Middle East

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is an unlawful war and has an unclear justification, with contradictory messages already from the Trump White House, State Department and Defense Department. That is how I started my response to the Statement on 2 March. I went on to say that

“the civilian death toll is likely to grow significantly. This is yet another conflict where protection of civilians is being set aside, and this is deplorable”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1080.]

From the Conservative Opposition, the approach was different. We were told that, when Trump called, we should have answered and been in it all the way: a strategic error. Yesterday in the House of Commons, with quite astonishing hubris, the leader of the Conservative Party said:

“I am sure the Prime Minister … will … misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/26; col. 553.]


We all know the truth. It was obvious, given the untruthfulness, unreliability and mendacious approach of the Trump Administration that what they had initially called for—regime change of that homicidal regime in Iran—they are now saying they never claimed should happen in the first place. They said Iran should never have a nuclear programme; now they are saying that there should be a moratorium on the programme. I do not know how that fits with what the noble Lord, Lord True, said.

With regard to the most effective way of reducing the possibility of Iran having nuclear capability for weapons, we supported the Government of the noble Lord, Lord True, when they criticised the Trump Administration and said that withdrawing from the JCPOA was an error. We disagreed with his Government when they denied the case for proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. I hope the Government and the Leader can update us on where we will see the legislative changes with regard to the IRGC that we have been promised.

Now the focus from America is on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which had been open. That will be complex and costly. In his criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yair Lapid summed it up:

“For the thousandth time, it has been proven: military force without a diplomatic plan does not lead to a decisive victory”.


We agree with him.

On 2 March I also said:

“There is likely to be continuous economic instability for the trade routes and for energy, especially in our key economic areas”.—[Official Report, 2/3/26; col. 1081.]


I also said there would be economic consequences and costs to the United Kingdom. These were obvious. The impact on the economy requires an immediate response. It is likely that the surge in fuel prices will mean a potential £2 billion in extra tax revenue to the Government. That should be spent on cutting fuel duty by 10p, bringing down prices at the pump by 12p per litre, to bring immediate relief to individuals and businesses. But we will need to do more, because these economic repercussions will last months at the very least.

The Statement is on the Middle East and there are wider consequences that have not been referred to so far. In Gaza, 700,000 displaced people are still living in emergency shelters and being denied the vital food and medical assistance they require. Just in recent weeks, 5,000 children have been screened for malnutrition. In the West Bank, settler and outpost violence against civilians is being conducted with impunity. The UK Government must finally say that there are repercussions for our relationship with the Israeli Government as a result. Continuing restrictions on food and humanitarian assistance is a perpetuation of breaches of international humanitarian law.

On Lebanon, the humanitarian toll is extreme. I have been to Lebanon frequently and have been checking in with friends who are living in extreme worry. It is chilling that 1 million people—one in six of the population—are displaced and the IDF is targeting civilian infrastructure and bombing heavily populated areas without targeted munitions, which is a clear tactic of collective punishment. That is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law. Over the last 15 years, the UK has committed over £100 million, including an extra £17 million under the last year of the previous Government, which I welcomed, to train the Lebanese army. Last autumn, the UK and the Lebanese army opened a training centre in Zahrani, an area now seeing forced evacuation and attacks by the IDF. What is our ongoing relationship with the Lebanese army, especially in areas where we are seeing military action from the IDF?

The fundamental strategic consequence is that the erratic and untruthful US President and his Administration are now a strategic risk to the UK’s interests. All this leads to an undeniable economic, security and social case for working much more closely with our EU allies.

Finally, not mentioned in the Statement or so far today are the wider consequences of what is happening in this region. We are now entering the fourth year of the war in Sudan: the three-year anniversary was just this week. It is three years and one week since I was in Khartoum and it is heartbreaking to see the human toll on a country I love. I am glad that there was a Berlin conference on humanitarian assistance and I would like an update from the Leader on the UK offer for that conference, but we need to do more. We need to restrict the blood gold trade, we need more on protection of civilians and we need to see no-drone zones. For some young civilians from Sudan, the UK could offer hope. They will be wanting to study in the UK, and it is deeply regrettable that a Labour Government have decided to ban visa applications from those young civilians who wish a better life for themselves.

We kept it for Ukraine, but we are banning it for Sudan. Why is that? I hope the Leader will agree with me that the future of Sudan—one Sudan, united—will be one that is led by civilians and protects civilians, especially women and girls, who have suffered far too great a toll. The legitimate future of Sudan is one that is civilian and representative. I hope that the UK, as penholder, will give a clear statement that that is our intention.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened to both noble Lords’ speeches. We ended on one note and started on another. It was the appropriate place to end, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did, on the catastrophic and heartbreaking humanitarian issues not only in Sudan, as he mentioned, but across the region, where people’s lives are changed irrevocably in so many different ways and lives are lost. That is something we should never forget when we talk about any of the political and diplomatic efforts. Lives are lost and lives are changed.

The noble Lord, Lord True, was right to praise the work of our Armed Forces and military for what they do. On our behalf and in the national interest, they put themselves in the line of danger. Many of us will know people and have friends and family who are engaged in the Armed Forces. We have nothing but respect and admiration for them.

Does the world feel a safer place today than it did several weeks ago? That is one of the concerning issues here and why it is so important that we focus our efforts on the diplomatic work that has to be done to ensure safety and act in the national interest.

The Prime Minister has been clear and consistent throughout this conflict. His tone and his way of looking at it have been measured. I noted the comments of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Purvis. The leader of the Opposition has not been as consistent. Her own spokesperson said just recently that at the start of this conflict the leader of the Opposition was very clear that she would have let Israel and the US use our bases for their offensive on Iran. Yet yesterday she said:

“I was talking about verbal support”.


That is not really consistent. What has to be consistent are the efforts that we should make as a country towards de-escalation of such a conflict. The priorities have to be de-escalation and getting the Strait of Hormuz open. There are two aspects to this. One is the toll on the civilian populations and the other is the world economic situation, which is getting worse. I will come on to defence spending more widely, but on all these issues it is important that there is the recognition of a national interest that crosses party boundaries more than any other.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me a number of questions. On Hezbollah, we completely condemn the attacks on Israel but also think that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we have a very good relationship with the military and the Government in Lebanon. The Lebanese Government have been courageous in trying to stand up against Hezbollah and have condemned Hezbollah, which in this country is fully proscribed as a terrorist organisation. We will continue to support Lebanon’s sovereignty, Government and armed forces. We will work closely with them. That is a good relationship and the place where we should be.

The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the Iranian ports. My understanding is that it is the blockading of the Iranian ports. President Trump made the announcement, and it started today. We always have to see how these things work out in practice. On Friday, the Prime Minister and President Macron will convene and bring together 40 nations in common endeavour. That is a significant achievement. If we are to see peace and the ceasefire holding—a very fragile ceasefire at the moment—it will be done by diplomatic efforts around the world and nations coming together. I commend the Prime Minister on the leadership he has shown in using his convening role.

I agree with both noble Lords that the use of language, wherever it is from, that is careless or deliberately escalating conflict has no place here. How we use our words and what we say will be really important going forward. Friday’s meeting will be important, and I am sure the Prime Minister will report back on that.

Noble Lords asked about the IRGC proscription. I have to gently chide the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I think his party abstained on this issue previously when there was a vote in this House on my noble friend’s amendment. If I am wrong I will check, but that is the impression I was given. He will know that we currently have over 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and entities, including the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We recognise the threats posed and we keep this under constant review.

Obviously, we will not comment, just as previous Governments have not, on proscription measures and what action is being taken. But I can tell the House that we are taking forward the recommendations by Jonathan Hall KC, including, as was in his report, developing a proscription-like tool for state threats that may require legislation further down the line. I will come back to the House on that when we have something to report.

I am surprised that I am running out of time in giving my response, but the priorities are de-escalation and opening the Strait of Hormuz. We are working with others on that. We have military capacity as well as political and diplomatic, and we are looking at the logistical arrangements. If I have missed any questions, I will come back to them through the other answers I give on the Statement.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we now move on to up to 20 minutes of questions from Back-Bench Members but not speeches. This is set out in chapter 6 of the Companion, paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8, on pages 86 and 87. We will hear from the Conservative Benches first.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and draw attention to my interests in the Middle East and in working with conflict resolution organisations. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending, as my noble friend Lord True did, the role of Pakistan in its convening of the important bridge of diplomacy? I appreciate the efforts of the Prime Minister in convening Friday’s meeting. Pakistan’s chief of army staff—the field-marshal—has played a notable role, as have Foreign Minister Dar and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

My question is specifically about our Gulf partners. In welcoming the Prime Minister’s recent visit, can the Leader of the House give reassurance on the C-SIPA arrangement that we have with key countries such as Bahrain to ensure their long-term security and prosperity? Linked to that is the reassurance that our Gulf partners are seeking on their security for any other future challenge that may come. Also linked to that is the support that we are giving to Gulf nations and to Pakistan in their diplomatic efforts.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. He is absolutely right that Pakistan has done a great service on this, and the role of the Prime Minister and other leaders in Pakistan must be recognised. Our Prime Minister did that and has thanked and praised them for their work in not the easiest of circumstances.

The noble Lord is right about the longer-term partnerships with Bahrain and other Gulf states. The Prime Minister is in regular contact with and recently met various leaders. That is an important relationship, because they are the ones who are also talking to us about the protection of their own safety and security. I can give an assurance that those are long-term relationships that are valued by us and other countries.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the comments of my noble friend Lord Purvis, particularly on the West Bank. To follow up on the point made on Pakistan by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, since the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday there is news now that Donald Trump is hopeful that, potentially in the next 48 hours, there could be a breakthrough. What contact have we had with Pakistan, in particular with Field-Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif? I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to get world leaders here later this week, but if the talks resume in Pakistan, we may have to ensure that we are at least hooked in to the Pakistani Government to make sure that British interests are served during those talks.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

We will fully co-operate with Pakistan and give it support with the valuable work that it is doing. There are different strands of discussion going on in different areas. It was probably optimistic for people to think that in one set of talks a conclusion would be reached that would solve all problems and issues. I remember from my days as a Northern Ireland Minister that you would often have talks about talks before you even had the talks. There were 21 hours of talks. It was an ambitious programme. I hope that we will see further talks—there are optimistic signs that talks could continue. The Pakistani Prime Minister will be crucial in convening and hosting those talks and negotiating. If we can find a way forward where stages of progress can be made, that makes it easier to take the next step. If you are trying to climb a ladder, it is one step before another, one foot in front of another. All of us would want to see every effort made. Those diplomatic efforts for talks would be very supported. Let us just take one step forward and see what changes can be made.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for coming to the House to answer questions on the Statement on the Middle East and to the Prime Minister for his diplomatic efforts in the Gulf. From these Benches, we believe that the initiation of this conflict, the attacks by Iran on its neighbours and the closure of the straits are unjustified. I know from my recent conversation with the Bishop of Cyprus and the Gulf that the peoples of the nine nations in the diocese dearly want peace from the threat and the reality of war. I agree with the Minister that the focus now needs to be desperately on de-escalation.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree with me that the new-found partnership between the United Kingdom and the Gulf states bolsters the opportunity for diplomacy to resolve a conflict which has otherwise incalculable consequences and which still bears heavily in a very costly way, and with great suffering, on Lebanon? I also raise the severe distress on these Benches at the unprecedented barring of the Latin Patriarch from the Holy Sepulchre on Maundy Thursday, the restricted access to Christians since and the continuing threats to the status quo in Jerusalem, including the al-Aqsa compound.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Across the House, whatever views are held, there is rightly unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime and the actions that it has taken against its own people as well as its external actions. It is quite clear that the House is united on that. The right reverend Prelate is right that our relationship with the Gulf states is very important, and it is one that the Prime Minister values. In the House of Commons yesterday, he made it quite clear that it is valued on both sides: they have welcomed the visits that he has made and the engagement that he has had with them. On the final point, yes, the ability to worship as people want to and to recognise that is extremely important in a civilised society. It is something that we should all strive for and support worldwide.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of Hamas refusing to disarm, which was a key plank of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza? Is there not a risk of linking Lebanon to the wider ceasefire, because Lebanon has effectively been invaded by Iran in the form of the terrorist Hezbollah? Every time that Israel tries to defend itself, which it must, Iran will claim that the deal has been violated, close the straits and choke the world economy. Finally, was the Lord Privy Seal as shocked as I was when listening to the Liberal Democrats, who are more critical of our allies in Israel than they are of Iran and, when they speak about Gaza and Hezbollah, are unable to utter a single word of criticism of Hamas or Hezbollah?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is shouting across the Chamber. I will leave him to answer the noble Lord’s point on his views.

It is right that we condemn violence, terrorism and attacks from wherever they come. We feel that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire. This is not a war that the people of Lebanon want. They have been courageous in calling out and condemning Hezbollah’s attacks and actions. We want to see that division between the Government and people of Lebanon and Hezbollah. Israel has the right to defend itself, but we believe that Lebanon should be part of the ceasefire.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that we should be proud that our Prime Minister, acting in the national interest, resolutely refused to engage in this illegal war—in marked contrast to Mr Farage and Ms Badenoch?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friend is right: the Prime Minister has been consistent throughout this. Defensive action to protect the UK’s interests is vital, and that is the role that we will take. However, there is some confusion about the position of the Official Opposition. The leader of the Opposition said that she was talking about verbal support, so she may have changed her mind and there may be some retreat by both Reform and the Conservative Party from the unequivocal support given to President Trump at the beginning of this. What is important, though, wherever we started, is that we all strive towards de-escalation. Escalation in this conflict serves nobody in the region well. If we want to see peace across the region, when millions are suffering, lives are being changed irrevocably and the world economy is being affected, de-escalation is the only way forward.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that Sir Keir Starmer changed his position and offered President Trump limited support when he said that British lives were at risk in the region. I think that was verbatim. The Jewish community was very shocked by that, because what he meant was British lives in the region of the Gulf. British lives—there are tens of thousands of them in Israel—have been under Iranian rocket attack for months. In the wide-ranging speech which he gave yesterday, which for some reason mentions Brexit and Liz Truss but is not supposed to be political, he says—I have the text here—that

“Diplomacy is the right path”.


How can we have diplomacy with Hezbollah? Since 2 March, 5,000 rockets have landed in northern Israel; that is about 150 rockets a day. There are something like 25,000 short-range rockets capable of 40-kilometre range, stockpiled south of the Litani River right now. Rather than criticising Israel, is it not time that the Government recognised that Israel has a duty to protect its citizens—and the many British citizens who are living in or visiting Israel—and that the attacks that Israel is making, which are not targeting civilians, need to be understood?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord may have misunderstood the Prime Minister. He has been consistent in saying that British bases could be used for defensive action but not offensive action. The noble Lord is also wrong in that the Prime Minister did not talk about having diplomacy with Hezbollah. We condemn totally Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. They are totally wrong. Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation in this country, and that will remain. I hope that is clear. What we have said is that the Lebanese Government are very clear in their opposition to Hezbollah. There are civilians around the world who are suffering. To equate Hezbollah with the Lebanon Government at this stage, when they are condemning Hezbollah, is not the route that we are taking or should be taking. We think that the ceasefire should affect Lebanon. We want to see peace across the region. We have been very supportive of Israel, the two-state solution and Israel’s right to exist. The Prime Minister has been clear across all those areas.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House rightly condemned attacks that the Iranian regime is perpetrating against its own people and those in surrounding states—in Israel, the Gulf and others. She was being urged by both Front Benches, with whom I fully agree, to proscribe the IRGC, and we keep waiting for news on that. The United States seems to manage to keep channels open, if that is the motivation, while having proscribed the IRGC, so there is an interesting difference in practice there.

The Iranian regime is repressing people across borders, just like China does. I am hearing that it has agents who are abusing our asylum system. People are planted by the Iranian regime to claim asylum in this country and then use that as a platform to repress Iranian human rights defenders who are in this country. Even if members of the regime in Iran are sanctioned, their family members seem to manage to live a life of luxury in the West, including in this country, and to own loads of property. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us what actions are being taken against the transnational repression against Iranians in this country? Will the Government look at the property portfolios of family members of the IRGC?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising a number of important points. I cannot say more about proscription—she will understand why, as I have said it previously. The recommendations in the report by Jonathan Hall KC are important in this regard, and we are taking forward a number of measures. I mentioned one in particular, a state threats tool. I will keep the House informed if there is more information. The noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on details of actions that have been taken, but where there is evidence, given that it is an organisation sanctioned completely in the UK, we will take action wherever we can.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday’s Statement refers to the fact that Britain needs to be energy independent and that we need to take control of our energy bills. Will the Lord Privy Seal comment on whether His Majesty’s Government are considering increasing gas reserve capacity, which I have found is low compared to the majority of European and Scandinavian countries? In addition, is it time to increase our North Sea oil and gas exploration during the transition to our green agenda?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, because there are two aspects to the energy issue. One is the security of supply and the other is the pricing. We have seen prices increase significantly because we are not self-sufficient. We are therefore dependent on world prices and as they increase, that hits us, not just in fuel prices but in the consequential increases as well. I assure the noble Baroness that oil and gas will remain part of the energy mix for a number of years to come.

On gas storage, I am digging back into my memory. I think that a number of years ago we lost a fair amount of capacity in this country. I will look into that matter, and if I have anything to report, I will come back—although I may not. This shows how important our energy security is and the need to be more self-sufficient in energy. There will be more to be said on this work moving forward. At the moment, we are focused particularly on prices, but security of supply has been a long-term aim of this Government—it was in our manifesto when we were elected—and it is a crucial issue. We have had legislation about GB Energy, and it is certainly a priority of the Government.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I find it rather surprising that we have spent 40 minutes and nobody has spoken about the fact that, as we speak here, the Lebanese and the Israeli ambassadors to the United States are sitting together for the first time in 43 years. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will join me in thanking the US for practical action, in particular Secretary of State Rubio. Perhaps it is an interesting contrast to HMG and other European partners, who issue statements. In the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, he said that Hezbollah must disarm. As we know, and as has been said, Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation. Its 1985 manifesto made its ideology clear: expel Western powers from Lebanon, destroy the State of Israel and pledge allegiance to Iran’s regime. The Prime Minister said yesterday that Hezbollah should disarm. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what the Prime Minister’s plan to disarm Hezbollah is?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right that a monumental and historic meeting is taking place as we speak, and I commend all those who took part to make it happen, because it is diplomacy. That kind of discussion is not easy; it is very difficult, and there is a lot of history in those discussions, but even to start talking about having talks is a major step forward. The Prime Minister is absolutely right, and that is a commitment he has. I do not think he feels he can do it alone. It is one of those issues where it is almost another coalition of the willing to bring countries together to put pressure on Hezbollah and those who would support or fund it. He is absolutely clear on this, and I think the whole House would agree with him that, through discussions, talks and whatever actions are necessary, we should ensure it disarms. Any organisation that declares the annihilation, the ending, of the State of Israel is not an organisation that we would give any support to whatever.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to enter into my normal attacks on the Opposition Front Bench, because at times of international conflict, and this conflict could spread well beyond the Middle East, it is very important that we have cross-party agreement. I hope the Leader of the Opposition recognises that. Does my noble friend agree that resolution of these kinds of conflicts, all of them, can be achieved only by diplomacy and negotiation and not by military means?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

To a large extent, I agree with my noble friend. Unless we have diplomacy and political engagement, we are not going to see a conclusion, but alongside that, we need logistical support and a military engagement for surveillance and intelligence, for example. But my noble friend is absolutely right that we do not resolve conflicts by more wars. We resolve conflicts by de-escalating wars and sensible, adult negotiations and diplomacy.