Defence and Security: European Partners
Tuesday, 27 October 2026
Contributions
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)Labour
6. What discussions he has had with European partners on defence and security.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)Labour
In recent weeks I have been in Warsaw and Ukraine discussing defence and security with key allies. There is no bigger test of our values and our commitment to European security than Ukraine, and we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people. We are also committed to building a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO as the ultimate guarantee of peace and security.
The attack on the then British Prime Minister’s home last year was linked to Russian-backed proxies attempting to undermine our democracy, and it concerns me deeply that our nation has become so anaesthetised by online disinformation that we collectively shrugged and carried on doomscrolling. I commend the creation of a national centre for information defence to counter cognitive warfare, but given the continued threat of Russian cognitive warfare, may I ask the Foreign Secretary how we can co-operate with European partners to counter disinformation, shut down the networks and hold technology companies to account?
We do have a defence and security partnership with the European Union, but my hon. Friend speaks eloquently about these issues. As I said in an earlier answer, we want to do more work with the European Union on questions of information, and we will say more about that in the coming weeks. My hon. Friend also raised wider issues. Hybrid warfare is not just about information and misinformation; as we know from the recent incident in Leipzig, it is about sabotage, espionage, cyber-attacks and a range of other issues, and we need to be extremely vigilant about it.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)Conservative
In the discussions that the Foreign Secretary is holding with European countries, is he also emphasising the vital role that soft power and the international development budget play in promoting security? Does he realise that since this Government’s cuts in spending on international development, we now allocate less for Africa from the development budget than we allocate to UK postcodes from that same budget for first-year asylum seeker costs?
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with enormous authority about these issues and has a proud record in that regard, and I could not agree with him more on the substantive part of his question about the role that international development plays. He may know that as part of our G20 presidency next year we have committed ourselves, in fiscally constrained times, to seeking to do more about the combination of the debt burden, climate breakdown, and the need to bring about growth and tackle poverty in developing countries. We must accept the fiscal constraints that we face, but that does not mean we cannot act through, for instance, the multilateral development banks. I look forward to working on these issues with the right hon. Gentleman, and with other Members on both sides of the House.
Mr SpeakerSpeaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)Labour
I learnt a great deal during my trip to Ukraine last month. I learnt that the Ukrainians see themselves as Europeans, that they know who their friends are and that they are incredibly grateful to Britain, but that they are also very disappointed as they hit this very difficult winter. We know that they will need about £90 billion to get through it. There are £200 billion-worth of Russian assets frozen in Europe; what can we in Britain do to ensure that those assets are unlocked and used in Ukraine? Might one answer be to lead by example? Is there something we can do about the £25 billion-worth of Russian assets that we have in the UK and—as we head towards the anniversary of Abramovich’s being told that he had to hand them over—the £2.5 billion-worth of Chelsea assets?
My right hon. Friend always speaks a good deal of sense on these questions. In response to the fundamental point, let me repeat what I said in an earlier answer: we are determined to tackle the issue of Russian sovereign assets. As my right hon. Friend may know, there is a renewed push in the EU to take action on it, and I have said to my EU counterparts that we are determined to act with them. That brings me to the broader point that she raised. Russia is seeking to test our resolve on Ukraine, and we must show that we will absolutely stand with the Ukrainian people until they prevail. There are a number of elements in that, but one of them is the financial question, and we are determined to act.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)Conservative
The Prime Minister told President Zelensky recently that he stood “in complete solidarity” with Ukraine over President Trump’s dirty diesel deal over Russian diesel exports, and I support the Prime Minister on that. Earlier, the Foreign Secretary mentioned hitting Russia in the pocket, so why are his Government still importing jet fuel and diesel, albeit through other countries? They have weakened the sanctions against Russian diesel and fuel, which I would suggest is a complete inconsistency in UK foreign policy.
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong about that. We have actually introduced a phased ban on maritime services in relation to gas, and that licence expires in January—I reassure him on that point. Beyond that, I am constantly seeking ways in my Department, with colleagues across Government, to ratchet up the economic pressure on Russia. I say to all our allies, including the United States, that that must be our aim, because that is the way we get a successful outcome in this conflict.
I call the shadow Minister.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)Conservative
In recent months, our European allies have become increasingly forthright in publicly naming hostile states responsible for attacks on their countries, yet Britain appears reluctant to do the same, even though the Foreign Secretary has spoken very clearly about hybrid war. Over the weekend, it was reported that the crippling cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover was state sponsored. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that failing to publicly attribute such attacks only emboldens our adversaries and, more importantly, will he now name the state believed to be responsible for this unprecedented attack on British industry?
I will not get into the details of that attack today, but we are absolutely happy to name those who are engaging in information warfare, and I have talked a lot in this session about Russia and what it is doing. The Prime Minister could not have been more eloquent at the UN General Assembly in talking about the more than £1 billion a year that Russia spends on information warfare. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, but I think there is cross-party agreement on this issue. We all want to tackle the information warfare that we face, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House in doing so.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Our defence and our economy are closely tied, and both depend on our relationship with our closest neighbours. The Prime Minister wants to have an “honest conversation” with the public about Brexit, and that begins with an honest assessment of its damage. The Conservatives’ hard Brexit is costing the Treasury up to £90 billion a year in lost tax revenues. The biggest lever we could pull to reverse that damage would be to join the single market and a customs union. That would deliver the revenues we need to cut taxes, grow our defence spending and invest in public services. The Prime Minister wants us to be led by evidence, so are the Government conducting their own impact assessment into the benefits of joining the single market and a customs union? If not, why not, and if so, can the Foreign Secretary confirm when it will be published?
I am not going to go all the way with the hon. Gentleman— [ Laughter. ] Sorry; that was an unfortunate turn of phrase. In all seriousness, we have had 10 years of looking at the status quo and the Brexit deal we have at the moment. That Brexit deal is not serving our country well enough, so Members of this House have to make a decision: do they think that the status quo is right and that we should hang on to it, or can we do better? I think the most important date for us in Government at the moment is 20 November, the day of our EU summit, where we will do better on trade, on defence and security, and on all the other issues. Parties on all sides have to decide what they think about this. Do they think the status quo is right? We think we can do better, and that is what we are going to do.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5425611.