their interests would be better served by looking to the United States rather than to the Commonwealth and the UK.

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to have a very strong engagement with the Commonwealth and are continuing to do so in the light of the weekend’s events. There are Commonwealth countries and overseas territories that have been heavily affected by the instability in the region, including the instability driven by the Maduro regime, as well as by the scale of the narco-trafficking and the criminal gang operations and by the scale and pace of migration, which has been very destabilising. We are also engaging with the Commonwealth countries in order to work with them on ensuring that there can be stability in the region, because that is in everyone’s interest.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

There can be no question but that it is for the people of Venezuela to choose its future and for the international community to support democracy and uphold international law. While there is no denying the illegitimacy and brutality of Maduro’s regime, does the Foreign Secretary share my fears that such unilateral action sends the dangerous message to despots and tyrants throughout the world that might is right, and that it endangers peace and democracy throughout the world?

[Yvette Cooper]

We obviously have to keep in mind that this was an authoritarian dictator who is being investigated by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, which is why the Prime Minister said that we would shed no tears over the removal of Maduro, but we also believe in the international rules-based order and the importance of countries respecting that. We have raised that with the US.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Maduro was an enemy of the west, and while there is disagreement in this House about the means, I think there is much agreement that the Venezuelan people are better off without him. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary to comment more about the constructive influence that the UK and other western allies can have to ensure an early return to democracy for the Venezuelan people?

[Yvette Cooper]

The most important issue now is to ensure that Venezuela is on that track to democracy, and that means there has to be stability. Right now we need to prevent further instability and criminality, starting with the end to political repression and the release of political prisoners who are held across Venezuela. Those are some of the things that opposition parties are calling for as urgent first steps, and those are the things that the UK will press for, directly in Venezuela and in our relationship with the US as part of this process.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

There is clearly no question about the illegitimacy of Maduro’s presidency, but there are questions about President Trump driving a coach and horses through the global rules-based order. How should the UK now view the United States national security strategy in the light of this recent action?

[Yvette Cooper]

The US has set out its national security strategy and we have separately set out ours, and they are clearly different. I have raised with the US some particular issues around the US national security strategy. It is obviously for the US to set out its priorities as a democratically elected Government. This comes back to the fact that we believe in the importance not just of hemispheres of interest but of the transatlantic alliance. That has been a cornerstone of UK security. We have a unique security partnership with the US, and that remains important alongside the international rule of law.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the removal of Nicolás Maduro, who for too long oppressed the people of Venezuela, but history shows that the aftermath of intervention can be as consequential as the intervention itself. What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that there is no vacuum for instability or hostile actors to exploit both within Venezuela and across the wider region, particularly hostile state actors such as Russia, China and Iran?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an extremely important issue, and I discussed exactly that with US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday in respect of how we ensure that there is stability in Venezuela and that stability is part of a pathway to democracy. I do not believe stability will be maintained if there is not that route to democracy—there must be a plan and a transition to democracy—but equally, it is hugely important to ensure that we do not have greater destabilisation by countries like Russia and Iran, but also by the criminal gangs that have been so deeply destructive and were allowed to become so powerful under the Maduro regime.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the confirmation that the Government support international law and now want to see a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate Government that reflects the will of the people in Venezuela, but does the Foreign Secretary at least agree that if Donald Trump’s unilateral action was in breach of international law and the UN charter, it has created a very dangerous precedent?

[Yvette Cooper]

The reason we stand up for the UN charter and international law is partly because it reflects our values and partly because it reflects our interests, and because that UN charter and international law framework underpin peace and security across the globe. Of course, throughout decades of history, international law and the UN charter have been tested and strained with the reality of different kinds of international affairs all over the world, and they will continue to be, but we still believe in the importance of advocating for international law and doing so with our closest allies.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The US attack on Venezuela is clearly a breach of international law. Of course Maduro’s violent, repressive regime must be held accountable, but the Venezuelan people need and deserve international support that upholds international law, not the unilateral, unlawful US oil imperialism that we have seen. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that a key function of any Foreign Secretary is to defend and uphold international law? Does she recognise that a year of pandering to and pussyfooting around Donald Trump has had no restraining effect and has instead emboldened him? Will she condemn the illegal US action?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me just say what is in the interests of the people of Venezuela, because that was where the hon. Member started her question. What I think is in the interests of the people of Venezuela is not the Maduro regime, but a transition to democracy. We have worked for many years for a peaceful transition to democracy in line with international law, and that continues to be our policy, but we will work with the reality on the ground. We will work with all those involved and will use the particular assets we have with our experienced embassy to promote the transition to democracy in as safe and stable a way as possible. That is exactly why we are in touch with the Venezuelan opposition.

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary set three conditions for judging the transition: that it be peaceful, that it be compliant with international law and that it have the support of the Venezuelan people. All three of those conditions were broken by a lethal attack by a foreign power, planned not in Caracas but in Washington and in breach of the UN charter. Will the Foreign Secretary turn her mind for a second to the President’s idea that he will seize Venezuelan oil and turn the Venezuelan state into a colony, and advise the House of her reaction? None of those things could be supported by any Labour Government.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Maduro regime did not have the support of the Venezuelan people. That was the consequence of the July 2024 election, for which they have continually refused to publish the results because of all the evidence that Maduro lost the election. We have been very clear that the oil in Venezuela should be used to the benefit of the Venezuelan people—that is what is most important now.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has repeated time after time today that she believes in the rules-based system. Therefore, will she argue for that vociferously at the United Nations so that the world knows what British values are? Will she also discuss with the American Administration a realistic plan to make Venezuela a democracy and make it clear, as she has just said, that the oil should benefit the Venezuelan people and no one else?

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes is the answer to the hon. Member’s questions. We are continuing to raise and promote international law through the United Nations and the Security Council; we are continuing to raise the importance of international law with the US Administration on a range of issues; and we are continuing to argue for a democratic transition in which Venezuelan assets should be used for the Venezuelan people.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

If the Foreign Secretary believes that the rules-based order is important, why have she and the Prime Minister not condemned the actions of Trump? Does she agree that he is nothing more than a megalomaniac and that this is imperialism by another name?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, the Maduro regime has been deeply damaging for the people of Venezuela. We do not shed a tear for the end of the Maduro regime. We do believe, however, that it is essential that we get a peaceful transition to democracy in line with the rule of law and international law. That is what we have argued for over many years and continue to argue for now, because that is what is in the interests of the Venezuelan people.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

With Donald Trump taking a leaf out of the Putin playbook and becoming an international gangster in the Americas, what assurance can the Secretary of State give the Chamber that the coalition of the willing to protect Ukraine will become the coalition of the capable to defend Ukraine?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I would advise Members against suggesting that there is somehow equivalence between what happened this weekend and Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine—the kidnapping of thousands of children in Ukraine, the targeting of democratically elected President Zelensky and the continued war in Ukraine. We will continue to work with the US in defence of Ukraine. That is why we are pursuing the issue of security guarantees as part of NATO, as part of our transatlantic alliance, which is immensely important to the security of the UK and the security of Ukraine.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

President Trump has behaved like a member of a criminal gang—bombing Venezuela, a sovereign country; kidnapping its Head of State and his family; and killing many in the process. Where next—Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, here? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we do not stand up to deviants and bullies like Trump, they will only be emboldened to repeat their illegal acts elsewhere?

[Yvette Cooper]

I point out to my hon. Friend that Maduro was not recognised as a Head of State by the UK Government and by many Governments, not least because of the deep corruption, the refusal to respect the July 2024 election and the deep damage he had done, including now being investigated for crimes against humanity. My hon. Friend talked about the impact on neighbouring countries. Neighbouring countries have also suffered deep damage as a result of the Maduro regime allowing criminal gangs to operate so extensively from Venezuela, and as a result of the rapid migration of so many people from Venezuela due to the crisis.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I have listened to the Foreign Secretary for the last hour and a half and the Government’s foreign policy position on Venezuela is still completely unclear to me, so I will ask a more direct question: does the Foreign Secretary agree with the United States’ Donroe doctrine?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Monroe doctrine has been interpreted in many different ways over decades and through generations, and historians will dispute that. What I can set out is the UK’s foreign policy approach, which is to stand up for Britain’s security, prosperity and values. That is why we not only stand up for the international rule of law, but maintain crucial security alliances, such as NATO and our transatlantic partnership, which are based on laws and values.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has set out that it is possible to not shed a tear for Maduro’s removal but be concerned about upholding international law. In that regard, this should not be seen as a green light for Greenland. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that when she spoke to Secretary of State Rubio, she specifically registered the UK Government’s position on Greenland?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have been in touch with the US Secretary of State about our position on Greenland, and the Prime Minister made it extremely clear today. We have made it clear to the House that we feel strongly that it is important that Greenland is part of Denmark and that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and nobody else.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Like the Foreign Secretary, I shed no tears for the fall of the Maduro regime. However, I have fears about the precedent set by President Trump’s actions over the weekend. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment for global stability if dictators and despots across the world take a very simple lesson from the US’s actions this weekend—that might is right?

[Yvette Cooper]

What we have seen in Maduro is a dictator who is no longer running his country, and the hon. Gentleman and I will, rightly, not shed any tears for that. It is important, however, that we uphold international law, the rules-based order and our values. Those values include recognising democracy and sovereignty for the Venezuelan people, which, frankly, have not been respected by the Maduro regime over many years.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The whole world is now asking, “Who’s next? Who’s on this list? Is it Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, Canada or Colombia?” The attack on Venezuela sparked a wave of regional instability, including in Colombia. The Colombian peace agreement is under threat, exacerbated by the rhetoric from President Trump, who has outrageously smeared Petro as a drug dealer and threatened further military intervention targeting Colombia directly. Given the UK’s role as UN Security Council penholder for the Colombian peace agreement, will the Secretary of State make immediate representations to her US counterparts to cease these reckless threats against a close UK partner?

[Yvette Cooper]

The instability in the region has been heavily exacerbated and driven by the Maduro regime, given the scale of migration and trafficking, the operations of criminal gangs and the escalating influence of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia in the region. As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are the penholder on Colombia. We support the peace process that was agreed and we have worked closely with the Colombian Government on sustaining that peace process. We believe that is extremely important. We will continue to do that through the UN and with all our allies.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nordic countries, I am very grateful for the comments of the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition on Denmark and Greenland. I am also grateful that the Foreign Secretary confirmed just a few moments ago that she and the Prime Minister have been raising directly the issue of respect for the sovereignty of that key NATO ally. Why, then, did it take so long for the Prime Minister to publicly espouse his support, which was so delayed after Sweden, Finland and other countries did so?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Prime Minister did so this morning when he was asked about it.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

The UK’s overriding interest should be to maintain international law, keep as many countries as possible in the global rules-based order and ensure that what has happened in Venezuela is not a gift to Russia or China. Is the Foreign Secretary sure that we can maintain our position at the Security Council and promote our values, our interests and the rules-based order?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is what we need to continue to do. The approach of progressive realism that my predecessor set out in our manifesto was about not only how we pursue our values, but recognising the world as it is—which is, sadly, often not the way we want it to be—how we continue to pursue those values in the most effective way, both publicly and privately, through our alliances, and how we make sure that our foreign policy and decisions are guided by international law.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Britain is historically America’s best friend, and best friends tell each other when they are acting appallingly; they do not go into toadying mode. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have mentioned, in 2003 in this House, a Labour Government voted, with Conservative support, to illegally invade Iraq. The consequences were the undermining of international law, the emboldening of despots around the world, and the massive degradation of Britain’s security, safety and significance. Have we learned nothing from that lesson of nearly 25 years ago? Have we not learned the one lesson above all of history—that those who appease bullies soon become their victims?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me say again to the hon. Member that the continual false equivalence with other issues around the world does not help any of the arguments or the issues that we are dealing with. We have an important issue now: what happened in Venezuela. The UK was not a part of the operations that took place over the weekend. We have set out a different foreign policy approach to Venezuela, based on a peaceful transition, support for democracy and the promotion of international law, which we will continue with. It is right that we do that, given the world that we are in, and the alliances that we need to build in order to pursue our values, our interests and, in this case, democracy for Venezuela.

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

Democracy and human rights are sacrosanct. A new great game, in which might beats what is right, is replacing the international rules-based order. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that our allies in Ukraine, Taiwan and elsewhere are less secure now than they were a week ago?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Throughout our history, there have been tensions. Since the second world war, there have been tensions around the issues of the rules-based order and the international law that we have championed throughout. During the cold war, there were big tensions between major countries, and there are tensions in some of the debates that take place now about global powers and spheres of interest in different hemispheres. As for how the UK should navigate through that, we continue to maintain and uphold the importance of international law, the rules-based order and the international framework of law because we believe that is in our interests, and is the right thing to do. However, as part of that, we have to maintain rules-based alliances, including the NATO alliance and the transatlantic alliance, which are built on, and underpinned by, our values and laws. That is important too, and it is crucial when it comes to Ukraine, which my hon. Friend has worked on for a long time.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Thirty per cent of the US naval fleet is positioned off the coast of Venezuela, those vessels having been redeployed from many locations. They include the fifth fleet from the joint UK-US deployment in Bahrain. We will be left exposed in certain areas—90% of data cables between Europe and Asia are in that region—if this goes on beyond the middle of January. What risk assessments have been undertaken to ensure that our troops are not more exposed than they need to be?

[Yvette Cooper]

The undersea cable issue is important, and we have considered it not just in terms of UK defence, but internationally. We have discussed it at NATO, and as part of our alliances. It is why we must continue to take much more seriously the operation of the Russian shadow fleet in our waters.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

There has been much discussion of international law, but what matters is that it is upheld at such a dangerous time in the world. Our country is less safe when it is not upheld. In the context of Venezuela and Greenland, will the Government reaffirm their commitment to the UN charter as a key instrument of international law, and will they vote accordingly at the UN Security Council?

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to support the UN charter, which is the foundation of our peace and security. We will continue to support it and its principles in all our international debates.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s clarity on the UK’s approach to Greenland, which is that it is up to Greenlanders and Danes to determine its future, and no one else. Could she be equally clear on whether use of any US bases in the UK will be permitted in any potential military action towards Greenland?

[Yvette Cooper]

We do not want to see any military action in Greenland, and it should not arise, because this is a fellow NATO country. We are NATO members and we should work on our security together.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has mentioned the threats to Colombia. The Foreign Secretary correctly said that we are the United Nations penholder for the peace accord achieved in 2016, after protracted negotiations between warring factions. The accord is heavily based on our agreements in Northern Ireland. Will she assure me that she has stressed to her American counterparts that the threat to peace in Colombia could unravel that accord?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we continue to support and uphold the 2016 peace accord. We are the penholder, as he says, so we work closely with the Colombian Government on that, and on how to deal with a range of threats to their stability. I recognise that the Maduro regime contributed to instability in Colombia as a result of migration and criminal operations. We will continue to work with the Colombian Government.

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

In November, I asked the Government what our position would be if the US took military action in Venezuela, in the light of the new US national security strategy, which clearly outlines the US Administration’s position on the western hemisphere and denial of influence to non-hemispheric competitors. The answer was not clear. Following her discussion with Secretary Rubio, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the risk that Venezuela may be the first domino in a chain across central America, ending with Mexico? If we do not now recognise Delcy Rodríguez as the legitimate President of Venezuela, is it because she is one of the individuals we have already sanctioned?

[Yvette Cooper]

We want to see regional stability and calm across the region, and partnership working between nations—that is crucial. Delcy Rodríguez has clearly been part of the Maduro regime for a long time. We believe that there needs to be a transition to democracy that engages all the different Opposition parties and players in Venezuela. That is what we will work to do, and it is what I have discussed with Secretary Rubio.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and her stamina. Over the past hour and 40 minutes, no one has regretted the downfall of Nicolás Maduro, but notwithstanding what the Foreign Secretary has said about the tension between practical, progressive realism and political principle, few of us can condone his kidnapping to stand trial in the domestic courts of another country. This has all the hallmarks of a treacherous deal between the remnants of the Maduro regime and the United States. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it signals the end of the rules-based international order, and that the fraying of that order benefits not our friends in the west, but our foes in the east?

[Yvette Cooper]

I reiterate a point that I have already made: there have always been challenges and strains around frameworks of international law and the realities of particular issues in different parts of the world. The UK has always argued for the maintenance of the rules-based order, and for the alliances that uphold it. For us, one of those alliances is the transatlantic one. We need both to maintain support for the rules-based order and to maintain the crucial partnerships that have upheld that rules-based order—we need to be able to do both.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)]

Two days ago, the United States carried out an illegal and unprovoked military attack on Venezuela, killing at least 40 people. During that attack, the Venezuelan President and his wife were abducted from their home and taken to the US on bogus drug-related charges. The Labour Government are now refusing to assess whether that is legal, so let me ask the Foreign Secretary this question. If a foreign power accused the British Prime Minister of breaking its domestic law, bombed targets in the UK, killed dozens of British citizens and abducted the Prime Minister and his wife in the middle of the night, would the Government be able to say that that was legal, or is international law something that applies only when Donald Trump says it can? If so, are the Prime Minister and this Labour Government anything more than Donald Trump’s poodle?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member seems to be drawing an equivalence between the Maduro regime and the democratically elected UK Prime Minister. I think that this equivalence thing is just really inappropriate. We should recognise the huge damage that the Maduro regime has done, and the fact that it is under investigation by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Maduro Government had no democratic legitimacy, but a return to gunboat diplomacy and strongman-led spheres of influence is not in our national interest. The rules-based international order is not teetering but collapsing, and that is disastrous. However, we cannot just bemoan it; we must respond to that threat by building up the coherence of our own bloc: Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that these developments demonstrate that the absolute priority must be not noises off, but deepening connections, hard and soft, with our own continent?

[Yvette Cooper]

We should strengthen our European partnerships, which is what we have been doing, and strengthen our investment in defence—again, that is what we are doing. The transatlantic partnership remains important. It is what we will discuss this week with the Americans, when discussing security guarantees for Ukraine. The security guarantees we have been discussing, which involve the US, are also about the security of Europe, Ukraine and the UK, and, ultimately, about the upholding of international law.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that failing to publicly call out allies who violate international law—rather than just calling out one’s enemies, which is easy—fundamentally weakens adherence to international law? Will she denounce the illegal actions of the US in Venezuela, including the snatching of its President, and will she confirm that, if it comes to a vote of the UN Security Council, the UK will stand up for international law and will not abstain?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UK continues to argue for international law and to ensure that it guides and frames the decisions that we take as part of our foreign policy, and I have directly raised the issues of international law, particularly around Venezuela, with the US Secretary of State and we continue to do so. Upholding international law also means upholding some of the alliances that sustain that international law, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In order to hold up international law, it is important that there is robust accountability on two fronts. First, on how we use the intelligence that we have as a country ahead of actions being taken, can the Foreign Secretary say how she used the UK intelligence before this operation? Secondly, on the question of accountability after an event, how will we call the US President to account in the light of his being a sitting member of the UN Security Council?

[Yvette Cooper]

The UN Security Council has been discussing Venezuela today, as we would expect the UN Security Council to do on a significant issue. We have deep intelligence and security co-operation with Five Eyes countries. On this particular operation, we were not involved or informed in advance, and nor were other countries.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The US has abducted the leader of Venezuela yet the Government cannot say whether that is legal or illegal. Let us try an easier one: if the US were to abduct the premier of Greenland, would that be legal or illegal?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I would say to the hon. Member that there is a continual searching for equivalence when it is really inappropriate to do so. I have made very clear our position on Greenland: the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and for the Danes, not for other countries be that the US or any other country around the world.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Like the Foreign Secretary, we want an end to this brutal regime. I hope now that Venezuela can move to a democracy with full control of its oil and other resources following this breach of the UN charter. The Leader of the Opposition says that we live in

“a fundamentally different world and an increasingly dangerous world.”

After all, no UK Prime Minister previously has had to stand up so fulsomely for Greenland and Denmark’s security. So when the facts change, should our stance not change too? Should we not be working more closely with the European Union and EU member states to deepen our security and our economic ties, but do we not also need the European Union to be more flexible and pragmatic about what constitutes alignment with the UK?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are strengthening our security co-operation with European allies. We have increasing security partnerships and discussions both with groups of other European countries and the EU as a whole, as well as with the NATO members in Europe. That has been crucial; it is a central part of the coalition of the willing, and those partnerships need to continue to deepen.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State justifies in her statement a flagrant breach of international law by citing Venezuela’s drop in GDP, narcotics trafficking and gold trading. These are issues that could affect countless countries around the world. But let me remind the Secretary of State of the words of the person who perpetrated this action, Donald J. Trump, who said that the US is

“going to have a presence in Venezuela as it pertains to oil. We’re going to be taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground”

and is going to “run” Venezuela. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to take a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book and answer a question once: do the Government support US colonial expansionism or do the Government believe in the rules-based world order? Which is it? It cannot be both.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Government support democracy for Venezuela. The people of Venezuela have been denied that democracy for far too long. We should support that democracy, and we should support international law and the rules-based order, and ensure that a future Government of Venezuela reflect the will of the people and respect the human rights of the Venezuelan people.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)]

Has the Secretary of State reflected on the well-documented difficulties that arise when the US assumes administrative control of occupied territory—difficulties we saw all too clearly during the Iraq conflict? Given these lessons, will the Government press our American allies to ensure we see an early, credible election, one that enfranchises the estimated 7 million Venezuelans who emigrated during Maduro’s time in office? Would that not offer the most legitimate route back to democracy and spare the US the burden and risk inherent in attempting to administer another state? Does not this whole situation, to displace autocracy, demonstrate a need to establish a new consensus that updates the principles that govern intervention in failed states?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important, thoughtful point about the way in which frameworks need to work, but he is also right that there needs to be the transition to democracy at the earliest opportunity. The first stages of that are ensuring that there is stability, and then the release of the political prisoners and the return of political opposition members to Venezuela, because it is not possible to fight a free and fair election while there is still political repression in place.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I have to say that this is one of the most depressing days I have spent in this Chamber in the past few years, because while I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to democracy in Venezuela and her repeated commitment to the rules-based international system and our alliances, I cannot bring that together with this Government’s abject failure to condemn the actions of Donald Trump in breaking international law and the concern it has created, reflected in statements by the leaders of Greenland, Denmark, Sweden and the Foreign Secretary herself at the Dispatch Box. How are the Government going to reconcile that blatant contradiction?

[Yvette Cooper]

I set out already our clear position on Greenland and the importance of international law, but also the importance of working through our different alliances and being prepared to raise issues around international law and other areas both privately and publicly. We need to ensure we can pursue the UK’s interests and also our values. We do that through the discussions that will be taking place this week on Ukraine and through the pursuit of democracy and our values in Venezuela as well.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I read this morning that a former Under Secretary of Defence for Personnel and Readiness has said that he is not aware of any plans for how the next few days will be managed by the US. May I ask the Foreign Secretary what specific reassurances she has received from US counterparts that that is not the case and that instead there is a plan in place? Will she tell us about the work that we are doing with our international partners, particularly from NATO, to ensure that support is provided?

[Yvette Cooper]

One reason I spoke to US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday was to engage on what the plans now should be going forward. Given the level of criminal gang operations in Venezuela and the different factions that there have been in the country, preventing greater instability now and ensuring that we can get that stable basis and a plan for democracy is immensely important. There is a very strong civil society, with opposition groups and so on, but they need to be enabled and supported to ensure that we can get that peaceful, democratic transition. It will be crucially important.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Most Members of this House will agree with the Government that there are no tears to be shed over the removal of the brutal regime in Venezuela, but my question for the Foreign Secretary is this: how does such a desirable outcome impact on the Government’s view of what is permissible within international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is always a debate to be had about how to respond to different kinds of hybrid threat and complex threat in different countries, and different interpretations can be made. That is also why we have said that it is for the US to set out its interpretation and its legal basis for any action that it takes, but we continue to promote the importance of international law as it is set out and the UN charter. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have argued for, for example, reforms to the interpretation of the European convention on human rights and for other areas of international law, for other reasons, to modernise, but we continue to stand up for the principles of the UN charter.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

From state-sponsored assassination attempts to illegal invasions, in recent years we have seen an alarming rise in the number of countries that are behaving like rogue states, including countries that are permanent members of the Security Council—I name Russia, given what happened on British soil, in Salisbury. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that international rules-based order and international law should be a fundamental principle and practice of the UK, and that we expect other countries to uphold that in all circumstances?

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It could feel as if the rules-based order is under particular threat and challenge right now, as I raised in my Locarno speech before Christmas. It has probably been under challenge before and it has endured, partly because countries like the UK have continued to advocate for it, and we must continue to do so.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The people of Greenland are concerned today. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement earlier that UK bases that are used by the US air force will not be used for any attack on Greenland. Will she confirm that she will make that clear to Secretary of State Rubio next time that they speak?

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me be clear: the UK, Denmark and the US are all members of NATO. That is why it is so important that we continue to ensure the sovereignty of Greenland and of Denmark, and why we have made our views on that particularly clear to the US.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. I agree with her that Maduro was a corrupt dictator, who frankly cared nothing for the lives of his own people. I welcome her comments about the importance of upholding international law, so does she agree that if we believe in a world order with clear rules about sovereignty, we cannot pick and choose when those rules do and do not apply? Otherwise, what is to stop others with further bad intentions from taking advantage of that situation and following suit?

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to support international law, to promote it, both publicly and privately, with our allies, and to pursue and sustain the alliances that are important as underpinning parts of the rules-based order, including our NATO alliance and our transatlantic alliance. We maintain those long-standing partnerships as part of upholding international law.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Biden Administration offered a $25 million reward for the capture and detention of President Maduro, and this country has passively supported regime change in Venezuela since we froze the gold reserves held at the Bank of England in 2019. Now that President Trump has followed through on the implicit policy of both our countries and achieved the outcome that the whole world wanted, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what conditions will need to be met for the money that is owned by the Venezuelan people to be returned by the Bank of England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, successive Governments have not recognised the Venezuelan regime, which is the basis on which the independent Bank of England took its decision. We continue not to recognise the Venezuelan regime because it is important that we have the pressure in place to have a transition to a democracy, which is also about the will of the Venezuelan people. Obviously, there are independent decisions for the Bank of England to take, but our principles are about maintaining and pursuing stability and a transition to democracy, and that is what is guiding our approach to recognition.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. She has been getting lots of advice in response, but I do not think any of us really envy her position. I thank her for talking to the leader of the opposition, María Corina Machado, which is the right thing to do. The Foreign Secretary outlined how she had spoken to Secretary of State Rubio about a transition to democracy, but is there a timeline associated with that? Will the recognition of the Venezuelan Government only happen once a Government has been democratically elected?

[Yvette Cooper]

We do not currently have a timeline for that transition. The Venezuelan opposition have said that the first step has to be an end to political repression, the release of political prisoners and the safe return to Venezuela of opposition politicians, because without that there cannot be free and fair elections. So the first step that we are pressing for is an end to political repression, and that is what we are urging the acting President to do.

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

There is an old warning from Benjamin Franklin: “If you do not hang together, you will hang separately.” Given the events in Venezuela in recent days, and given the active threats against Cuba and Mexico, in the past against Canada, and today against Greenland, I ask the Foreign Secretary, where is the line? For the United Kingdom, what now is the Rubicon, the crossing of which would force us to recognise that our silence today will lead only to greater challenge tomorrow? Is it not time that we hang together with our values-based allies to stand up against Trump’s colonial possession taking in central America, whether that is in the western hemisphere or elsewhere?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, to draw equivalence between different countries is the wrong approach. It does not recognise the scale of damage done by the Maduro regime or the fact that, in order to promote international law, we must promote the partnerships that underpin it. We need to work closely with the coalition of the willing, which is meeting tomorrow to discuss Ukraine, and ensure that there are US security guarantees in place, which are an important part of our security alliance with the US. On Greenland, we and other European countries have made our position clear.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The unstoppable machine of American imperialist invasions has killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. From aiding, arming and abetting a genocide in Palestine, to now the invasion and abduction of a leader in Venezuela, for oil, minerals and gold, and to protect the petrodollar, this has nothing to do with democracy or narco-terrorism. With ongoing threats to Greenland, Cuba, Colombia and Mexico, the list of gangsterish aggression continues unopposed. Has the global rules-based order now collapsed, or did it ever even exist for western warmongering powers?

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly disagree with the hon. Member’s characterisation. We have a strong security partnership with the US and other countries, and not just through NATO but through a direct security partnership. The US is our strongest security ally and our alliance is based on values and principles. We continue to sustain that relationship as part of our support and continued respect for international law.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

What message does the Foreign Secretary think that this weekend’s outbreak of unilateral acts of violence, kidnap and taking assets outside of international law sent to Valdimir Putin, particularly with reference to Russia’s view of the need to seriously negotiate peace with Ukraine? Will the Foreign Secretary confer with her Ukrainian counterparts about giving our Ukrainian guests the option of a right to settle in the UK? Will the Minister meet me and Ukrainian guests to discuss options moving forward?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is fundamentally wrong to draw any kind of equivalence between what is happening in Venezuela and what is happening in Ukraine—they are fundamentally different. The US is playing a hugely important role in pursuing a peace process for Ukraine and in the discussions around security guarantees, which are immensely important. The hon. Member raises the issue of Ukrainians living in the UK. As he may know, we have a Ukrainian family continuing to live with us and I take this issue extremely seriously. He will also recognise that this is now a matter for the Home Secretary, and not for me, as the Foreign Secretary.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is right that no one should shed any tears at the end of Maduro’s rule. Does it surprise her that Sinn Féin, first of all, defended the fraudulent election as being electorally robust, and then attended the President’s inauguration event in order to show what it said was “solidarity” with him? That highlights once again how it is still wedded to criminality and terrorism.

There is an opportunity, now that the Americans have done good for the Venezuelan people by removing the corrupt cancer that so damaged their country. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what steps our country can take to ensure that democracy is restored in Venezuela? From her discussions with the Americans, can she say how much they will co-operate with us in that venture?

[Yvette Cooper]

No one should be defending the Maduro regime. I have talked specifically to the US Secretary of State about the transition to democracy. The US has said that this is important, but we need to ensure that those conditions are in place, starting with the ending of political repression.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

President Maduro was illegitimate, but Donald Trump’s illegal incursion into Venezuela puts him in the company of Vladimir Putin and will embolden President Xi in his ambitions for Taiwan. More pressing for the UK is the fact that an occupation of Greenland, which has been repeatedly threatened, would see Putin’s ambition for NATO’s disintegration come to pass. Given that there are numerous US assets in the UK, what discussions have the Government had with our European counterparts, including the Danes, to prepare European security against the threat now posed and explicitly stated by the President of the United States?

[Yvette Cooper]

Trying to make an equivalence between the US and Russia is just totally ridiculous and deeply inappropriate. We have seen the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children. In contrast, we have our relationship with the US, in which it is discussing security guarantees for Ukraine. I think that is hugely important.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Absent international rules-based order leads to chaos. We all know that within chaos there is order; sadly, that order is one in which the strongest survive and the most vulnerable and weak die. That is neither just nor morally right. How can we be champions of and advocates for the international rules-based order yet wholly equivocal when it comes to calling out this flagrant breach of international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have set out our continued commitment to international law and the importance of maintaining some of the underpinning rules-based alliances that are so important for sustaining the rules-based order. That is why we will continue to argue for international law and to maintain things such as the NATO alliance and the partnership, and it is why we will continue to raise these issues publicly and privately with our allies.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

President Trump’s actions are not about drugs; they are about oil. They are not about regional stability; they are about regional dominance. They are not about upholding the law; they are about breaking it. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Government have been clear, but she has not been clear on any of those three points. The world has changed this weekend, and it will change again very quickly. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether there is a single strategic decision or practical step that this Government have taken in the last 72 hours to shore up our national security or that of our allies, especially Denmark?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have discussions going on in the coalition of the willing. There are preparations for them as we speak, because the discussions are being taken tomorrow. Those are all about strengthening our national security as part of strengthening Ukraine’s national security.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly emphasised the Government’s commitment to international law. I remain confused—as, I am sure, do many colleagues across the House—as to her position in respect of President Trump’s actions in Venezuela, whether they were in line with international law and whether she believes that breaching a nation’s sovereignty is, indeed, a breach of international law and order. It could simply be a yes or a no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

As I have said, we will not shed a tear for Maduro and his deeply damaging regime. It is for the US to set out the legal basis of its actions, which we were not involved in. We will promote the democratic transition, which we have continually argued for as part of the policies on Venezuela that we have set out over many years, and we will continue to stand up for international law.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Throughout this statement the Foreign Secretary appears to have taken comfort from the UK not having been involved in the US’s illegal attack in Venezuela, but she cannot escape the reality that for as long as this Government fail to call out Trump for his actions, they are complicit in his demolition of the international rules-based order. When will the Government put their head above the parapet, in the spirit of the likes of Charles Kennedy back in 2003, and condemn the US President’s attempt to turn our world into his wild west?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member should not make a false equivalence between different situations; it would be inappropriate to do so. We will continue to work with the US in the discussions this week on the defence of Ukraine, which is in itself about maintaining international law and the rules-based order, just as we will continue to raise issues around international law in our private discussions with it and in public debates.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Few of us regret the departure of Maduro, but many of us are alarmed by the breach of international law. However, I am most alarmed by Trump’s concurrent threat to Greenland and his previous threat to Canada. The Foreign Secretary says that she likes to deal with the world as it is, so precisely how many NATO allies does Donald Trump have to threaten until the Government recognise that he is a clear threat to the survival of liberal democracy in the 21st century?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are working with the US Administration on support for Ukraine, which is about support for a democratic, sovereign state that has been threatened and invaded by an authoritarian Russian regime. It is the US that is pursuing peace and discussing security guarantees for Ukraine, so I really think the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the world we are in is just wrong.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

There has been widespread speculation in recent days and hours about a possible US operation to seize a tanker that previously operated in Venezuela, which the United States has been pursuing and is now off the Irish coast. Any such operation would very likely involve UK air bases. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any deployments of US forces from UK bases, whether in relation to this tanker or other targets that it may define in Europe, are in full compliance with international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

We always ensure that any action the UK takes is in compliance with international law. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministry of Defence also takes issues of international law immensely seriously, and it is for it to comment on the way in which international law is applied.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

At the weekend, Donald Trump invoked the Monroe doctrine. From her statement, the Foreign Secretary seems to accept that in some cases, the UN charter is secondary to great powers’ spheres of influence. What criteria does she use to decide when the charter is trumped by 19th-century thinking? She has talked a lot today about alliances; the great game of alliances in the 19th century ended very, very badly.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is why the alliances we stand up for today are ones that are based on our values and on long-standing rules and relationships. That is what the NATO alliance is—it is based on our values and is immensely important. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that he disagrees with the NATO alliance, which has been the cornerstone of our security for a very long time.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

This Government have bent over backwards to not criticise President Trump directly, but that only makes him think he can get away with more and more. If President Trump really does invade Greenland, it is the end of NATO and the end of the special relationship, so will the Foreign Secretary accept that the best way for us to protect Greenland today is to explicitly say that President Trump is indeed acting outside international law?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman wants to draw equivalences between a whole series of different situations. We have been very clear about our view on Greenland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question on this statement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I definitely have the strongest legs in this Chamber—I have been bobbing for over three hours.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for her statement and her strong commitment, but will she further outline what support we can offer our US allies to ensure that democracy is restored—or indeed created—in Venezuela? That nation has great potential to do so much good. Further, what support can our UK Government offer to secure the daily needs of so many young people who have been ignored for many years and left in poverty for far too long?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the future of Venezuela and the future for the Venezuelan people, including young people who have been pushed into hardship and poverty by the corruption and criminality of the regime. There is now an opportunity, but it is very fragile. We have to ensure that we support stability in Venezuela and the transition to democracy, which is crucial. Those are the points we will continue to make as part of our discussions with the US, and that is the work that our embassy will continue to do on the ground.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the statement on Venezuela. I thank the Foreign Secretary, who has taken over 90 questions and has been on her feet for two and a quarter hours.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will first address the horrific attack that took place yesterday at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Across the UK, and across the world, people have been shocked and appalled by this vile antisemitic terrorist attack, targeting Jewish families who were celebrating on the beach on the first day of Hanukkah. New South Wales authorities have confirmed that 15 people have been killed, in addition to one of the two gunmen, and 27 people remain in hospital. It is a devastating loss of life, including a Holocaust survivor and a little girl just 10 years old. It has also now been confirmed that one of the victims of the Bondi attack was a British national, bringing this tragedy even closer to home. We have offered support to the family following their tragic loss. I have offered my Australian counterpart, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the United Kingdom’s full support in Australia’s response, and the Prime Minister and His Majesty the King have both shared their condolences.

Hanukkah should be a time of celebration and joy, yet Jewish people are again confronted with vile acts of hatred simply for being Jews, with further distress for our British Jewish communities just a couple of months after the Manchester synagogue attack on Yom Kippur. We stand in solidarity with Australia’s Jewish communities and with Jewish communities here and across the world as they continue to mark Hanukkah, and we stand in solidarity with the Australian people. Our thoughts are with all those affected. We must continue and increase work to root out antisemitism in all its forms, here and abroad, because we will never let hatred win.

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to today’s verdict in the trial of Jimmy Lai. Today, Hong Kong’s courts ruled that Jimmy Lai was guilty of foreign collusion under the national security law, which Beijing imposed on the city five years ago. They also found him guilty of conspiring to publish seditious materials. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He has been targeted by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. This was a politically motivated prosecution that I strongly condemn. Jimmy Lai now faces the prospect of a sentence that, for a man of 78 years, could mean the rest of his life in prison. I call again for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. On my instruction, the Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to underline our position in the strongest terms. My acting consul-general was present at court today to bear witness.

For many in this House and for the large diaspora community living in the UK, it is heartbreaking that such a violation of a British man’s rights could occur in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong of Jimmy Lai’s childhood was a city where a 12-year-old boy seeking opportunity could go on to build a business empire and then a media platform. It was a city of freedom, and that freedom brought great prosperity. When the joint declaration was signed by the United Kingdom and China in 1984, both nations declared their commitment to that prosperity. Our countries agreed that Hong Kong’s uniqueness—its high degree of autonomy; its executive, legislative and independent judicial power; and its rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association—was the foundation of its success, and that those things were to be enshrined in law.

For many years, Hong Kong was the embodiment of the commitments made in that joint declaration. The city, the economy and, most importantly, the people thrived. It was a remarkable, shining example to the world of what Hong Kong’s people, and co-operation between the UK and China, could achieve. Indeed, it is partly because of our important history with Hong Kong—economic as well as political—that China remains our third largest trading partner today.

In 2020, however, China began to break the commitments in that declaration. Hong Kong’s free media spoke out, and they were punished for it. In June 2020 China breached the joint declaration by imposing its national security law on the city. It was a law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics, and one that undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and threatened the rights that China had once freely committed to upholding. It was not long before the new law was applied and Jimmy Lai was arrested, along with other advocates of democracy, free speech and freedom of assembly.

This British citizen—this businessman and journalist; this father, husband and grandfather—has endured five years of incarceration. Meanwhile, his supporters around the world have campaigned tirelessly for justice. I pay particular tribute to Jimmy’s son, Sebastien Lai, who has endured such pain and shown such determination and dignity in fighting for his father and for the wider rights and principles at stake. I know that many honourable colleagues have had the privilege of meeting this determined man, who has endured so much to take on his father’s mantle, speaking up where his father cannot.

The Government have continually and repeatedly raised Jimmy Lai’s case with China at every opportunity, urging the authorities to agree his release, yet the Hong Kong authorities continue to refuse us consular access to our citizen—a 78-year-old man whose health is suffering. Jimmy Lai remains imprisoned, despite international calls for his release and concerns regarding his health; despite UK Ministers raising our concerns directly and privately with Hong Kong and Chinese officials; and despite our repeated requests for consular access, the most recent of which was submitted on Thursday. Once again, I call for Jimmy Lai to be granted full access to independent medical professionals to assess his health and ensure that he receives adequate treatment.

Today’s verdict is sadly not a surprise, but no state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. We have seen how the Hong Kong authorities have tried to use the national security law to target even those living on British soil for speaking up. The UK has repeatedly called for the national security law to be repealed, and for an end to the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. It remains imperative that the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices through arrest warrants and bounties in the UK and elsewhere.

The safety of the Hong Kong community in the UK is a top priority for this Government and, as the Prime Minister has recently said, protecting our security is non-negotiable—it is our first duty. This Government are unequivocally clear that China poses a series of national security threats to the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken further steps and tougher measures to defend our democracy by disrupting and deterring threats from China and other state actors, including upgrading sovereign technology; removing Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; drawing up new legislation modelled on counter-terrorism powers to tackle state threats; rolling out new training to police forces across the country on tackling state threats and protecting individuals from transnational repression; and continuing to support the Hong Kong British national overseas route, which has welcomed over 200,000 Hongkongers to the UK. As part of the earned settlement consultation, the Home Office has confirmed that Hongkongers will retain a five-year settlement route in the UK.

China has not upheld its commitments to the people of Hong Kong, but we will. Jimmy Lai chose to remain in Hong Kong to speak up for what was right, and he is currently paying the price. For the sake of Jimmy Lai and his family, but also for the people of Hong Kong, for the joint declaration we signed and for the rule of law, we will not relent on this. Joined by nations across the world, we call again for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to give our condolences following the antisemitic targeted murder of 15 people from the Jewish community in the shooting in Bondi Beach yesterday. This atrocity was absolutely appalling, and as the Jewish community comes together this Hanukkah, we honour a tradition that symbolises resilience, faith and the triumph of light over darkness.

In the early hours of this morning, Jimmy Lai was convicted, following a shameful show trial under the repressive national security law imposed on Hong Kong in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment, trial and conviction mark a new low in the Chinese Communist party’s shameful attempts to extinguish freedom, democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong. They are yet more serious violations of the Sino-British joint declaration. The scenes of Jimmy, a 78-year-old man, being paraded around in chains are disturbing, but his defiance stands as a source of hope for those who still believe in freedom, democracy and human rights.

Despite all the pain and suffering, despite being persecuted at the hands of the Chinese Communist party, despite being held in solitary confinement for more than 1,800 days, and despite his health deteriorating, Jimmy’s spirit remains unbroken. Throughout the last few years, his son Sebastien, his family and supporters have fought hard for his freedom and to raise awareness of his appalling treatment. I pay tribute to them. The whole House will stand behind them as their fight to free Jimmy continues.

Jimmy should be freed and allowed to come home to the United Kingdom to be with his family. We need to know what action the Government will now take to do everything possible to secure his release and to seriously ratchet up the pressure to end the disgraceful and draconian national security law. What will the consequences be if Beijing does not change its position?

When was the last time the Prime Minister raised Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment directly with President Xi? Has he called President Xi today, in the aftermath of the conviction, to demand Jimmy’s release and to demand that Jimmy be free to come home to the UK? How often has the Prime Minister raised this case directly since July 2024? What was President Xi’s response to him on the occasions that the case was raised, either publicly or in private?

What assurances have been given about Jimmy Lai’s treatment in prison? We know that his health is deteriorating and that he is being kept in absolutely cruel conditions, so what medical help and access to him is the Prime Minister pursuing, and what has been the response of the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities? Has the Prime Minister told President Xi, face to face and directly, that we will oppose this political show trial, and condemn China for breaching the Sino-British joint declaration with its national security law?

This House has previously been informed that Ministers constantly raise this case and have been in touch with their Chinese counterparts, so can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the National Security Adviser raised it on his recent visit to China? Did he have any discussions about Jimmy’s case? Has the Prime Minister continued to raise our concerns that the national security law breaches the joint declaration? What discussions are taking place with international partners, including the United States, to pressure China to release Jimmy and scrap its oppressive national security law?

The immediate release of Jimmy Lai has to be a priority for this Government, but the case raises wider issues with UK-China relations. The Prime Minister is clearly seeking significantly closer relations with Beijing, and has, for economic reasons, effectively ended the policy of trying to reduce strategic dependency, even though the economic impact has been negligible and will not be felt in people’s pockets. The Foreign Secretary stands here condemning China, but she wrote a letter supportive of their super-embassy spy hub. Today shows exactly why that approach is deeply foolhardy.

This morning Sebastien Lai asked how we can normalise relationships if the British Government cannot put a 78-year-old man, who is in seriously bad health, on a plane and send him back to the UK. He asked how, if they cannot even do something as simple as that, we can talk about closer relations. He has called for the release to be a precondition of any further talks with China. Do the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister agree?

With the Chinese Communist party continuing to imprison Jimmy Lai and undermine freedom in Hong Kong, will the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister send a signal of our disgust to the CCP by cancelling the Prime Minister’s planned visit to China next January unless Jimmy Lai is released, blocking China’s super-embassy planning application and placing it on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the victims of the appalling terrorist attack in Bondi Beach in Sydney. I also welcome her support for the release of Jimmy Lai. That should be something that unites the entire House, and the whole House should support the calls for his freedom.

The right hon. Lady asks what action the Government are taking and have continued to take. The Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to convey the full strength of our feeling about this decision and about the politically motivated prosecution under the national security law. Not only has the Prime Minister raised this, and not only have I recently raised it directly with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, but a whole succession of Government Ministers have raised it with their counterparts in the Chinese Government. We see this not simply as a foreign policy matter, but as a matter that affects the entire Government relationship.

The right hon. Lady seems to suggest that we should then have no further engagement, but actually the opposite is true: we need to ensure that we are conveying the strength of our feeling, exactly because this is so important. We have been engaging with our international counterparts. The EU has today said that it “deplores the conviction”, and that this prosecution

“is politically motivated and emblematic of the erosion of democracy and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong since the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020.”

I have raised this matter at the G7, including with my G7 counterparts. She will know the strength of feeling on this issue in the US, where I have discussed it with counterparts. We will continue to raise this issue not just directly in our relationship with China, but in international discussions, to maintain pressure on China.

Chinese authorities have said that they want China to be a country that respects the international rule of law. Well, we need to hold them to that, then. At the heart of international law are the legal requirements, which they signed up to and which still stand in international law, as a result of the 1984 declaration. However, the declaration is not being respected, and it is being repeatedly violated. If China wants to uphold international law on the world stage, it should uphold those commitments in Hong Kong, it should uphold the rights and the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, and it should release Jimmy Lai.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

May I associate myself with the remarks from both Front Benchers in relation to the appalling attack in Australia?

I am greatly encouraged to hear the Government state that they want to have a whole-of-Government approach to the issue of Jimmy Lai. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He could have chosen to leave Hong Kong at any time during the years up to his arrest. He could have left in 2014, but he joined the umbrella movement. He could have left in 2019, but he joined the protests against the proposed extradition law. He could have fled in 2020, when he was given bail, but he stayed because, he said, he wanted to stand up for the city that had given him everything. Despite his great age and his health difficulties, he has been held in solitary confinement for 1,800 days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Jimmy Lai is an inspirational example of bravery and patriotism for all those fighting for democracy, wherever they are in the world?

[Yvette Cooper]

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s tribute to Jimmy Lai, his bravery and his strength in the face of the most difficult circumstances, and to the way in which he has spoken up for freedom and for values, as well as for his city and communities. She is right to pay tribute to him, and I think the whole House would join in that tribute and in recognising what he has stood up for. We also recognise that others have been forced to leave Hong Kong as a result of that repression. That is why the BNO route that the Government provide is so important.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her strong statement. I associate my party with her remarks about the appalling attack at Bondi Beach. We stand united against all anti-Jewish hatred.

I share the Foreign Secretary’s utter condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s politically motivated conviction. The trumped-up charges and sham trial show how desperate the Beijing regime is to silence its critics. I agree with Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, that it is now up to the UK Government to ensure Jimmy’s welfare and secure his release. I welcome the summoning of the Chinese ambassador today. What was the outcome? Has Jimmy Lai’s access to medical treatment been assured? What further steps are the Government taking to secure his immediate release?

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that China poses national security threats to the UK, so can she explain why it is not on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Jimmy Lai is not alone in the fight for civil liberties and the rule of law in Hong Kong. Countless brave Hongkongers continue to advocate for democracy and freedom, even as the CCP works relentlessly to erode the city’s independence.

For speaking out, many Hongkongers living in the UK face daily intimidation and threats from Beijing. Just last week, pro-democracy campaigner Carmen Lau was subjected to a renewed campaign of intrusive and distressing intimidation and misinformation. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary provide today to Carmen and other Hongkongers living in the UK that they will be better protected in the future against Beijing’s predations? Has she updated her submission to the Housing Secretary about the risks posed by the new super-embassy? Will the Government look to sanction all those CCP officials who are responsible for extraterritorial intimidation of pro-democracy activists?

Finally, the Government like to say that they will challenge China when they must. Can the Foreign Secretary indicate one thing that the Government will not do for China, in order to signal that the treatment of Jimmy Lai is unacceptable?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for his support for Jimmy Lai and his release. Unfortunately, China has not currently agreed either to consular access or to health access, but let me be clear that we will not relent. We will continue to raise this issue with our international partners as well as directly with China, including in international forums. I join him in condemning the targeting of Carmen Lau and others who have been targeted in the UK. It is why we are strengthening the training for all police forces across the UK on how to deal with state threats and transnational repression. We increased investment in our intelligence and security agencies, so that they can deal with state threats as well as traditional counter-terrorism threats. We are increasingly using new measures, such as sanctions, on issues around cyber-threats. He will be aware that we have recently sanctioned two Chinese entities around cyber-threats and cyber-challenges to the UK.

The hon. Member also raised the embassy. As he will know, it remains a planning decision for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government under its independent processes, but security considerations have been taken immensely seriously, not only by the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but by the agencies throughout.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The Hong Kong national security law and the conviction of Jimmy Lai are a breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. It is a politically motivated attack on freedom. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure this House that all possible actions are being pursued, first to ensure that Jimmy Lai obtains his legal access to British consular support, and secondly to push for his immediate release?

[Yvette Cooper]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do everything we can to provide consular support for all those affected by the national security law, and in particular Jimmy Lai. May I also reiterate the tributes to Sebastien Lai, who I know is in the Gallery today?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. Lady in her comments about the terrible attacks in Bondi, and I congratulate her on raising that now, but I rise to express the view again that this case is not only about Hong Kong, but about this Chamber. I have been named nine times in the prosecution case against Jimmy Lai. Others have been named more than that. It is appalling. I would have loved to have met him and spoken to him, but I never have done. It is trumped-up nonsense from the CCP.

The second thing I say to the Foreign Secretary is that I agree with the strength of her statement about the appalling nature of the Government in China over this issue, but it is no good just meeting people to say they are wrong or calling in the ambassadors. Surely what we have to do is show them a ratcheting up in the things that we will do. First, we need to tell them that there will be no visit in January by our Prime Minister to an organisation that is so corrupt and indecent. Secondly, we should surely start imposing sanctions on those members in Hong Kong who run the place. We have done none of that. Every other country has sanctioned them, but we have not. Finally, there is the idea of allowing this regime to have a huge embassy with 200 extra spies brought in. At this point, they surely need to be told that it will not happen until they release Jimmy Lai.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that the right hon. Member has campaigned and spoken out on this area for a long time, so let me recognise his continued speaking out, not just for Jimmy Lai, but more widely on issues around China and national security concerns. Let me be clear that we will continue to pursue this issue through international routes, as well as directly with China. He raises issues around sanctions. As he will know, we never talk about sanctions in advance, but we have expanded the sanctions not just around cyber-threats, but on issues such as support for Russia and the war on Ukraine.

I have addressed the question of the planning process for the embassy, but let me be clear that the UK continues to have strong restrictions on the numbers of people who can come to the UK and on the visa arrangements. All of that continues and does not change at all as a result of any planning decision. No state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. That is why we have been clear in our strong condemnation of this politically motivated prosecution and in calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her tribute to Sebastien Lai, who, as she says, has joined us in the Gallery. This afternoon, Members from across the House heard from Sebastien—Jimmy’s son and a constituent of mine—and the international legal team supporting him and the family. Jimmy is now 78. A British citizen in failing health after five years in solitary confinement, he now faces a fifth Christmas away from his family, including a granddaughter he has never met, Sebastien’s first child. What message does the Foreign Secretary specifically have for Jimmy’s family, and can she assure them that everything will be on the table in what the Government decide to do next?

[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.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

A constituent of mine suffered a terrible rape in Hong Kong which was not properly investigated. Her statement was made with the use of Google Translate, and no rape kit was taken. She then found herself being accused of something else as a result, and will have been in the system for two years in January. She trusted that the legal system in Hong Kong would support her, but in taking on the case of a black British woman, her lawyers have taken a risk. Does the Foreign Secretary have confidence in the legal system in Hong Kong, and is there anything that we can do to support my constituent?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am very sorry to hear the circumstances of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I am happy to discuss them further with my hon. Friend. As she will know, we have raised our concerns repeatedly, especially in relation to the national security law and the way in which that law does not respect the circumstances and the commitments that were agreed. It has been a crucial part of Hong Kong’s identity for so many years, and what was embodied in the declaration was that it was about respect for the rule of law.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Carmen Lau is a Hong Kong democracy campaigner, and a constituent of mine. Earlier this year, her neighbours received letters asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy in exchange for £100,000. Last month her neighbours also received fake sexually explicit photographs of her, with a Macao postage stamp. May I ask the Foreign Secretary when she last met Carmen to discuss those concerns, and how she can reassure Hongkongers living in Britain that they will be safe?

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for standing up for his constituent. Obviously, I have seen the most recent reports of the circumstances that she has faced. I have not met her since then to discuss them and hear from her about them, but I think the whole House will be totally appalled by the experiences that she has had. I can assure the hon. Member that our counter-terrorism police, who cover both state threats and terrorism threats, take this immensely seriously and pursue every possible investigation, which it is why we as a Government have expanded their work in relation to state threats.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The use of foreign lawyers by both prosecution and defence is a long-established tradition in Hong Kong, yet Jimmy Lai has been denied that right, even as judgment has been passed. This is about justice, not rigged justice. This verdict is not only devastating for one British citizen and his family; it represents a brutal attack on free speech and the rule of law in Hong Kong. It confirms that the national security law is being used to silence critics, to destroy independent media, and to dismantle the freedoms that were promised to the people of Hong Kong. According to the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation,

“Jimmy Lai is guilty only of his unwavering belief in freedom for the people of Hong Kong. Contrary to Beijing’s intentions, the verdict today highlights Jimmy Lai’s courage and integrity and sends a clear message around the world that Hong Kong’s once proud judicial system is severely tarnished and under Beijing’s authoritarian control.”

The Foreign Secretary, and many Ministers whom she has quoted today, have raised the case of Mr Lai and spoken to people including our international colleagues, and we must continue to do so, but it is evident that that is no longer sufficient. The Prime Minister must raise the case with the Chinese regime at the highest possible level. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, and I ask our Prime Minister to consider carefully what action we will now take to protect this citizen and many, many more. After all, the British Government’s first duty is to protect their citizens at home and abroad.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of Jimmy Lai. She is right: this is about some of the most basic freedoms of all. It is about freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly—freedom to gather—and also the fundamental freedoms in relation to journalism that are so important and have been such an important part of Hong Kong’s identity and history for so long. They were embodied in the declaration to recognise that uniqueness about Hong Kong, which is why we will continue to maintain them. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has already raised this directly with his counterparts, as have many other Ministers, and we will continue to do so.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Let me start by saying that I greatly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words about the horrific antisemitic murders in Australia. To those who died, let us all just say, “May their memories be a blessing.”

When we talk about Hong Kong and when we talk about Jimmy Lai, we should remember that the attack on Jimmy Lai—the arrest of Jimmy Lai—is not just a punishment against his family or against him, but part of the repression from the Chinese state. It is being used deliberately to threaten and intimidate Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom. When we talk about standing up for Jimmy Lai, we are actually talking about standing up for ourselves. We are talking about defending our own freedoms and defending the liberties that British people have the right to expect, both at home and abroad.

Will the Foreign Secretary forgive me—I recognise that she been in the role for only a matter of months—when I say that what we are hearing, again, is the bureaucratisation of process and not the leadership that politics is supposed to offer? When we do not hear that decisions about, for instance, the embassy or the visit are potentially on the line, Beijing hears that it can just continue as normal. Let us not pretend that a fundamentally strategic decision such as the siting of an embassy is the mere duty of a bureaucrat. It is not. It is the role of a Government to offer leadership and direction, and I am afraid that at the moment this Government are offering none.

[Yvette Cooper]

Having been Home Secretary before becoming Foreign Secretary, I am very clear about the nature of the security threats that China poses. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is not simply about the threat to Jimmy Lai, and not simply about this particular prosecution. In itself it is used more widely as part of transnational repression, which is something I take immensely seriously, because this is not just about British citizens in Hong Kong but about residents here on UK soil. It is because we take that so seriously that we have strengthened our state threat response.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the sentencing is expected to take place in the new year. We are clear about the fact that we need the Chinese Government to hear the condemnation, not just from the UK but from partners around the world, of what has happened in respect of the politically motivated prosecution in this case, and to recognise the urgent humanitarian circumstances relating to Jimmy Lai. We will continue to make that a central issue in all our discussions with the Chinese Government. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are separate processes for different things, and, given his background and experience, he will also be aware of the importance of recognising independent processes.

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

Let me first associate myself with the Front-Bench comments about the horrific antisemitic murders on Bondi Beach.

The result in the case of Jimmy Lai was obvious from the point when the national security laws were passed. We have been descending down this road for many years with the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong authorities. The sentencing of Jimmy Lai will start on 12 January. May I ask the Foreign Secretary, and also the National Security Adviser, to meet Jimmy’s legal team, who briefed us today, as a matter of urgency, before the sentencing starts? Can the Foreign Secretary reassure me that there will be no positive signals towards Beijing during that time, and after that time if Jimmy is indeed sentenced for a long period? We are sending the wrong signals to the Chinese Government if we keep bending towards their will.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for his words about the appalling attack on Bondi Beach, and also for championing the case of Jimmy Lai. Both the Prime Minister and I have met Sebastien Lai previously, and I will very happily do so again.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The whole House will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words on the terrorist attack on Bondi Beach.

Without seeking to interfere directly in matters before the court in Hong Kong, we note that Jimmy Lai is 78, he is held in solitary confinement, his health is in sharp decline, he is unable to practise his religious beliefs and he is a British citizen. Surely this case cries out, at the least, for clemency. In view Jimmy Lai’s British citizenship, will the Foreign Secretary directly engage afresh with her opposite number, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the Chinese state to mount the very strong case for clemency for Jimmy Lai?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the right hon. Member that, given the immediate circumstances for a 78-year-old man in poor health, there is an urgent need for clemency and humanitarian recognition of those circumstances. We of course have strong differences on the national security law, which we are very clear is a breach of the declaration, but we surely have a shared humanity. We urge the Chinese authorities to recognise that shared humanity and release Jimmy Lai immediately.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Given that the Chinese Communist party has clearly broken its promise in the joint declaration to protect freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and that this judgment was handed down by a politically appointed judge in a sham or show trial, does the Foreign Secretary agree that those Members of the House of Lords who still serve on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong should step down from that role, so as not to lend their credibility to a system that has clearly abandoned the rule of law?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will recognise that we have independent processes for the judiciary, but he is right to say that the rule of law is really important. It is an important issue for the UK, and we stand up for those values in all their dimensions. The Chinese authorities have increasingly spoken about the importance of the international rule of law, saying that major countries ought to provide leadership on the international rule of law. Again, our strong message to them is that, to show international leadership on the rule of law, they need to recognise their legal obligations, which are still present, to implement the declaration. That means ending the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

There is a legitimate and necessary debate to be had on our wider foreign policy towards China, but surely the most important thing today is that this House should speak with one voice in condemning this sham trial and demanding the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for doing that. I am told that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, of which I am a member, is cited no fewer than 500 times in the judgment on Jimmy Lai. It has had no contact from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite having initiated a correspondence. When the Foreign Secretary returns to the Department, can she investigate that and ensure that it is given the proper level of engagement that it requires and deserves?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will certainly do so. I will follow that up, and get back to the right hon. Member. I agree with him that it is immensely important that we speak with one powerful voice, with all of us calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the condolences to the Jewish community in Australia that were eloquently expressed by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary.

In the representations on Jimmy Lai, can I ask again that the case of Lee Cheuk-yan be raised? Lee, who is a trade union colleague of mine, was the general secretary of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Hong Kong. He has been in prison since April 2021. His trial was postponed twice this year, and we have now been given the date of 22 January. We are fearful that the trial may be delayed again, but also that he will receive a long sentence. All he did was to participate in the campaign for democracy in Hong Kong and for trade union rights. The whole campaign would be grateful for any representations that can be made.

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that many other people are facing prosecution or have already been charged and been through a process under the national security law. We are very clear that the national security law should be repealed. It directly contradicts the declaration and the legal obligations on the Chinese authorities under that declaration. I will follow up the case he raises.

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

Like every other communist regime that has ever existed, the Chinese Government behave with ruthlessness, impunity and unmitigated mendacity. I therefore welcome the strong words in the statement from the Foreign Secretary, but what Members on both sides of the House wish to see is stronger actions. It is not so much a case of one country, two systems, as of one Government and two faces. If our Government cannot even say that a country that poses so many strategic threats is itself a threat, we have an awfully long way to go.

[Yvette Cooper]

I note that the right hon. Member obviously shares the concerns about, and joins the calls for the release of, Jimmy Lai. On the wider issues, I have been very clear about the national security threats posed by China—for example, transnational oppression, support for Russia in the war on Ukraine and cyber-threats, on which we have recently introduced more sanctions. However, because of our strong history—our economic history as well as our political history—with Hong Kong, China is the UK’s third largest trading partner. Those are not things we can trade off. We do not trade off them, as the Prime Minister made very clear in his speech a few weeks ago. National security is always the first duty of any Government, but alongside pursuing threats and human rights issues, we must recognise that trading relationship. We should ensure that we pursue both, but that we pursue national security issues as the first duty.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their powerful words on the horrific antisemitic attack in Australia.

Jimmy Lai has been persecuted for standing up for human rights and democracy, and I know that the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community shares my utter horror at this cowardly act by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. As many Members from across the House have said, such communities face their own security threats from the long arm of the Chinese state. In the light of that, I thank the Foreign Secretary for recognising the importance of the 5+1 British national overseas settlement route. It is really important that we have recommitted to that. However, will she share with Home Office Ministers my constituents’ concerns about changes to the language and income requirements for that route? It is right that we stand by Hongkongers with that settlement route and that we recognise our historical commitment to the Hong Kong community.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s highlighting of the Hongkongers in his constituency and other local communities. He will know that over 200,000 Hongkongers have been welcomed to the UK through the BNO route. I will pass on the points he has raised to the Home Office, but the route has played an important part in Hongkongers arriving and being part of our economy, our communities and our joint respect for human rights and the commitments we made in 1984.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I associate myself and the SNP with the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the appalling attack on Bondi Beach.

I welcome the statement condemning what the CCP has done with the political sham of a trial, simply for Jimmy Lai expressing his belief in democracy and freedom. However, the statement does not go far enough. I would like to ask two very short questions. First, the US, Canada and Australia are able to secure the release of their nationals. Why is it that the UK has not been able to secure a release from China in this case? Secondly, what message does the inability to secure the release of Jimmy Lai send to other British citizens who may be held in arbitrary detention by regimes who do not respect the rule of law, democracy or freedom of speech and assembly?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a deep, long-standing change that we have seen in the Chinese authorities’ approach over the last five years. Successive Governments have raised that with China, but we continue to do so because the national security law is deeply damaging, undermines the declaration and undermines the international rule of law. We will continue to raise that, just as we will continue to provide consular support for people across the world where there are British citizens who need our help and where we have work we can do to assist them.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Government’s dealings with China are proving to be almost as lamentable as those of their predecessor. We have summoned the ambassador to tell him just how cross we are, but I bet we will give him his embassy, won’t we?

[Yvette Cooper]

I note the right hon. Member’s lack of support for the previous Government. That Government were led by his party and, in theory, he voted and campaigned for them over many years. Nevertheless, I can probably agree with him about his disagreements with the previous Government, who managed to say things but actually did not engage in the way that we as a country need to in order to pursue Britain’s interests.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Following the appalling show trial of Jimmy Lai, I have already had correspondence from members of the strong and growing community of Hongkongers in Woking. They are terrified about the signal this will send to people from Hong Kong who now live in the UK. People are facing intimidation in the UK for standing up to Beijing on civil liberties issues. As well as continuing to demand the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, will the Foreign Secretary please consider the use of targeted sanctions against Chinese Communist party officials involved in that decision and in issuing bounties and other intimidation across the world?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is exactly because of that transnational repression—threats to people resident on UK soil, including Hongkongers whom we have welcomed into our communities as a result of the repression they have faced—that we have strengthened the work of the counter-terrorism police and intelligence agencies on targeting state threats. We will continue to do so, because it is immensely important that we support not just residents here, but the freedoms and traditions of the people of Hong Kong.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to the bravery of Jimmy Lai and his family. The reality is that we are engaged in a battle over what form of state will dominate in the coming decades: states like ours that try, imperfectly, to balance the rights of individuals and the state, or authoritarian regimes such as China, which want unfettered state power. Those sorts of regimes respond to strength. The Foreign Secretary has talked about how we feel and said that the Government feel upset and angry, but those sorts of regimes respond to strength. Given that, does she agree with me that it would be a disastrous decision to allow the super-embassy to go ahead?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is an independent planning process and it has long been so. This is not just about the UK’s direct engagement with China, but about our engagement through international forums. That is why I have raised Jimmy Lai’s case directly in the G7 and with other Foreign Ministers across the world. It is why we have seen international condemnation of what has happened today. It is also why we are seeking international support for our call for the urgent release of Jimmy Lai, which I think should be the priority for all of us now.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I associate myself with the comments about yesterday’s horror in Sydney. I, too, welcome the Foreign Secretary’s clear and unequivocal call for the release of Jimmy Lai, and her condemnation of a politically motivated act that, as others have said, can only cause great fear among the Hong Kong community in this country. She said that a cross-Government approach would be taken. Will she make it clear to China that it cannot just be business as usual from now on, that it cannot expect the super-embassy simply to go ahead, that there will be sanctions, and that we will also protect our energy and national security by imposing mitigating circumstances on any contracts in which it might be involved in the North sea, in wind farms?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think many of the points the hon. Lady raises I have already addressed, but she raises an important further point about our economic security, for example in relation to critical minerals and energy infrastructure. I take those issues immensely seriously. There is more we need to do, working with the G7 countries and other countries around the world, on how we retain our energy security and our wider economic security, and recognise the ways in which China is operating across the world that can cause real challenges to that economic security.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I listened to the Foreign Secretary really closely, and I have to say that, without real action, even the strongest condemnation she may issue is not strong enough. Calling the ambassador will just be taken as words, because that has all been done before. The Chinese are not listening, as the conviction of Jimmy Lai proves. One show of strength she could make, of course, is to withdraw her support for the Chinese super-embassy in the heart of London. By doing so, I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would listen, and the independent process. What the Chinese would hear is that the protection of British citizens is of paramount interest to us and that it will not be without consequence if they are maltreated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will be aware that there is an independent process around the planning system, and he will have seen the agreement that if the planning agreement were reached, then the Chinese diplomatic premises would shrink from the current eight as a result. It is important to recognise that that is an independent planning process. Alongside whatever embassy arrangements are in place, it is crucial that we have a strong response to state threats to national security in this country and that we continue to press for the urgent release of Jimmy Lai. I hope he will agree that that should be a humanitarian priority for everyone, as some of his colleagues have said.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The politically motivated conviction of Jimmy Lai is yet another chilling sign of the breakdown of human rights and freedom of speech in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary will know that I was refused entry into Hong Kong to visit our son and his young family, and I never got any explanation why. Where does this recent development leave British citizens still in Hong Kong and their families who are here? I am thinking particularly about the many BNOs in my constituency who are deeply worried, and I know what that feels like.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right to raise that issue. There is a real concern. I am sorry about the difficulties that I know she has had. She will know that they have been raised with the Chinese authorities. She is also right to raise the concerns of Hongkongers who live here but who still have family back home, and who, as a result, do not feel that they can visit them. Even where they have British citizenship, the Chinese authorities do not recognise dual nationality. Therefore, there are real concerns for anyone visiting family, either in Hong Kong or more widely in China, that that dual citizenship or their British citizenship simply will not be recognised. That is what has happened with Jimmy Lai and it is why we continue to raise this issue. This issue is about British citizens, and we will stand up for British citizens.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sebastien Lai, whom I and a number of colleagues met earlier, and who has shown courage and fortitude throughout this process. Ever since the verdict was announced I have been inundated with the concerns of Hongkongers in my constituency about what this might means for their safety under the programme of transnational repression and persecution being conducted by the Chinese. They say that diplomacy works until it doesn’t, and now we can see that it has not worked, so there must be consequences. May I press again for an answer on why China has not been placed in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? I understand that, as Home Secretary, the right hon. Lady submitted evidence to the Housing Secretary regarding the security implications of the super-embassy. Has she updated that advice since new risks and threats have been identified?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member will know that the Security Minister has updated the House several times on the FIRS process and our continuous work to keep countries under review in that respect. As for the security considerations raised as part of the planning process, I again assure him that not only the Home Office and the Foreign Office, but the security and intelligence agencies take these issues immensely seriously and have been involved in the consideration. As part of that, further information provided to the planning process relates to the consolidation of the diplomatic premises, as well as wider security considerations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments and send my and my party’s sympathies to those affected by the murders on Bondi Beach this weekend. They are very much in our thoughts and prayers. I believe the Government should also support the Australian Prime Minister and Government in the action they take against the terrorists now in that country.

To be honest, the verdict was not unexpected. We have all read the character of the Governments and officials involved in this travesty, and this was always going to be the result of China being permitted to rule with an iron fist. But what cannot be forgotten is that this is not a Chinese-only issue; Jimmy Lai is a British national and, as such, should have had his Government protecting him. I am old enough to remember when holding a British passport gave one protection. Where is that protection? What steps will the British Government take to enable this elderly British national to secure a just result, rather than the theatre we have watched? With respect, Foreign Secretary, the time for watching has ended. Will the Government finally take action?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can confirm that we will not relent in our calls for Jimmy Lai to be released; we will continue to do so with other countries across the world. We need to draw on the international support for Jimmy Lai to get an urgent humanitarian release for him. I also welcome the points the hon. Gentleman made about Bondi Beach and assure him that we continue to offer our full support to the Australian Government through the Five Eyes and more broadly in their action against terrorism.