Venezuela

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the condolences expressed by the Foreign Secretary in the other place following the appalling tragedy in Crans-Montana. I know that the victims of that tragic fire, their friends and their families will be in all our thoughts at this very difficult time.

The Government and the Opposition shared profound concerns about the Maduro regime. Nicolás Maduro was a tyrant responsible for unspeakable criminal abuses against the Venezuelan people. His was an appalling socialist dictatorship that destroyed the prospects of Venezuela and reduced it to penury. The brutality and repression suffered by the Venezuelan people under Maduro’s regime were appalling. When in government we refused to recognise it, and the Government are right to have continued that long-standing policy. In our view, the Government should always put Britain’s interests first, and national security is the first duty of government.

We know that the United States is our closest security partner. It is the Government’s duty to work with the United States constructively in the interests of the British people. We on these Benches understand the United States’ reasons for taking this step. It is acting in its stated national interest against sustained drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including potential terrorism. While we understand that there remain questions about the precedent that this sets, that much is clear.

Can the Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with their US counterparts on this point? Increasingly, it seems that the United States acts and Britain finds out later. When major decisions are made, Britain is not in the room. Has the Prime Minister even spoken with President Trump since the US action in Venezuela? Perhaps the Minister could update the House.

In the same vein, can she confirm what conversations the Prime Minister has had with our European partners since the US action? I know that they are meeting and doing good work today on Ukraine, and I cannot believe that this issue has not been discussed, at least in the margins.

The security of the British people can be served only if the UK shows leadership, working proactively and constructively with our international partners. The Government were slow to respond in this case; the PM did not seem even to have an opinion on it for many hours. If we are to protect the interests of the British people, we must be a leader on the world stage. In this case, the Government failed to provide that leadership.

That said, I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear statement on Greenland yesterday. It is good to have at least some clarity from the Government although, again, it could have come sooner. On the question of the US rhetoric towards Greenland, in the other place the Foreign Secretary said that

“Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark … The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes, and no one else”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 76.]

I agree with her, but if the future of Greenland is solely a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Danes, as she correctly said, then, using the Government’s own logic, the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory is surely a matter for the Chagossians and the British people. Can the Minister please explain how the Government’s approach to Greenland’s sovereignty is consistent with their position on the Chagos Islands?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I also associate these Benches with the condolences on the terrible incident in Switzerland.

I start by simply quoting from my right honourable friend Ed Davey, speaking in the House of Commons last evening, when he referred to President Reagan and the United States Administration’s invasion of Grenada. He quoted Margaret Thatcher, who said of that incident 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”.

He went on:

“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 79.]


I agree with him. Why can our Ministers not be clear that we see what happened in Venezuela as something contrary to international law, which sets dangerous precedents and might likely perpetuate human rights abuses in that country?

We all know that the Maduro regime was brutal, repressive, dictatorial and corrupt, and that the actions of that regime led nearly 9 million Venezuelans to flee the country. They must be in a state of confusion as to whether the country will be safe for them to return to if it is now being administered, as President Trump has said, by the United States.

Today, the regime in Venezuela continues to abuse powers even more, with paramilitary forces repressing journalists and seeking out democracy activists for persecution. Apparently, this is under the authority of the United States Government themselves, if we believe what President Trump and the Secretary of State said on Sunday.

In response to Ed Davey, the Foreign Secretary said,

“the most important thing now for Venezuela is for it to have a transition to democracy”.

I agree with her, but she went on to say:

“I have spoken directly to the US Secretary of State about that and also about the potential role the UK can play”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 80.]


She did not elucidate further. Can the Minister state in what way the United Kingdom will play a role in a democratic transition in Venezuela, especially in the context that President Trump has undermined the Nobel Prize winner María Machado, a member of our sister party, a liberal in Venezuela, who now is also in a state of confusion as to what the intentions of the US Administration are?

The Prime Minister had said after the news of the attack on Venezuela that he wanted to gain the facts before speaking to President Trump. What other facts do we now need for the Prime Minister to state categorically to President Trump that this action is contrary to international law? Can the Minister restate whether one of the founding principles of the special relationship of the UK and the United States—that we are consulted and informed on US security actions when they are connected with UK interests—still applies? Given our diplomatic location in Caracas, which was bombed, were we informed? Were our diplomats informed that they were operating in an area of risk? Are we informed if UK bases and personnel are being used for monitoring Venezuelan shipping? Is our airspace potentially being used and overflown by US assets for the ongoing operations of the US Administration in that area? Are our close Commonwealth partner assets in the Caribbean being overflown and are we being informed?

Finally, President Trump’s statements regarding Greenland, which are causing significant concern, are wholly unacceptable. Can we now say categorically that we condemn the US economic and diplomatic coercion of a key European and NATO ally? The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, indicated that precedents may be set but gave a slight indication that they support them. We do not support these precedents. We support the international rule of law. We support our allies. We support democracy and human rights in Venezuela. We support our sister party and the democratically elected president, not to be a vassal state but a vibrant, democratic state, with human rights at its core.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their support for the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the tragic loss of life that we saw on New Year’s Eve in Switzerland. I am grateful to them for echoing what she said.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about discussions with our US counterparts ahead of the action that was taken in Caracas, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. We are clear that the UK was not informed. We were not involved in any way. None of our assets were involved in any way at all. It is important that we are very straightforward and clear about that. We would not expect to be informed of an action such as this either.

To respond to the noble Lord’s questions about the communications between the Prime Minister and the US and counterparts in Europe, the Prime Minister talks constantly with his counterparts in Europe and in the US, as do the Foreign Secretary and Ministers throughout the Government. We will continue to do that in connection to this. Vitally, today, Ukraine is at the front of our minds, along with making sure we continue to do what we believe to be right in Ukraine.

One of the things in my mind when listening to the noble Lord opposite was this. Many people said when this Government came to office that we would be unable to work with President Trump and that our relationship with the US would be impossible to manage. I think most people give the Prime Minister credit for being able to manage his relationship with President Trump very well. They have a very good relationship, and I think that has surprised many people, though it did not surprise me; it is something that puts British interests first. Many people will wish to hear the Government say various things or make statements, but, sometimes, the right thing to do is not to use megaphone diplomacy. The right thing to do is to respect our close partners and allies, and give whatever messages we want to give in the right way.

As for parallels with Chagos, that is frankly ridiculous. There is no parallel with Chagos. Chagos happened because there was a state-to-state negotiation between the British Government and the Government of Mauritius. Should Denmark ever wish to enter into such a negotiation, it is free to do so with the consent of the people of Greenland. This is completely different, and the noble Lord should know better. I am sad that he does not.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, correctly reminds us, 9 million Venezuelans have left their country. I have met many of them in Mexico, Ecuador, Chile, the UK and Colombia. They are devastated by what has happened to their country over recent years. There will be a range of views on the actions the United States has taken. It is very early days, but some who I have spoken to see hope for their country. They want to see a return to democracy. They want to see an outcome of the elections that were held in 2024 that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people. That is not what we saw at the time.

The noble Lord is right to suggest, and I agree, that we put the people of Venezuela front and centre and find a way for them to get a Government who reflect their wishes and enable them to live in safety and with the prosperity that country should have. There needs, therefore, to be a transition to democracy. As for how that takes place, who leads it and the exact timetable for all that, it is impossible to say from where we are today, but we certainly share his view that there needs to be a transition to democracy.

How can the UK help? We will help in any way that is right at the time. As noble Lords will know, we are the only Five Eyes country to have maintained a presence in Caracas throughout recent years. Our chargé d’affaires there is extremely capable. He has good relationships across the political spectrum in Venezuela and he would be very well placed to advise on how it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to support strengthening democratic institutions, as we do in many countries across the world, although I accept that this is a unique situation.

María Corina Machado is one of the most inspirational, courageous women I have ever had the privilege to speak to. The way that she conducted herself, led her campaign and continued to make the arguments that she does, often from hiding in Venezuela and from overseas, is extraordinary. Others will comment about her fitness to lead Venezuela, but she is an incredibly impressive person. I do not think it would do her any favours to have an endorsement from the President of the United States, but as for what happens there and whether María Corina becomes the leader, let us remember that she was not the candidate in the 2024 election. She was not the leader of the opposition at that point. The role she chooses to play in the future of her country and whether she takes part in any future democratic process and in what capacity is a matter for her.

On Greenland, we could not have been clearer on the position that we have taken, alongside others, about the fact that it is clearly for the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland to decide their future.