Israel and Iran

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, since I spoke to the House on Monday, the situation in the Middle East has escalated further. We continue to work closely with our allies to press for restraint and diplomacy. The Foreign Secretary is in Washington today for discussions with the United States. We urge all British nationals to monitor travel advice and to register their presence if they are in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that update. To use “escalation” to describe the situation in the last 24 to 48 hours would be an understatement. We are now facing a very great challenge in the region which will have an impact not just on the two countries involved, Israel and Iran, but the wider region. We are also talking about the economic impact of conflict in that region on the global economy. Can the Minister assure me that this House and the other place will be fully informed of whatever action the His Majesty’s Government seek to take? Many noble Lords on the Minister’s Benches, on the Cross Benches and on our Benches have insight on and experience of previous crises. Such consultation is extremely valuable, so that when the Government speak, they speak not just as a Labour Government but as the Government of our country and our nation. Can he further assure us that the citizens of our country who are in the region will be fully protected and that extra measures will be taken to ensure their safe passage from that region?

I turn to the final element, which the Minister knows I will focus on. He talked of the measures being taken on diplomacy. In the last day or so, what we have heard from across the pond is that it is not the diplomatic track but a very different track that is being pursued. Can the Minister assure me that whatever action is pursued, we will be fully informed? As he referred to in his Answer, can he also assure me that the diplomatic track, particularly with key partners—I mention Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Oman—will be kept fully active?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only agree with most of the noble Lord’s remarks. It is incumbent on all Governments to keep Parliament fully informed—in this case, of what is becoming an extremely volatile and dangerous situation. We will obviously do that, and I certainly agree with him about the expertise across the House and how we should embrace and inform it. I am very keen to do so.

No one will exhaust that diplomatic effort. We are focused on it, no matter what speculation we read in the press. That is why the Foreign Secretary is in Washington today. The Prime Minister spoke to the Emir of Qatar last night. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar, the Iranian Foreign Minister and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal. He has also had regular calls, particularly yesterday, with US Secretary of State Rubio, EU High Representative Kallas and counterparts from France and Germany. As well as close working with the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan, we are ensuring that all our ambassadors in the region are fully engaged and in regular contact with their host countries. We remain in close contact with those embassies. I reassure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on that diplomatic track. We will not exhaust it. We are focused on de-escalation and ensuring the security of all our citizens and the citizens of the world.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the danger that the Minister referred to is exacerbated by the unpredictability of our most significant ally, the United States. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is in Washington. However, can the Minister assure these Benches that while the UK is so integrated with the United States— diplomatically and through the operations potentially through US Central Command—we have the capability and intent not to be dragged into a potentially protracted and very dangerous wider conflict, should the United States seek to be part of that? Can we have a distinct position from the United States, still focusing on de-escalation for the entire region, even if our key ally is part of escalation?

I am sure the Minister will be aware that many of our diplomatic friends within the region, especially within Jordan and elsewhere, are determined that we do not lose sight of what is happening within West Bank and Gaza, where queues for food have turned into arbitrary killing fields. In an incredibly complex situation between Israel and Iran, we must act to save the lives within Gaza of those people who are simply seeking food and medicine.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, I agree with him. Despite the urgency of the situation in relation to Iran, we are not taking our eyes off the situation in Gaza. We are focused on ensuring that we can get the humanitarian aid in, as we have promised. We are working very hard with all our allies and making the case very strongly that the restrictions that the Israeli Government have put on should be lifted.

I will not speculate on what the next steps of the US President may be, but the simple fact is that he has made it clear, as I said on Monday, that a military solution cannot resolve Iran’s nuclear escalation for the long term. We need a process in place and are focused on that. As the Foreign Secretary is in Washington, we remain in close contact with the United States. His Majesty’s Government will not give a running commentary on those conversations or speculate on the US’s sovereign decision, which is a matter for the US Government. However, I assure the House that we are absolutely focused on using all diplomatic means available to urge restraint, even at this stage, and de-escalate the situation. The UK teams throughout the world, as I mentioned in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, are focused on that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, where possible, whether in this dangerous situation or any other, without compromising secrecy or urgency, the House of Commons should be consulted before any deployment of UK forces? If he agrees with that proposition, and what was an embryonic convention under the Cameron Government, do His Majesty’s Government have any plans to enshrine that convention in statute?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let us not speculate. I repeat the reassurance that I gave to the noble Lord. We are committed to keeping Parliament informed of this very difficult and delicate situation. It is important that we all focus on ensuring that we speak with one voice: that we want de-escalation and peace, and we will be focused on that. I will not speculate on what those next steps may be, but when the Prime Minister spoke at the G7, and with the Foreign Secretary in Washington today, we have been absolutely clear that the situation requires de-escalation. We will not move from that position.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, one of the many difficulties associated with this situation is the confusion that seems to have arisen over strategic objectives. Israel has stated that it does not want Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, but there has been a lot of loose talk recently about regime change. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government’s view is that no matter how much one might wish for regime change in Iran, this is absolutely not the way to do it, and that the decapitation of the regime by assassinating its religious head will achieve little, since the structural underpinning and much of the control of the regime is in the hands of the IRGC? Can he assure the House that in all our international negotiations with partners and others, we will be stressing these points very strongly?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I fully understand the comments by the noble and gallant Lord. I was listening to the “Today” programme this morning, and I thought there was pretty unhelpful speculation about motives and intent. The simple fact is the reality in the world when we look. People mentioned Syria: there was an internal pressure in Syria and the regime fell because of that internal pressure, but history tells us that, when there is an external pressure on a regime, the consequences are the complete opposite. Some of those opposition people on the radio this morning were reflecting some of that—they saw things in a different light than perhaps we see from the newspapers.

I reassure the noble and gallant Lord: the reality is that we remain absolutely concerned about the nuclear potential of Iran. We want to see that limited and stopped completely, and we want to see mechanisms to achieve that. I know I repeated this many times on Monday: President Trump knows that, too. He wants a deal, and that is what we have to focus on and use all diplomatic means to do.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, Britain has an absolute right to protect British assets and British personnel in the region from hostile action. Will the Minister confirm that the Government regard that right as inviolable?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have sent flights to the region to ensure that our assets are fully protected and that we are fully prepared for any of the consequences. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question. I may have missed it—I was concentrating on reading—but if she cares to repeat it, we have plenty of time. Did I answer?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

There was comment in the media earlier today about possible legal interpretation of when conflict is permissible and when joining that conflict is acceptable legally. I was merely concerned to understand that the fundamental right of a sovereign country to defend personnel and assets in a region from hostile action is an inviolable right and that the Government understand that.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the Government fully understand that, which is why the Prime Minister has ensured that we are moving towards protecting those assets. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Before the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—who is not in his place—asks me a question, of course we are urging all parties to comply with international humanitarian law. That is quite clear, too.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s thinking on the day after? We have observed this question a lot of times in the last 18 months in terms of the conflict in Gaza. Has any thought been given to the lessons learned, particularly from Iraq, about the day after? If the regime falls, what are the Government’s thoughts and plans for bringing stability to that region, given that the oil that travels through the Strait of Hormuz will have a huge impact not just in that region but all across the world, and particularly for ourselves here in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I said in my answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I will not speculate on the consequences of, or reasons for, these. Our objective is to stop Iran having a nuclear capability. We are absolutely working with all our allies to achieve that. The means to do that, as President Trump has made clear, is through a deal. There cannot be a long-term military answer to that question.

To come back to the point made earlier, we should not take our eyes off the situation in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. It is very sad that the consequences of these actions resulted in the postponement of the two-state solution conference, which was going to bring Saudi Arabia and others together to look at the situation of the day after: “What next?” We need to ensure that the international community is absolutely focused on that, and we will be supporting and putting all efforts into a reconvened conference to ensure that that is the focus for the next steps.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, those on these Benches join others in calling for Iran and Israel to draw back from war, especially the killing of civilians, and, as His Majesty’s Government have rightly said, prioritise restraint, diplomacy and dialogue. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly raised the fact that the conflict with Iran threatens to overshadow and move the focus away from the conflict in Gaza, and I am reassured by the Minister’s response to that. In both conflicts, though, civilians have been and are being targeted. What actions are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that internationally accepted norms of armed conflict are being respected, as well as the norms of humanitarian law?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the right reverend Prelate that compliance with international humanitarian law is exactly what we are urging on all parties, and we will continue to do so. It is very sad that, when missiles are fired off indiscriminately, it is inevitable that civilians will suffer. That should not be the case, and we are urging all parties to ensure that they comply with that international humanitarian law.

Conflict in the Middle East

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will remind the House that the Foreign Office has been responding to two crises this past week. My honourable friend Minister Falconer will update the House on the Government’s extensive efforts to assist those who lost loved ones in Thursday’s devastating Air India plane crash. Just nine days ago, I was in Delhi, strengthening our friendship. Our nations are mourning together, and my thoughts are with all those suffering such terrible loss.

With permission, I will now turn to the Middle East. Early last Friday morning, Israel launched extensive strikes across Iran. The targets included military sites, the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, key commanders and nuclear scientists. The last 72 hours have seen Iranian ballistic missile and drone strikes across Israel, killing at least 21 Israelis and injuring hundreds more, and Israeli strikes have continued, including on targets in Tehran, with the Iranian authorities reporting scores of civilian casualties.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that his operations will

‘continue for as many days as it takes to remove the threat’.

Supreme Leader Khamenei has said that Israel ‘must expect severe punishment’.

In such a crisis, our first priority is, of course, the welfare of British nationals. On Friday, we swiftly stood up crisis teams in London and the region. Yesterday, I announced that we now advise against all travel to Israel; that is as well as our long-standing advice not to travel to Iran. Today, I can update the House: we are asking all British nationals in Israel to register their presence with the FCDO so that we can share important information on the situation and leaving the country.

I can announce today that we are also further updating our travel advice to signpost border crossing points, and we are sending rapid deployment teams to Egypt and Jordan to bolster our consular presence near the border with Israel. That presence has already been supporting British nationals on the ground. Israel and Iran have closed their airspace until further notice, and our ability to provide support in Iran is therefore extremely limited. British nationals in the region should closely monitor our travel advice for further updates. The situation remains fast-moving. We expect more strikes in the days to come. This is a moment of grave danger for the region. I want to be clear: the United Kingdom was not involved in the strikes against Iran. This is military action conducted by Israel.

It should come as no surprise that Israel considers the Iranian nuclear programme an existential threat. Khamenei said in 2018 that Israel was a ‘cancerous tumour’ that should be ‘removed and eradicated’. We have always supported Israeli security. That is why Britain has sought to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon through extensive diplomacy. We agree with President Trump when he says that negotiations are necessary and must lead to a deal. This has long been the view of the so-called E3—Britain, France and Germany, with whom we have worked so closely on this issue. It is the view of all of the G7, who have backed the efforts of President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff. For more than two decades, it has been the cross-party view in this House. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton and Lord Hague of Richmond led diplomatic efforts on this issue, as did Baroness May of Maidenhead and the former right honourable Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. This Government have continued to pursue negotiations, joining France and Germany in five rounds of talks with Iran this year alone. Ours is a hard-headed, realist assessment of how best to tackle this grave threat. Fundamentally, no military action can put an end to Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Just last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors passed a non-compliance resolution against Iran, the first such IAEA finding in 14 years. The director-general’s comprehensive report details Iran’s failure to declare nuclear materials. Iran remains the only state without nuclear weapons accumulating uranium at such dangerously high levels. Its total enriched stockpile is now 40 times the limit in the JCPOA. Its nuclear programme is part of a wider pattern of destabilising activity. The Government have taken firm action in response.

When Iran transferred ballistic missiles for use in Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, we imposed extensive sanctions, including against Iran Air, and we cancelled our bilateral air services agreement. In the face of unacceptable IRGC threats here in the United Kingdom —with some 20 foiled plots since 2022—the Crown Prosecution Service has for the first time charged Iranian nationals under the National Security Act, and we have placed the Iranian state, including the IRGC, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme.

A widening war would have grave and unpredictable consequences, including for our partners in Jordan and the Gulf: the horrors of Gaza worsening, tensions in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq rising, and the Houthi threat continuing. That is why the Government’s firm view is—as it was last October, at the time of the ballistic missile attack on Israel—that further escalation in the Middle East is not in Britain’s interests, or in the interests of Israel, Iran or the region. There are hundreds of thousands of British nationals living in the region and, with Iran a major oil producer and one fifth of total world oil consumption flowing through the strait of Hormuz, escalating conflict poses real risks for the global economy. As missiles rain down, Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens, but our priority now is de-escalation. Our message to both Israel and Iran is clear: step back, show restraint, do not get pulled ever deeper into a catastrophic conflict, the consequences of which nobody can control.

The Prime Minister chaired COBRA to discuss the situation last Friday, and spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Prime Minister is now at the G7 summit in Canada, discussing with our closest allies how to ease tensions. The Government have deployed additional assets to the region, including jets for contingency support for UK forces and, potentially, our regional allies concerned about the escalating conflict. In the last 72 hours, my honourable friend the Minister for the Middle East and I have been working flat out trying to carve out space for diplomacy. I have spoken to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar and the Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi, underlining Britain’s focus on de-escalation. I have also met the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal, and had calls with US Secretary of State Rubio, EU High Representative Kallas, and my counterparts from France and Germany, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. Those conversations are part of a collective drive to prevent a spiralling conflict.

This new crisis has arisen as the appalling situation in Gaza continues. This weekend, hospitals in Gaza reported that over 50 people had been killed and more than 500 injured while trying to access food. This Government will not take our eye off the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. We will not stop calling for aid restrictions to be lifted and for an immediate ceasefire, and we will not forget about the hostages. This morning I met Yocheved Lifschitz and her family, whose courage and dignity in the face of Hamas’s barbarism were a reminder of the plight of those still cruelly held in Gaza. We will not stop striving to free the hostages and end the war. Our vision remains unchanged: an end to Iran’s nuclear programme and destabilising regional activity, Israel secure in its borders and at peace with its neighbours, and a sovereign Palestinian state, as part of a two-state solution. Diplomacy is indispensable to each of those goals. Britain will keep pressing all sides to choose a diplomatic path out of this crisis. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made today. I start by referring to the previous Statement on the designations. I have previously described in the House a visit that I made to a destroyed Palestinian village, Zanuta. The community education room in that village, which was co-funded by the UK taxpayer, was bulldozed and the community remains uninhabitable. That is just one example—of too many—of illegal actions by settlers in Palestine. It was an egregious example, not just because we paid for part of the facilities but because it was done in direct line of sight of a local authority justice centre and court. The IDF offers informal—as it says—policing, which is there to prevent Palestinians returning.

Outposts, illegal even under Israeli law, have been expanding, while the violence against the Palestinian communities, which is also illegal under international law, has been not only conducted with impunity but promoted, facilitated and incited. These Benches therefore welcome the measures that the Government have introduced—indeed, the Minister knows that we have called for them for over 18 months—but, as the situation has deteriorated over that period and Palestinians have come under further unjustified violence, we need to expand these measures to include those who are financing and facilitating. If, as I understand it, these measures are being introduced under the human rights regime, those who are supporting those designated can be covered within the expanded remit. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the case.

These Benches believe that this is now the time to recognise a state of Palestine. Not only is it imperative that we do so to prevent further abuses of international humanitarian law, but we are sanctioning those who say that there should be no process at all. The Government’s position is that we should recognise Palestine as part of a process. It is now becoming apparent that there are very many people who do not believe in a process at all.

Lastly on Gaza, we have seen just today more Palestinian civilians killed while simply pleading for food in Gaza. The UK must act urgently to work with others to close the GHF and prevent the use of profiteering mercenaries and to immediately restore safe routes of supply for food and medicine.

Over the weekend, as the Minister referred to, people across the UK have watched with horror as war has broken out between Israel and Iran. This is, as noble Lords have said, a very serious moment for peace and security in the world and here at home. We have seen the start of yet another conflict where civilians are casualties; indeed, both Israeli and Iranian targets have been within densely populated areas and, as we have heard, Iran is offering little discrimination with regard to its responses.

It is worth stating two important principles. The first is that the State of Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, and the stated goal of the state of Iran to wipe out the State of Israel is contrary to international law and unacceptable. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues to seek to suppress its opponents in the UK, and we have called for that organisation to be proscribed. The Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that we are awaiting promised legislative reforms to close “gaps” that the “state threats” of Iran have been exploiting. Can the Minister tell us what the timetable of that is going to be?

Secondly, Iran’s ambition to create a nuclear weapon to menace the region is also a threat to UK interests, and successive Governments have been right to seek to contain that risk. They have also been right, working with allies through the E3 process, to pursue that through diplomatic means. That is why the actions of the Netanyahu Administration are a huge gamble. It is perhaps an ambition of the United States to carry on diplomatic means. While the first Trump Administration was wrong to withdraw from the JCPOA, the second has been right to seek that diplomatic track. Could the Minister update us on our latest contacts with the United States Administration on their efforts on diplomacy? The danger in war is that any ambition for the diplomatic route could be derailed and the Iranian regime may end up being even less transparent and reduce diplomatic routes even further. The degraded capacity of an Iranian regime could be even harder to contain if it is seeking to expand and attack UK and our allies’ interests.

Whether it is Netanyahu seeking to involve the USA in regime change in Tehran or Tehran itself seeking to expand and threaten trade and energy supplies and their routes, this is an extremely difficult moment. The danger is real and the threat to the UK—as the Minister said, not only to the UK but to our key allies, Jordan and Iraq in particular—is apparent.

We should heed the advice and the warnings of the IAEA director-general, Rafael Grossi, who said in a statement today:

“Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment, and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon”.


We on these Benches agree with him, and we welcome the Foreign Secretary stating that he will be working with E3 allies and be in contact with Tehran this evening. Could the Minister outline the context of what we are seeking? Are we seeking to put the E3 process back on track, or are there any other allies that we can work with on the diplomatic route?

Regrettably, we need to plan for the worst even though we may hope for the best in diplomacy. Those British citizens living in the Middle East will be extremely anxious this evening. Can the Minister confirm that adequate additional resources have been deployed to provide consular support to them, and that—working with allies, including the EU—contingency plans are being developed to support their evacuation should it become necessary?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the cross-party support for the Statement; it is much appreciated. This is an extremely concerning and dangerous moment for the entire region and events are moving as we speak. Further escalation is in no one’s interest. We want to see both sides step back and show restraint because no one benefits from a widening conflict. As I said in repeating the Statement, we did not participate in the Israeli strikes. Our focus is on encouraging our partners to de-escalate and to find a diplomatic solution through dialogue.

The Prime Minister has had calls with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump and the leaders of France, Germany and the United Arab Emirates, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to his Iranian counterpart to urge restraint. As we have said, Israel has a right to self-defence, and the UK has grave concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. Stability in the Middle East is in everyone’s interests, and further discussions to help to find a diplomatic resolution will take place at the G7 summit in Ottawa.

I fully understand noble Lords’ concerns for British nationals in the region, and we share those concerns. The safety and security of British nationals are our top priority. Our advice to British nationals in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is to keep up to date with developments and follow the instructions given by local authorities, particularly the Israeli Home Front Command. That is the best way of staying safe.

As I said in the Statement, we are launching a “register your presence” portal for British nationals in Israel, to build a clearer picture of who is in the region and who may need assistance. We urge British nationals in Israel to complete this when it becomes available. Our embassy in Tel Aviv and the consulate in Jerusalem are working round the clock and can be contacted 24/7 by any British national in need of consular assistance. We have also sent rapid deployment teams to either side of the Israel-Jordan border to assist those who choose to travel out of the country via land. This is a fast-moving situation. British nationals should read the FCDO’s advice on what to do if you are affected by a crisis abroad. We are monitoring the situation closely and keeping all plans under constant review.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, as I said in the Statement, we did not participate in any element of the Israeli or Iranian military strikes. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on future operations decisions; that would benefit only our adversaries.

We must consider the long-term context here. For decades, Iran has pursued destabilising activity in the Middle East and committed human rights violations, and it is increasingly making threats against individuals in the United Kingdom. We have long-standing grave concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme, which has escalated beyond all credible civilian levels.

However, as the Israelis and the US President have made clear, a military solution cannot resolve Iran’s nuclear escalation for the long term. The consequences of continued conflict would bring serious damage not only to the region but globally. Only a diplomatic solution can resolve the nuclear issue for the long term, which is essential for international peace and security and preventing nuclear proliferation around the world. Diplomacy is in the interests of all concerned. It has been the focal point of President Trump, and we certainly support his efforts in reaching that diplomatic solution.

The UK has bilateral defence relationships with a broad range of Middle Eastern partners, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt. Operation Kipion is the UK’s maritime presence in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, where we have frigates and mine-countering measures. As the PM announced, the UK has deployed further aircraft to the region, but it would not be appropriate to discuss operational defence and intelligence matters further. We are absolutely focused on all those diplomatic efforts.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, focused on what the Iranians have been up to with their enriched stockpile, which is more than 40 times the JCPOA limit. The total of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile on 17 May was 408 kilograms, and there are more than nine significant quantities of highly enriched uranium. The approximate amount is such that the possibility of Iran manufacturing a nuclear explosive device cannot be excluded; there is no credible civilian justification for highly enriched uranium. As the IAEA declared on Thursday, Iran has not been complying with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years. IAEA Director-General Grossi confirmed on 13 June that he had been in contact with inspectors in Iran. He also confirmed that the level of radioactivity outside Iran’s Natanz site has remained unchanged.

I am gravely concerned by reports that Iran’s parliament is preparing legislation to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Withdrawal would be a serious breach of Iran’s long-standing international commitments and would isolate Iran further.

Following the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2231, which includes a mechanism known as the UN snapback. If the snapback process is fully implemented, it will result in the reimposition of the seven UN security resolutions: an embargo on the transfer of conventional arms to Iran; a ban on Iran developing and testing nuclear weapons; a ban on all enrichment pre-processing and heavy water-related activities; asset freezes; travel bans; and unlimited financial trade restrictions. Snapback would likely have a significant short-term impact on the value of Iran’s currency, compounding already high inflation. These are the consequences of its actions if it does not listen to the diplomatic calls, particularly those made by President Trump. The economic consequences would be disastrous.

This is a fast-moving situation. We are urging Israel to comply with international humanitarian law, and we urge all sides to step back and think of the consequences. Only a matter of hours ago, Israel warned the Iranian broadcasting authority that it would attack its headquarters, which it subsequently did. We hope that there were no casualties.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about last week’s Statement on sanctions, These sanctions are taken against individuals because of their incitement of and support for violence in their personal capacities. They have a long history of dangerous, extremist and inflammatory views predating their official roles. This language is absolutely to be condemned. Even the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom said in recent interviews that their statements do not represent government policies. These sanctions apply to individuals in their personal capacities, not to their ministries or departments. I have seen the consequences of those statements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly in some of the isolated outposts, as they are called, of settlers, which have launched direct attacks on Palestinian villages and their way of living, even ensuring that schoolchildren could not get to their schools. Their actions have incited violence, and it is important that we respond to them.

It is important that we do not take our eye off the ball in relation to the situation in Gaza. We are continuing to call on the Israeli authorities to allow humanitarian access. It is vital. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, even in recent days, we have seen further injury and deaths to people seeking food and other sustenance during this difficult period. I will no doubt answer many more questions, and if I have not picked up on any questions, I am sure I can cover some of the points in the Back Bench debate.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating a very sensitive Statement. I was in Jerusalem last week, speaking at a legal seminar at the Hebrew University, and I was very fortunate to fly out on Thursday night, hours before airspace was closed, otherwise I would be one of the terrified British citizens mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I can tell the Minister that it was clear from my conversations with many Israelis, including those highly critical of the Netanyahu Government, that they are deeply concerned. They find it intolerable that Iran should be allowed to continue to progress towards the production of nuclear weapons, given that Iran has made it very clear that it will use such weapons to seek to annihilate Israel, given that Iran is in breach of the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as we saw last week, and given all the other steps taken by Iran to promote terrorism over the past few years.

I understand that the Government wish to see de-escalation, but I have two questions. How can Israel and the world be assured that any promises now made by Iran will be respected? Secondly, I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to which I do not think the Minister responded. In the meantime, will the Government take the practical step of helping Israel to defend its citizens, both Arab and Jewish, by our military assisting in shooting down missiles which are aimed at the civilian population in Israel, a step which the Government have rightly taken in the past?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that our focus is not to shift away from what Iran is doing. We are absolutely clear. We supported President Trump’s initial statements in terms of dialogue. President Trump has focused, this time around, on ensuring that Iran complies with the commitments it has given in the past, particularly in relation to the JCPOA. I have already mentioned the fact that there are facilities in terms of the snapback that is still available at the United Nations.

We want to keep absolutely focused on de-escalation to avoid this conflict having a wider implication that is extremely dangerous, so we are urging both sides to step back so that President Trump can be absolutely focused on delivering that dialogue to ensure that they comply with those international obligations. The noble Lord asked me about how we can ensure that they will keep their word. The only way we can ensure that is by using the mechanisms that are available to us at the moment. One thing is clear: military action will not stop this. It will not resolve the long-term situation over nuclear development. It is only through the proper scrutiny that we have had in place before, and the appropriate sanctions that might be available if they fail to comply, that we can ensure long-term security.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. Will the Minister say where these sanctions get us? Together with a partial arms embargo, the refunding of UNRWA, which in turn funds Hamas, and ceasing trade talks with our ally, HMG have been consistently on the wrong side since they took office. Even the Minister, who campaigned for proscription of the IRGC when on this side of the House has seemingly changed his mind. He should apologise to the people of Iran and to Vahid Beheshti, who has campaigned so bravely outside his office. Is it therefore any wonder that Britain was not briefed before the attack on the Iranian military and nuclear facilities? It is also no wonder that the PM seems to have had only a brush-past conversation with President Trump tonight. It is clear what the Iranian regime would do if it had nuclear warheads on its ballistic missiles.

It took five or six hours on Friday for His Majesty’s Government to utter the words that Israel has a right to defend itself. What was the reason for the delay? Will the Minister tell the House which side HMG are on—the democratic, freedom-loving partner and ally, Israel, which is targeting military and nuclear facilities, or the Islamic regime led by the ayatollah, which supports Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis and targets civilians? They are the enemies of the people of Israel, enemies of the people of Iran and, frankly, enemies of all of us in this Chamber.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows full well my position and that of this Government. We have been absolutely clear that Israel has the right to defend itself. There has been no hesitation or delay in relation to that. We have fully understood not just the threat that Iran poses to the State of Israel and its intent to destroy it but its malign influences everywhere else, including on United Kingdom soil. That is why we have been focused on dealing with Iranian nationals; we have arrested Iranian nationals and the Crown Prosecution Service, as I said, announced National Security Act charges against three of them. This is the first time that Iranian nationals have been charged under the Act. The independent criminal investigation will certainly be respected, but the CPS considers the evidence gathered sufficient to link the accused with the Iranian state.

We know what they are about and what they are trying to do, but there is a mechanism. Nobody accepts that the long-term solution to the nuclear threat that Iran poses is simply responding with military action. President Trump has made it clear that he sees dialogue and diplomacy as the long-term solution. Our position on the current military situation remains one of de-escalation, withdrawal, stepping back and thinking about the wider consequences and implications of how escalation can be taken out of our control. That is what the Prime Minister is focused on at the G7. He is absolutely engaged with all allies, and we are working towards being able to focus on all the actions we can take to ensure compliance with those international agreements. I stand fully behind the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself, but the situation at the moment requires us to focus on de-escalation.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I respectfully say that we just want questions, not statements, because a lot of noble Lords want to get in.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, whatever we think of Israel’s actions against Hamas, there is at least one thing we should agree on: a sense of gratitude for what Israel is doing in Iran. Does my noble friend the Minister accept that Israel has done a great service for us in the UK and the rest of the world? Does he accept—I am sure he does—that the threat to us all of a nuclear Iran is not simply theoretical but very practical and that trying to resolve it is a very valuable activity? Does he accept that Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism in the UK, of which we have seen several examples recently, will diminish, that the supply of drones by Iran to Russia will be curtailed and that the Iranian people may have a chance of relief from the terrible oppression they are under? Will he offer some support for Israel’s help in curtailing the activities of this malign group?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have spoken to their Israeli, American and Iranian counterparts, and all parties recognise that, ultimately, only a diplomatic settlement can address the nuclear issue for the long term. He will have seen that the Israeli national security adviser made the point on Friday that military strikes alone will not destroy Iran’s nuclear programme. I regret that many years of talks on the nuclear issue have not yet delivered a solution. We have strongly supported US and Iranian efforts to come to a deal in recent months and will continue to do so. It is in no one’s interests, certainly not those of the United Kingdom, for the current situation to escalate. This is an extremely dangerous moment for the world, and we need to ensure that people step back.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, the Israeli Government recently approved 22 new settlements in the illegally occupied West Bank—the largest such expansion in decades. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law, yet the Government continue to allow trade with these settlements, contrary to the ICJ’s July 2024 advisory opinion, which reiterates the UK’s legal obligation not to recognise or assist illegal occupation, including through trading goods or services. Will the Government publish the advice they have received on their likely complicity with the Israeli Government in the committing of war crimes in the West Bank and Occupied Territories?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness; what was her last question? Could she please repeat it?

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

Will the Government publish the legal advice they have received on their likely complicity with the Israeli Government in the committing of war crimes in Gaza and the Occupied Territories?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me be clear that no Government publish their legal advice, and I am certainly not going to go down that route.

I agree with the noble Baroness that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and do harm prospects for a two-state solution. Settlements do not offer security to Israelis or Palestinians. Settlement expansion and settler violence have reached record levels.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked me about the recognition of the Palestinian state. Sadly, as a consequence of the current situation, the conference on the two-state solution that should have been held this week has been postponed, for understandable reasons. We are very keen to work with France and the Saudis to ensure that that conference is reconvened. We remain committed to recognising the Palestinian state, but at the moment when it will achieve the most impact. We need to ensure that the conference and the focus on the two-state solution can be a real, achievable vision in the near future.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I pray for wise judgment and a swift end to the current conflict between Israel and Iran. I pray for restraint and for the safety and well-being of Jewish people, here and around the world. I support the steps that have been made to protect British nationals and I am appalled by the attacks on civilians, wherever they occur.

On the Statement made in the other place last Tuesday, we on this Bench are clear that the Israeli Government’s prosecution of their war in Gaza is now displacing Palestinians from their homes and destroying the infrastructure necessary to support life. It is a war that cannot be divorced from the accelerated annexation of land we are seeing in the West Bank. I welcome the recent steps the Government have taken to sanction racist and extremist elements in the Israeli Government. I urge them, however, to go further and recognise Palestinian statehood while a recognisable Palestinian structure remains, not to await a more conducive time that may never materialise. Will the Minister look again at the advice to businesses trading with illegal settlements, as well as the current labelling of settlement goods?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Our commitment to a two-state solution is unwavering. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state, but at a time when it has the most impact in achieving that reality, and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear that that does not need to be at the end of the process. Certainly, UK bilateral recognition is the single most important action the United Kingdom can take with regard to Palestinian statehood. It is important to get the timing right, so that it creates genuine momentum and is not simply a symbolic gesture.

We have noted President Macron’s comments and we are in constant dialogue with all partners on how we can best use the postponed conference to advance Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution.

On the other elements of the right reverend Prelate’s question, the current guidance and processes are more than adequate in terms of identifying that.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

The unilateral, one-sided sanctions announced last week suggest that the Government’s view is that incitement and extremism are only a problem on the Israeli side. This is obvious nonsense, when people such as Mahmoud al-Habbash, who is a Palestinian Authority supreme Sharia judge and the President’s adviser on religious and Islamic affairs, says that Israel has no right to exist and that the 7 October attacks and terrorist attacks on Israel are legitimate. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other Members of your Lordships’ House to look at extremism and incitement among the Palestinian leadership, and commit to imposing sanctions on those people as well?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am more than happy to meet the noble Lord, as he knows; we have had many exchanges on this subject, so I do not have a problem with doing that. Most noble Lords know my position in relation to the extremism that he talked about. I have been a friend of Israel for many years and I have spoken out about its right to defend itself. However, I have witnessed the consequences of some of the settler violence, incited by extremist rhetoric. It has driven Palestinians from their homes, and encourages violence and human rights abuses. This fundamentally undermines the two-state solution. Settler violence has led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole communities. Extremist rhetoric advocating violence is appalling and dangerous, and these actions are not acceptable, which is why the Government have taken action.

The noble Lord knows how this Government have condemned Hamas and other extremists who have threatened the statehood of Israel. We have made it absolutely clear that Hamas has no place in the future of a peaceful Palestine and a peaceful Israel.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. The Minister talked about the important levers of diplomacy. On the issue of snapback, the noble Lord knows that the clock runs out by October. Snapback should have been exercised because we have already seen Iran betraying the basis of the resolution.

On our Gulf partners, can the Minister confirm that states such as Bahrain, which is a key partner, have also been spoken to? What about our influence over Oman, which of course was going to host the meeting between the Iranians and the Americans? The levers of diplomacy work when they are exercised. Can the Minister assure the House that it is not only the E3 but our Arab partners who will be fully immersed in finding a diplomatic pathway?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hope I made it clear before. Over the weekend, the Foreign Secretary and Minister Falconer reached out to all our allies in the region. The noble Lord is right and I agree completely that we need to ensure constant communication and dialogue with all our allies in the region. We have been focused on that. The simple, straightforward answer is that he is right.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received a number of messages from British nationals who are currently in Israel, including the following, which I share with permission: “About to have 50 missiles. So scared. I don’t care about me, but it makes it so hard with a young child. I am covering my child with my body when I hear the booms, it’s that loud. I called the FCDO and there is nothing the UK Government can do right now”.

I have listened very closely to what the Minister has said, but will the Government proactively facilitate evacuation via one of Israel’s neighbours rather than wait for British nationals to get through Egyptian or Jordanian borders?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We are doing whatever is possible. As I said, our embassy, and the consulate in Jerusalem, are working around the clock and can be contacted 24/7 by any British national in need of consular assistance. As I said, we have deployed a rapid deployment team to either side of the Israeli-Jordan border to assist those who choose to travel out of the country via land. The situation is fast-moving. British nationals should read the FCDO’s advice and also follow, wherever appropriate, local government advice. I reassure my noble friend that we are monitoring the situation closely and keeping all plans under constant review.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Government’s Statement, which struck exactly the right note. I have two questions I would like to put to him. The first relates to the provisions of the United Nations charter on the use of force. Does he agree that the only possible cover, under the UN charter, for the unilateral military action that was taken last Friday by Israel is indeed Article 51 of the charter, and that for that to be operated, there has to be an imminent threat—I say “imminent”, a word which is being used in courts very frequently—of an Iranian attack on Israel? Do the Government have any information of any kind that indicated that such an attack was in fact imminent at the time Israel took its action?

My second question to the Minister is, does he not think that the E3 possibly has a role to play in supporting the efforts of President Trump to get back to a negotiating, diplomatic discussion of Iran’s nuclear programme? If that is so, are we going to co-operate actively as a member of the E3 in canvassing that with all those concerned?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will address the last question first, which is absolutely right. We are working with the E3, but we are also working in Ottawa to make sure that we can build a strong alliance to support these diplomatic efforts of President Trump to ensure a dialogue, and a deal—as he puts it—that will ensure safety and security in this incredibly dangerous moment.

I am not going to speculate on what information Israel may or may not have had. All I would say is that at this moment in time, we are urging the most important thing, which is to step back, not escalate the situation and not engage with others. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has had direct calls with Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump, the leaders of France and Germany and of course other allies in the region, particularly the United Arab Emirates. We have been conveying one simple message: we have urged restraint, to step back and de-escalate. That is the way to ensure a future deal, as President Trump put it.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

Given Israel’s demonstrated capacity for precision targeting in operations in Tehran, conducted with reported minimal civilian casualties, what assessment have the Government made of the proportionality and distinction applied in Israel’s use of force in Gaza, where, according to The Lancet, the civilian fatalities have exceeded 70,000?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness knows our position in relation to the action in Gaza. We have been very clear that we have taken specific action by refusing to export arms to Israel that may be used in Gaza. We see the actions as being absolutely disastrous for the people of Gaza. We have seen the consequences and have been absolutely focused on trying to ensure that Israel works to deliver what we have been calling for: an immediate ceasefire, an immediate end to hostilities, and the release of hostages. But most importantly, we want to see them ensure that the humanitarian aid that is so necessary is able to be delivered.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, while we are sitting here, the UN is scaling back its aid due to historic funding cuts. It is cutting back from $44 billion to $29 billion because of a drop in contributions, particularly from the US and from other western countries, which are reducing aid in order to prioritise defence spending. Tom Fletcher, who leads the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said:

“Brutal funding cuts leave us with brutal choices”.


What pressure can the Minister put on not only our country but the other countries, including the United States, to continue the aid during this terrible time, particularly for the people in Gaza and for others who will be suffering in the whole region?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend knows my position, and there is no doubt that, as the Prime Minister has made absolutely clear, a priority for aid will be Gaza. The situation is desperate, but of course, we have to remember the consequences generally for the change in the situation, particularly in relation to official development assistance. These are the direct consequences of the illegal invasion of Ukraine—the incredibly dangerous moment for the world, where the United Nations charter has been completely ignored. The West has had to respond by ensuring that the security of this country and of Europe is a priority. That is why the focus has to be on defence. My noble friend also knows that, in terms of development, I am absolutely focused on making sure that we use all the tools in our toolkit to ensure progress, particularly on the empowerment of women, which I know is an issue and a strong focus of her activities.

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as is clear, Iran was heading towards the ability to create nuclear weapons. We can debate the timeframe, but given that the Iranian leadership chants repeatedly not just death to Israel, death to America, and death to infidels, but “death to England”, and given the failure of the diplomatic path to stop a potential nuclear-armed Iran, does the Minister not think that the British Government should reflect on the “death to England” chant and be doing something more than just saying, “Arms alone will not work”?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not just reflecting the United Kingdom’s view on this situation; I am also reflecting the view of the President of the United States, who has been absolutely focused on reaching a deal—a deal that would end the escalation of Iran’s nuclear programme. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we have seen the escalation, far beyond the limits committed to in the JCPOA. It is enriching uranium to such a level that there is no plausible civilian use. We absolutely understand the threat that this suggests, and that there is a need for international efforts to hold Iran to account. But I repeat: in the discussions with Israel and with American and Iranian counterparts, all parties recognise that, ultimately, only a diplomatic settlement can address the nuclear issue in the long-term. That is why we are completely focused on the moment—on de-escalation. It is an incredibly dangerous moment. We know that, even as I speak, further action is being taken.

If the situation escalates, we will not see control of the nuclear arms race; the consequences will potentially be far worse. That is why we are completely focused on the diplomatic effort and on supporting President Trump’s efforts.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. It would be catastrophic if Iran were ever to get a nuclear weapon; I am totally opposed to that. I totally support the right of Israel to defend itself and to exist; I totally condemn many of the things that have been said about Israel by Iran.

However, I believe that a diplomatic solution is still possible. I say that because we had a diplomatic solution in 2015 with the JCPOA, which, if it were in operation today, would mean that there would be only 300 kilograms of enriched uranium in Iran’s stocks and that it would be enriched to only 3.67%. The mistake was that Trump tore up that agreement—that is why we are faced with the situation we have today. The Iranians agreed to the original proposition in 2015. The IAEA certified that they were complying with it, and it had the right of inspection throughout the country. The agreement was achieved then, and it could be achieved again if we put our minds to it. I beg the House not to get too bomb-happy and to consider that a diplomatic solution is better than the lives being lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I of course recall many exchanges with the noble Lord in 2015, when we discussed the JCPOA. I also acknowledge the incredibly hard work that my noble friend Lady Ashton put into securing that agreement. However, we are where we are now, and the most important thing is not to look back but to think about what President Trump is determined to do now. Our diplomatic efforts are focused on bringing all our allies—particularly, as the Lord, Lord Ahmad, said, all regional allies—into focus to ensure that we get a deal that ensures compliance with the principles that were originally in that agreement and that we stop Iran obtaining and developing nuclear weapons. That is what we are absolutely determined to ensure does not happen and why we support President Trump.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My noble friend the Minister is absolutely right when he says that this is an incredibly dangerous moment. I declare an interest, as I have very close family members who live in north Tel Aviv and who have spent the last two nights in a bomb shelter. Can my noble friend say more to the House about the conference, sponsored by Saudi Arabia and France, to advance a two-state solution? In what way will the UK Government support it, and will they take part in it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I indicated on Friday, President Macron announced the postponement of the conference—for obvious reasons, not least because many of the participants who would make that conference a success would not be able to get there. However, I reassure my noble friend that, as I have said on previous occasions, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the conference is a success, that we focus on the importance of the two-state solution and that we look at the means to help deliver that. That is why we will work closely with President Macron and the Saudis to ensure that the conference is reconvened when it is safe to do so. It gives me the opportunity to say again that it will be safe to do so when we can ensure that the situation that we currently face is de-escalated and that people step back.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, in light of all the evidence, particularly in relation to the deliberate targeting of the civilian population of Israel, why are the Government continuing to dither and delay over the proscription of the IRGC?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have been very clear about the actions we have taken. I am not going to repeat all of them, including the arrest of Iranian civilians and the actions of the CPS. We have been clear that the evidence has shown the direct involvement of the Iranian Government in these activities. We have taken action, and we have sanctioned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We are absolutely determined to ensure that its malign influence cannot be taken any further. We are going to do everything we can to ensure it cannot influence or exert pressure both here and elsewhere.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I was very surprised that the Minister said that the reason that Iran was seeking to get nuclear power was to intimidate the region. I do not think that is the case at all. If you are a bomb-happy regime, the object is to kill Jews and to wipe Israel off the map. If you are willing to launch nuclear weapons across the valley of Armageddon, snapback and diplomacy do not mean an awful lot.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not underestimate the threat Iran poses. When we see the leadership of Iran saying that it wants the destruction of Israel, we must take its threat seriously. I totally understand that, which is why we are absolutely focused on Iran not having access to nuclear weapons. If it had them, it would pose a threat not only to Israel but to the security of this country and many others. That will be what we are focused on. I do not want to keep repeating it, but there is a clear acceptance that the long-term solution will be delivered not by military action but by diplomatic agreements, which is what President Trump has been focused on and has repeatedly said.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the long-term solution, as the Minister rightly says, must be diplomatic, and I am glad he emphasised the importance of nuclear non-proliferation. The vast majority of countries in the Middle East would like it to be a nuclear weapons-free zone. He is right to emphasise the danger, but I think during the diplomatic discussions the Government will have to address—and I do not expect him to comment on this—the nuclear ambiguity of Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons too.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am going to be absolutely focused on one thing, which is what this crisis now faces: the potential of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. It is the real threat in this situation. It is presenting the real danger, which is what our focus will be on.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the sensitive way in which the Minister has answered questions at a very difficult time. Last week in the other place, the Minister for the Middle East, Hamish Falconer, said right at the beginning of his Statement:

“The two-state solution is in peril”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/25; col. 913.]


If there is to be any hope of a two-state solution being delivered, there must be a functioning Palestinian banking and finance sector, but it is currently on its knees due to the actions of the Israeli Government, including withholding Palestinians’ own money and with Minister Smotrich threatening total collapse. I ask the Minister what we, our allies in the West and friends in the Gulf are doing to help to make sure that does not happen.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is in nobody’s interests, and so far the action that is supposedly threatened has not been taken. To do so would ensure the complete collapse of the financial situation in the Occupied Territories. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be a catastrophe if that action was taken, and we are doing what we can to influence the situation. It would be an incredibly retrograde step, and would deeply impact the ability of Palestinians to carry out what possible normal livelihood they have at the moment; it would be a disaster.

Israel: Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli Communities

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to grassroots movements in Israel which are working to bring Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli communities together.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom Government remain committed to supporting peaceful coexistence and dialogue. We actively promote interfaith understanding through initiatives such as the Drumlanrig accord. Our diplomatic missions regularly meet with Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli organisations that promote dialogue and co-operation between Arabs and Jews. For six consecutive years we have funded Search for Common Ground, which has brought together Jewish and Muslim religious leaders for dialogue programmes.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Answer from my noble friend the Minister. At this time of yet more war and violence, we think of Jews and Arabs in Israel who are now in real danger, but we must not let the Israeli-Iranian hostilities obscure the evil destruction of Gaza and the starvation of its people, or the appalling situation in the West Bank. The situation is intolerable. We must support the efforts of movements such as Standing Together, which work across the religious divide, bringing Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli communities together, working for peace, equality and social justice, desperately trying to find an end to the war. When far-right extremists recently tried to block aid going into Gaza, they formed a humanitarian guard of Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel, which enabled trucks to get through.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

The question is coming, my Lords. These organisations, together with the ones cited by my noble friend, are worthy of our support. I am glad that the Government are supporting them, but I ask all noble Lords to support these organisations, which deserve our solidarity.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I share the opinion of my noble friend. Over the last eight years, I have been actively engaged, along with many noble Lords across the House, with a number of organisations, not least Tracks of Peace, that promote human, racial and religious tolerance, also focusing on business, education, the environment and health—issues that affect all people in Israel and the Occupied Territories. We are absolutely committed to building that dialogue, despite the horrendous situation in which people now find themselves. I thank my noble friend for her question. She is absolutely right; we should not forget the issues underlying community cohesion.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Jerusalem Foundation in the UK. The Minister will be pleased to hear that British citizens donated $10 million last year to coexistence projects in Jerusalem. I am sure he will agree with me that the fact that Israel, with a 20% Arab population, has not seen violence inside Israel represents success in coexistence and an understanding from the Arab population of what Israel is trying to achieve. Does the Minister agree that it is not clear that the Arab population of east Jerusalem wants a two-state solution, at least not in the near future? Will he ask our consul in east Jerusalem to undertake proper research to understand the views of the citizens of east Jerusalem, so that we can act accordingly?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble lord. He is right that we should support all efforts for community cohesion. We are obviously committed to a two-state solution, where the rights of Palestinians and the State of Israel are well protected. Through that, as I said on previous occasions, we are supporting the Palestinian Authority in the reforms it needs to take to ensure that they can properly represent the people of Palestine. We are absolutely committed to that.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reference to Search for Common Ground and declare that I am the voluntary chair of its UK board. On a profound visit that I made to the region through the commendable organisation Yachad, I met a family in a kibbutz whose parents had been brutally murdered by Hamas, and they spoke to me very movingly about their desire to carry on their parents’ work to cross a political and geographical divide for peace. I welcome the Statement that humanitarian support from the UK Government will be protected at this difficult time, but will the Minister confirm that development support for organisations such as Yachad and for community and civil society initiatives will be protected?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that Gaza remains the focus and priority of our activity. We are working with a range of groups, and, to repeat what the noble Lord opposite said, we have to recognise that a lot of them are financing themselves. We remain committed to the sort of organisations that the noble Lord referred to because underneath all the tragedy we now see is a genuine desire for peace and progress. That means that we need to see economic development in all parts of Israel and the Occupied Territories.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, like others who have spoken, I too have been supportive and admiring of the courage and commitment that many, whether Palestinians or Israelis, have put into their peacebuilding organisations, many of them brought together by the Alliance for Middle East Peace. The Minister talks about the two-state solution and how we get there. Does he agree, and are the Government taking steps to ensure, that representatives of ordinary citizens from those communities need to be there to build up that peace process when it eventually comes?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. Another important element of this is not only to ensure that a range of communities are properly represented in the future but to focus on our women, peace, and security agenda. Women can play an important role there too, and I am committed to that. We will have plenty of opportunity to address the big picture in our debate on the Statements tonight, but I repeat that, underneath all that, there is a real strong desire on the ground for intercommunity and interfaith organisations, and for economic development to lift people out of the situation they are in.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it is vital that UK Aid funds genuinely beneficial operations and organisations which seek to alleviate and promote peaceful coexistence in the region. Can the Minister confirm how regularly the FCDO audits or reviews the activities of NGOs and grass-roots organisations receiving UK funding in the region, and whether any UK-funded organisations operating in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories have ever been subject to investigation for links to proscribed groups?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer because I am not sure in which direction his question is going, but I assure him that the FCDO regularly audits its contributions, not least to ensure that the UK taxpayer has value for money. If there are any reports that raise concerns about how money might be being used not in accordance with the original grant then of course we will investigate them. If the noble Lord has information that I am not aware of, perhaps he can let me have it later.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests: I am a supporter and member of an organisation called Omdim Beyachad—Standing Together—and, over the years, I have been responsible for the teaching and supervision of many PhD students from Gaza, Israel and the neighbouring Arab countries. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on her excellent Question and the Minister on his wonderful answers, which are really helpful. The point is this: creating an important infrastructure for education is important now if we are to achieve some kind of proper peaceful coexistence. The British embassy was extremely useful in helping this, and I hope we can encourage that to occur again in due course, because it is one way in which we must try to help solve the problems in the Middle East.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. He is right that there are a range of initiatives. They may seem unimportant at the moment, in the context of the situation that Israel and Palestine find themselves, but it is those routes that are essential for progress. Educational support and support for people who have a strong entrepreneurial instinct for economic growth is what we should be focused on. We should not forget that, despite the terrible conflict that we find ourselves facing at the moment.

United Nations International Day of Peace

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the United Nations International Day of Peace on 21 September.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, peace day falls at the start of the UN General Assembly high-level week, the annual gathering of world leaders to discuss matters of peace and security and, this year, to commemorate the UN’s 80th anniversary. Peace is the bedrock of the UN. As always, the United Kingdom will be at UNGA in full force, demonstrating our support for the UN, its charter, and the essential role of the UN in effective multilateralism and the international rules-based system.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which is much welcome. I thank him for the great energetic and principled service which he has given to this House and to the Government. Looking at the Question, I wonder whether there is a possibility that we might start thinking of shifting the focus marginally away from it simply being about international diplomacy and towards looking for better peace among ourselves, so that we might look for more inner peace, more intergenerational well-being and more community well-being. When we come to celebrate the day, might the Government think about sending a message to our 23,000 schools around the country that they should give some thought to those kinds of principles?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. He is absolutely right. One of the things that I have recently done is meet the new Secretary General of the UNA, who is actively involved in promoting the UN at all levels of community. I spoke about how we could reach out to all civil society groups to recognise the importance of the anniversary and the work of the UN, because it is not fully understood how important its role is, particularly in peacebuilding and peacekeeping. My noble friend is absolutely right. I will speak to my ministerial colleagues to see if we can reach out beyond civil society in recognition of the 80th anniversary and think about the role of schools and so on.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons that the UN was successful in its early years was its role in intervening on conflict prevention and then peace accords? It is a tragic consequence of the modern age that, when we look around the world today, we see that probably a record number of conflicts are raging, yet we often find that the UN has not been able to play the convening role that it did previously. What assessment has the Minister made of strengthening the role of the UN when it comes to mediation, particularly on the major conflicts we see currently?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have a tendency to agree with the noble Lord on many occasions, and he is absolutely right. When he was Minister responsible for the UN, he took time to ensure that its peacebuilding efforts were fully recognised. We are absolutely focused on how we can improve support. I have been involved in meetings with Under-Secretary-General Lacroix during UNGA week, talking about how we can support that peacekeeping effort. More importantly, in April, I then met Under-Secretary Guy Ryder and Under-Secretary Nakamitsu to discuss not only how the UN reform programme can work but how it can be focused heavily on that peacebuilding effort. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to do more to promote such activity and to engage, but the convening role of the UN is absolutely vital. That is why, although we can feel frustrated with the role of the UN Security Council, it is really important that everyone is around the table.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the best way to mark peace day will be to invest in conflict prevention. It is regrettable that the Government are cutting to almost zero all conflict prevention work, especially—in the light of our issues here at home around migration—as there are an increased number of conflicts around the world that will lead to increased levels of migration. The Government continue to pay the profits of those hosting asylum seekers in the UK and to score out official development assistance. At the conference on 21 September, would it not be better to invest in peacekeeping and conflict prevention and not to allow profiteering as a result of conflict?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Maybe the noble Lord has more information than me, but I reassure him that we are absolutely focused on using all the tools in our toolkit to promote peacebuilding, and that is certainly not limited to ODA. To reassure him, we are using this year’s peacebuilding architecture review to champion the women, peace and security agenda, ensuring that gender inequality and women’s participation is embedded at all levels of the United Nations. We continue to support the UN Peacebuilding Fund and have committed over £175 million since its inception in 2006. We continue to support the UN’s Complex Risk Analytics Fund, with £1.4 million last year and this year, which plays an important role in financing data and analysis to strengthen global risk foresight capabilities. I do not accept what the noble Lord is suggesting. There are more ways that we can focus on peacebuilding, and certainly we will continue to do so.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister had a chance to look at the reports I sent him over the weekend from Sudan, where over 100 mass graves were discovered in Khartoum and the surrounding area and where genocide continues in Darfur? Does he agree that there is an absolute link between peace and justice, and that if those who are responsible for atrocities, whether it is in Ukraine, the Middle East or Sudan, are not held to account, inevitably we see these things happen over and over again?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have to confess that I did not have time over the weekend—sadly, I was not in the country—but I accept what the noble Lord says. It is absolutely vital that accountability is part of the mechanisms that we have to use here. He is right that it is about how we prevent these atrocities, and one sure way of preventing it is to make it clear to people who are thinking about committing such atrocities that they will be held to account. I agree with the noble Lord, but, as he focused on genocide determination, I repeat that our differences over that do not prevent us as a Government taking action to call out and seek to address atrocities, and to work to build resilience in places where there are risks of instability and violence. Sudan is a priority for this Government, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear. We will certainly pursue whatever we can in holding people to account to prevent such atrocities occurring or to stop those that are going on at the moment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it is indeed a sad irony, given the number of appalling conflicts afflicting the world at the moment, that the International Day of Peace has a lot of heavy lifting to do. What assessments have the Government made of the impact of aid reductions on peacebuilding on some of the fragile and conflict-affected states, particularly in the light of this International Day of Peace?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The important thing is not to take our eye off the ball and to focus on how we can achieve peace. A classic example of that is in the eastern DRC, where conflict is raging but we do not see too much attention being placed on it. I have been in constant touch with the President of Angola, who initiated the first ceasefire, and with President Tshisekedi and President Kagame about how they can approach it. We now have the Americans playing a critical role in Doha in bringing the parties together. We are absolutely focused on using all the tools in our toolkit to ensure peace. The most important part of that toolkit is our diplomacy and re-engaging on the international stage, which, sadly, was a little missing for the last 14 years.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, now that India is the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, does the Minister agree that it is about time that India was a permanent member of the Security Council?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Noble Lords will have heard me stress the importance of Security Council reform. We have been at the forefront of arguing for two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, not least because, by 2030, a quarter of the world’s population will be African—that is really important. We have made the case for India—my noble friend is right—and we see Security Council reform as essential. It is always very difficult to focus on reform when people have the ability to stop it, but we are getting closer to the position where the extension of the Security Council is in sight, and we are working on it strongly.

Cluster Munitions Convention: Article 21

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Godson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of legal challenges when relying on the provision in Article 21 of the Cluster Munitions Convention allowing the United Kingdom to fight alongside states that are not party to that Convention.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, since ratifying the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the United Kingdom has regularly co-operated with non-state parties, including in combat. The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010 sets out a clear UK legal framework for all UK military personnel and nationals engaging in military co-operation and operations with non-state parties to the convention. The Act enshrines the convention’s prohibitions in domestic criminal law, while providing a defence in the context of international military co-operation and operations with non-state parties.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response; I just wonder whether, in the light of the rapidly changing international situation and Russian lawfare, it is perhaps a little optimistic. The Government are trusting in the strength of Article 21 in the face of legal challenge. I refer the Minister to the Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School study of 2010, which made it quite clear that Article 21’s interoperability carve-out, which the previous Labour Government obtained, does not in fact exempt signatory states from their Article 1 obligation not to “assist, encourage or induce” the use of cluster munitions. It concludes that the prohibition on assistance must apply at all times. Can the Minister therefore assure this House that the Government are certain that so eminent an interpretation of the convention is incorrect and so does not provide grounds for a subsequent successful legal challenge to our Armed Forces?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The straight answer to the question is yes, I am satisfied. I will give the noble Lord a reason for that, but we should not forget that the CCM remains vital in protecting humanitarian norms. Cluster munitions continue to pose a threat to civilians. In 2024, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor reported that civilians made up 93% of cluster munitions casualties in 2023. I have read the noble Lord’s report. Provisions for military interoperability between members of the CCM and non-members are clearly set out and enshrined in UK law and have functioned effectively since the CMM came into force. Since the convention came into force in 2010, UK Armed Forces have operated effectively, including in combat with all allies regardless of their membership of CCM, in line with the CCM provisions on interoperability under Article 21.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the comprehensive answers that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Godson. However, there is a much simpler response to this Question, to be found in the 45 words of paragraph 3 of Article 21 of the convention, which states:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties”—


which includes the United Kingdom—

“their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party”.

Is that not the answer?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, it may be that my noble friend has saved me some time, but I repeat that since the CMM came into operation in 2010, we have done exactly that. We have co-operated with states which are not party to the agreement. My noble friend is right.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, highlights an important point. A number of fellow NATO states have withdrawn from the convention or never joined it in the first place. Russia did not sign up to it initially. There is an obligation under the convention, to which Gordon Brown signed us up, to make representations to non-member states. Have the Government done that formally to some of our closest allies?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Absolutely; we are committed to it. During my time as a Minister, I have seen first-hand the positive impact of the United Kingdom’s involvement in this. I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Halo Trust. When I was in Angola, I visited areas that were severely contaminated by such weapons, which impacted hugely on the safety of civilians and their ability to re-establish their economy after such a long period of war. To come back to the fundamental point about Article 21, I am not making a judgment. We work with our allies—particularly Ukraine, which is facing Russian aggression. Russia is also bombing civilian cities and attacking civilians and civilian buses. We are committed to defending Ukraine and its right to defend itself. However, we must be clear. The important point about the convention is how it tries to stop this huge impact of remnants of war. There have been 10 years of peace in Angola, yet people are still dying from these munitions.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister regarding the Halo Trust and the very long legacy that exists because of the use of these munitions. The UK was the world leader in demining and in the stabilisation programmes in communities affected by them. Unfortunately, the scale of the ODA cuts is biting very hard, especially on initiatives such as humanitarian mine action and the stabilisation programmes. In the last Question, the Minister suggested that I was incorrect on the reductions. Can he prove his case by saying that these programmes will now be protected?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did not say the noble Lord was incorrect—I think Hansard would prove that; I said that he may have more information than I have. We are in the middle of a very detailed spending review. While the outlying figures are out, the department has to go through a programme-by-programme process to determine how we meet the commitment of ODA. I did not say that he was misleading. One thing I am determined to do is to ensure that we use all levers available to us. It is not limited to ODA, and it is not limited to our diplomatic efforts and working with allies. We should be more innovative in how we develop and deliver these programmes, including with the private sector.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Government have rightly made it clear that we should be prepared for conflict if necessary. Unfortunately, they, and indeed the previous Government, have gathered a reputation for so-called legal freeloading, in other words, being restrained by an interpretation of international law which has often made it difficult for our troops to perform in the way they would want. Can the Minister assure me that there has been a thorough analysis of our legal obligations in the face of the possibility of war, so that our troops, as well as facing difficulties that they are bound to face, do not find themselves walking into a legal minefield?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me be absolutely clear to the noble Lord: ratification of the CCM and subsequent removal of cluster munitions from our inventory does not constrain UK military capability nor prevent interoperability with allies. The UK has successfully developed alternative systems and policies that have allowed for effective operation with our allies since ratification in 2008, including in combat. The strategic defence review was clear that the United Kingdom Armed Forces will be a more lethal, integrated force, equipped and ready for all future challenges.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest, as I was actively involved in the campaign to get these horrible weapons banned. Indeed, I was present in Dublin when word came through that Gordon Brown said that Britain should agree to the ban, which opened the door to other countries following suit. Given we have dealt with Article 21, is not the main onus on us to make sure that other countries do not withdraw from the convention and to use our influence as publicly as possible to urge them not to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. As a committed member of the CCM, the United Kingdom continues to promote the norms of the convention and discourage the acquisition and use of cluster munitions by all states, irrespective of their status within the convention. We are absolutely undertaking what my noble friend suggests.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we are witnessing both the systematic collective punishment and brutalisation of a civilian population combined with the weaponisation of food and medicine. A Government have made a decision to annex land that is not theirs and to put women and children, whose only sin is seeking aid, in the position of being at risk of literally starving to death. These are war crimes. Civilians are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. Yesterday, the head of Save the Children US said it is reported that children who require surgery are waking up during that surgery because there is insufficient anaesthetic.

In the catalogue of horror in recent days, we know three incontrovertible facts. First, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s approach has not ended Hamas’s continued criminal and terrorist presence. The trauma of hostage families continues and now, for too many, it has turned into despair. Secondly, we see unabated the approach of extremist Ministers to forcibly and illegally occupy new territory. Thirdly, the sincerely meant and genuine concern of Ministers in the UK and elsewhere is having next to no effect in preventing it.

The time for timid behaviour is therefore over. These Benches have consistently called for the Government to take firm action, and they must do so now. We called for the sanctioning of extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 18 months ago because we knew we needed clear preventative action. Given that the legal text of what we called for is on Ministers’ desks, why are the Government not implementing those sanctions, demonstrating that the UK will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian dispossession?

We must cease all trade in the areas affected by these because Netanyahu’s Ministers claim that illegal outposts and settlements are Israeli land, which they are not. Why has the UK not expanded action to those Ministers and Members of the Knesset who support a continuation of the blockade of aid and call for annexation? Why has the UK not ceased all arms trading with the Netanyahu Government until they adhere to international humanitarian law?

The Minister in the House of Commons was asked last week our Government’s view of the ICJ advisory opinion on the Netanyahu Government that their

“policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under … Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

He replied:

“We continue to consider the ICJ’s advisory opinion with the seriousness that it deserves”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/25; col. 342.]


I remind the House that the opinion was in July last year. Surely the Government cannot any longer simply consider the opinion but should act on it. When Ministers tell me the Government act on the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Chagos Islands but not on Gaza, I say to the Government that we must not have double standards.

As I said at the start of these questions to the Minister, we are a witness to history—one where we look with daily horror at the continuing unconscionable cruelty to children. But we are a Parliament, not just a witness. We must now, with urgency and clarity, provide action that is not too late to seek to prevent the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, with the UK leading others in recognising the state of Palestine, showing beyond doubt the UK’s commitment to Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a two-state solution. With that and the other actions that these Benches have outlined, we might at least try to restore a process that a ceasefire could start and which could then be established and honoured, and there could be some respite for those being so terribly brutalised.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I say to the noble Lord opposite that the United Kingdom has been a close and long-standing friend of Israel. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, Israel suffered a heinous attack on 7 October and the Government have always backed Israel’s right to defend itself. We have condemned Hamas and its abhorrent treatment of the hostages, and we have stood with the families and demanded that their loved ones are released.

However, we also have a duty to condemn Israel’s latest action in Gaza. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Israeli Government are

“isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world, undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging … the state of Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/25; col. 924.]

We have been very clear in condemning the outrageous language in the comments of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich but, as the noble Lord knows, I will not be tempted into foreseeing or predicting future sanctions. We do not do that, and I am not going to do that today.

We have been absolutely clear that we will not speculate, but we have made it clear in our joint statement with France and Canada that if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions. We have been very strong with our partners in opposing the expansion of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, and we have reaffirmed our calls for the Israeli Government to stop their military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid in. The Foreign Secretary announced sanctions on 20 May to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, following extremely concerning surges in this type of violence.

We have announced the formal pause of free trade agreement negotiations with Israel, effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deepening trading relationships with the Netanyahu Government, who are pursuing policies that are damaging to the UK, the wider region and their own citizens. The Minister for the Middle East also summoned the Israeli ambassador to discuss our severe concerns at the situation. We are clear that if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also raised the ICJ. We are fully committed to international law and respect the independence of the ICJ. Despite what the noble Lord says, we continue to consider the court’s advisory opinion carefully with the seriousness and rigour it deserves. UK commitment to a two-state solution is, of course, unwavering—and I will come back to that point.

I say to both noble Lords—who I know share my concern—that we are absolutely appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed while trying to access aid sites in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury simply to feed themselves and their families. We have called for an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for the perpetrators to be held to account, including during a meeting of the UN Security Council on 4 June. We do not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or puts vulnerable civilians at risk. We call on Israel to urgently engage with the UN to ensure a return to the delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.

Israel’s proposals to deliver aid to Gaza via private companies is dangerous for civilians and aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. We endorse the plan for the delivery of aid put forward by the UN on 16 May, which is based on humanitarian principles, has built-in mitigations against aid diversion and uses established mechanisms to deliver aid at scale, which is required. Hamas must allow humanitarian assistance to be distributed without interference. I think all noble Lords understand and appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Working with our allies, we are very focused on trying to see what leverage we can bring to ensure that a solution is found as soon as possible.

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the demonstration. We can be proud of our country, which allows the right to association and the freedom to demonstrate. I think that all of us in this House respect opinions that do not necessarily agree with our own, particularly on this subject, but I accept that it is wrong for people to interfere with others who are going about their business. Certainly, I join the noble Lord in condemning such action, which is not acceptable at all.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, the Statement makes reference to the importance of a two-state solution if we are to get security for both Palestinians and Israelis. In the light of that, what action—that means more than condemnation; it really does mean action—are the Government taking, given the decision by the Israeli Government to build 22 new settlements on the West Bank? These settlements are illegal and will make it more and more difficult to have a two-state solution. If the Minister can give the House some hope that we will take action that goes beyond simply condemnation on this matter, I would be grateful.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend says, but since we came into office this Government have taken action. We stopped the export of arms that could be used in Gaza and we are determined to take further action, particularly with the discussions on the free trade agreement. This is a Government who have taken action, but it is not just about punitive action; it is about working with allies to achieve that goal of a two-state solution. That is why we are very committed to ensuring that the conference co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia is a success. If we can focus all international allies, including those in the Middle East, on the importance of delivering a two-state solution, this Government will be taking not just punitive action but positive action towards a peaceful solution. I say to the noble Lord opposite that the only real secure future, for both Palestinians and Israel, is a two-state solution where both communities can live in peace.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, if there is to be a recognition of a Palestinian state, will the Minister tell us what its boundaries will be? Will he give an assurance that any recognition would ensure that all parties recognise the right of the Jewish people to have a state?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows the answer. For those who have advocated a two-state solution and support parties towards it, obviously a precondition is the security of the State of Israel. We are absolutely committed to that. On the progress towards a two-state solution, we have been working with the Palestinian Authority, which does recognise that, and we have had progress in the past. But we want to ensure that we support those in the Palestinian Authority who can deliver that two-state solution that the noble Lord referred to. So I do not disagree with him; I just think that he implies—and I strongly say—that we see recognition as part of the process towards the establishment of a two-state solution. We do not see it as the end in itself. When the time is right to do that, it will be when we can deliver a more secure basis for that solution.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the situation in Gaza is horrendous, and any new settlement building is completely wrong. Can I press for a greater understanding of the Government’s position on aid delivery? I follow the logic of what the Minister says—that aid should not be delivered to further any political or military objective—but then what do the Government think of the way that aid has got in until now? When the Minister sees massed Hamas gunmen on top of aid trucks and sees the Hamas operatives threatening death to anyone who takes aid that is not through that route, surely the Government understand that that route is also fundamentally compromised.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The only word my noble friend uses that I disagree with is “fundamentally”. We have been working with all UN agencies and with NGOs to ensure that Hamas does not interfere with distribution. We have made that absolutely clear, and we have strongly condemned such interference. But the simple fact is that we know that the delivery of aid via private companies is dangerous for civilians and for aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. That is why we continue to press the Government of Israel to permit the full and unhindered resumption of aid flow into Gaza, and that should take place immediately. By far the most effective way to meet the desperate needs of the Gazan people at the speed and scale that is needed is via overland routes, with the UN agencies and NGOs that we have supported delivering that aid.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, for as long as most of us can remember, Ministers such as my noble friend have been talking about the two-state solution as the holy grail that gets us all out of the difficulties. But is it not now time to recognise that the simple truth—which I ask him to confirm—is that the present Government in Israel, and indeed almost any reconfiguration that we could imagine, are implacably opposed in principle to any suggestion of a Palestinian state? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, helpfully reminded us, there is no boundary that could be seen to provide one at the moment.

We need to try to unlock that hopeless position of the Israelis vetoing any independence whatsoever for the people of the West Bank or east Jerusalem, and take the opportunity of the Saudi Arabian and French initiative to make some movement towards breaking the logjam by saying that, yes, we—the UK Government with allies—will recognise a Palestinian state. Until everyone, including the Israelis, recognise the imperative requirement of that, there will be no peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

If only it were a question of the United Kingdom recognising the Palestinian state. Of course, our long-standing position, as my noble friend knows, is that we will do so. We will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process and to the realisation of a Palestinian state. It is one thing to say that we will recognise it, but it is another thing to see a secure situation established whereby the Palestinian people can live securely and in a neighbourly way with the State of Israel, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said. Therefore, we will recognise it when it is conducive to delivering that objective. Everyone in this Chamber has had their hopes raised for peace in the Middle East, certainly since 1948. We absolutely must renew our efforts to deliver that because, with the humanitarian situation, those extremists in the Israeli Government have shown what they can do. The situation in Gaza is evidence of that, and we must not tolerate it.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Pickles, and I would say that there are plans, and there are people in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority—people in all communities—who want peace and want it now. We all agree on that, as one, irrespective of the need to get aid in. I have said to the Minister before that we should unblock and use the air routes and work with the United States, Egypt and Jordan to get aid delivered. We must work with all sides to ensure that aid gets in.

My question is a specific one. There is a peace plan from a former Prime Minister of Israel, Prime Minister Olmert, and a former Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Nasser al-Kidwa. It works on the two-state solution, including on the definition of boundaries, but recognises, importantly, that east Jerusalem is a sacred place for the Jewish community, the Muslim community and the Christian community. There are plans and there are people who wish to engage. Can the Minister assure me that he will make sure that His Majesty’s Government engage with all these key parties, because ultimately, peace, as Menachem Begin said, is inevitable?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the people of Israel. I am very careful to draw a clear distinction between the people of Israel and the current Government of Israel. It is the current Government of Israel who are pursuing this awful policy in relation to Gaza. The noble Lord is also absolutely right to draw attention to a range of options in terms of the peace discussions. That is why the initiative by France and Saudi Arabia is really important—because it can convene people. We talked in the earlier Question about the convening power of the United Nations, which is vital. I do not think that we can take an exclusive approach to the peace process; it has to be as inclusive as possible, but we are determined to support the reforms within the Palestinian Authority, to strengthen their work and to strengthen their credibility among the Palestinian people.

On the noble Lord’s question about aid, he knows that if we could have airlifts, we would explore every such mechanism to get aid in. But as he repeatedly assured me when I was in opposition and he was the Minister, there is only one real, successful way to get the amount of aid that is needed into Gaza, and that is through the road routes. We are determined to ensure that that is the case.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to His Majesty’s Government for the Statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. May I press the Minister on two things? The first is the attack by Israeli forces on the compound of the Anglican al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, killing five, including three journalists and a father escorting his son to the surgical unit for treatment for prior injuries. This is the latest in a number of attacks by the IDF on church hospitals and churches, in defiance of international law. Will the Minister accept that specific actions are now required, since reasoned pleas have been ignored?

Secondly, in light of what the Minister has said about the UN conference from 17 to 20 June and the conducive time to recognise Palestine, will he confirm that a bold and clear statement will be made at that conference of the Government’s firm intention to recognise the state of Palestine?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I say to the right reverend Prelate that I have been clear about when we will recognise the state of Palestine, and that is when it is most conducive to that two-state solution. We will work with allies to ensure that we can create those conditions. The conference is part of that, but not the sole part. He is absolutely right to condemn the actions in Gaza and the Occupied Territories in terms of the use of violence; I think we can all be very concerned.

It is frustrating if it appears that we are not doing anything. We are absolutely determined to work with our allies so that the Government of Israel fully understand our concerns. Of course, we voted on 4 June in favour of the UN Security Council resolution focused on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We highlighted that the Israeli Government’s decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are totally unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive. With our allies, we have called for an end to restrictions on aid. We believe that UN and other humanitarian partners must be allowed to operate, and we must be able to get back to a situation where we can get aid to where it is most needed.

On 19 May, we released a joint statement with Canada and France calling for Israel to cease its renewed military offensive and lift restrictions, so we are using what mechanisms we can. We are also using specific actions bilaterally against the Government of Israel. The initial one was the restriction of arms sales; another concerned the trade agreement. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we work with our allies to make sure that the Government of Israel know our deep concern about this situation.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s response to reports claiming that thousands of items listed under the category “bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war” were exported from the UK to Israel, as well as four shipments described under customs codes as “tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles”? They were all reportedly delivered after the Government suspended licences for equipment that could be used offensively in Gaza in September. Will the Government take firm action to ensure that weapons from the UK are not being used to commit war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank and Occupied Territories?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I absolutely reassure the noble Baroness that the UK is not arming Israel’s war in Gaza. We can categorically say we do not export any bombs or ammunition for use in military operations in Gaza. As I have repeatedly said, one of the first acts of this Government was to review and suspend export licences for weapons that could be used by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza. We have successfully implemented that suspension and continue to refuse all relevant licence applications.

I have also seen the press reports; we do not recognise the suggestion that arms exports from the UK to Israel increased following 7 October 2023, which covers a period under the last Government. The Government took decisive action in initiating a review of international humanitarian law on that day, so I can categorically say that we are not exporting bombs or ammunition for use in military operations.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, every day during prayers in this House, we pledge to put aside personal interests, prejudices and partial affections—that is, so-called friendships. Yet, we look in a benevolent way to the Israeli Government, who are accused of genocide, war crimes and the weaponising of hunger against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Unbelievably, we continue to supply arms and intelligence to Israel. Does the Minister agree that, in the 21st century, it is imperative that we look beyond politics, friendship or economic gain and base our foreign policy on the Christian and Sikh teachings of looking to the wider well-being of all, including Palestinians?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I think I gave in response to an earlier question an absolutely categorical reassurance that we are not arming Israel with bombs and ammunition that could be used in Gaza. We are faced with a situation here. Israel has the right to defend itself. What the Government of Israel do not have the right to do is deny humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have made that position absolutely clear. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that that aid gets in.

As we have debated many times, the real solution will come when we can create a situation of peace. I believe that is what the majority of Israeli citizens want: they want peace, they want to live with their neighbour and they want a secure state. But so do the Palestinians. The two-state solution is something we should be aiming towards. That is the condition for peace: living side by side with neighbours in a peaceful way.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate, with many thousands of civilians needing food and medical supplies. Access to aid must be safe and rapidly expanded. I discussed these issues in Israel with opposition leaders the week before last, and they are clear that this war must stop and that the hostages need to come home as a top priority. An election will take place in Israel next year, and every poll since 7 October points to Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition being ejected from office. What steps are this Government taking to strengthen Israelis and Palestinians who are serious about the compromises necessary for progress towards peace and the two-state solution that we all want to see?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Of course, the Government of Israel is a matter for the people of Israel to decide. However, I am confident that the majority of people in Israel want peace and the things that my noble friend mentioned. The most important thing that our Government can do is to work with our allies, particularly in the Middle East, to ensure that the agenda for the conference on the two-state solution is absolutely focused on the means to deliver it, so that we can create the conditions that my noble friend described.

Alaa Abd el-Fattah

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to secure the release from prison in Egypt of British citizen Alaa Abd elFattah, in light of the condition of his mother, Laila Soueif, who is at risk of death as a result of her ongoing hunger strike in protest at her son’s detention.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Question. Both and I and the Foreign Secretary were deeply concerned at Laila Soueif’s hospitalisation on Thursday. Certainly, our officials are in regular contact with the family. The Prime Minister had met Laila only on 14 February. The Foreign Secretary raised the case on 1 June with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, and the Minister for the Middle East raised it with the Egyptian ambassador on 31 May. I assure the noble Lord that the Egyptian Government are fully aware of the importance we attach to Mr el-Fattah’s case, and we will continue to press for an urgent resolution.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with the courageous Dr Soueif, who lies gravely in hospital as a result of the incredibly brave stand she is taking to secure the release of her son, whose detention in Egypt has been found by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to be in breach of international law.

I thank the Minister and the Government for all they are doing to secure his release. The Prime Minister’s direct intervention with President Sisi is very welcome, but given the extreme urgency of this tragic situation and the ongoing, deliberate violation of the UK’s consular rights, is it not clear that words are no longer sufficient? Will the Government now consider further concrete measures, including targeted sanctions, revising FCO travel guidance relating to Egypt, and proceedings in the International Court of Justice to secure the immediate release of Alaa Abd elFattah and bring comfort to his mother in what may be her final hours?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but our absolute priority remains securing Mr el-Fattah’s urgent release and engaging the highest levels of the Egyptian Government. The Government judge that the best way to achieve this is engagement with the Egyptian Government at a bilateral level. We approach this case based on its individual merits and specific political context, but I reassure the noble Lord that we take this urgent matter seriously. We are in constant touch to seek his release in the very near future.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with what the noble Lord said about Mr el-Fattah’s family, his mother and, of course, his own safety. This is an illegal detention, as defined by the United Nations, and we consider the refusal of consular access to be a breach of international humanitarian law. I appreciate the diplomatic representations that have been made at the highest levels, including by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, but does the Minister agree that the situation is now so urgent that it requires concrete action? That could be done in two areas. First, travel advice for British citizens going to Egypt could be updated urgently to say that it is not safe to travel to Cairo, given that British citizens could be treated in such a way. Secondly, just a year ago, the UK-Egypt development partnership was agreed by the previous Administration. Surely the Government should signal that that partnership agreement must be paused to enable a swift response and the release of Mr el-Fattah?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

All these matters are a judgment call, and it is certainly the Government’s judgment at this stage that the best approach to secure the urgent release of Mr el-Fattah is that bilateral contact at the highest possible levels. We have been consistent in our support for Mr el-Fattah and his family. Of course, the Egyptian authorities do not recognise his British nationality and see him only as an Egyptian national, and our consular staff have therefore been unable to visit him in prison, but they are in regular contact with him through his lawyer and his family. I repeat that, at this stage, we are absolutely committed to that bilateral contact in order to see the urgent release of Mr el-Fattah.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I stood with the daughter of Dr Soueif outside St Thomas’s yesterday. There were a lot of journalists there. The call was mainly because of the extreme urgency of the situation and the fact that it appears to be President Sisi’s own personal obsession to keep the young man in prison. Really, our contacts should be not only at the diplomatic level, but with our Prime Minister to the President, and with the Prime Ministers and the Presidents of our allies, such as President Macron, who also has a relationship with the Egyptian Government. Is it not imperative to find out what the real reason is for keeping Alaa in prison—is it his influence on the young people of Egypt?—so that the right trigger can be used to persuade President Sisi to let him out before his mother dies, which is possibly a matter of days?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I share my noble friend’s concern about the condition of Laila. We are very, very concerned, and we remain in constant touch with the family about her condition. Let me just remind my noble friend what I have told the House. The Prime Minister raised Mr el-Fattah’s case with Egyptian President Sisi on 22 May, and previously wrote to President Sisi on 4 May. The Foreign Secretary has also discussed Mr el-Fattah’s case with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on a number of occasions and spoke again on 1 June to press the urgency of the situation. Minister Falconer has certainly discussed this case multiple times with the Foreign Minister of Egypt, most recently on 25 May, and with the ambassador on 31 May. The National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, raised Mr el-Fattah’s case in a phone call with the Foreign Minister on 27 April. Let me reassure the House that we are absolutely determined to ensure that Mr el-Fattah is released, and we are maintaining that contact at the very highest levels.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, all sides of the House are, I think, united on the point that Mr el-Fattah’s continued detention in Egypt is an incredibly serious matter. As my noble friend said, the UN has concluded that he is being held arbitrarily by the Egyptian authorities and should therefore be released immediately under international law, which the Egyptian Government are breaking. The UN panel set a six-month deadline for the authorities to release Mr el-Fattah and investigate the violation of his rights. Can the Minister please update the House on what the Government plan to do if that six-month deadline is allowed to elapse with no change in the situation?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On the UN decision, it is for Egypt, as the state detaining Alaa, to respond to the recommendations of the working group, which does not have the same sort of legal status. We take the working group’s findings absolutely seriously, which is why we have been consistent in calling for Alaa’s release. I repeat that the Egyptian authorities have to respond to that working group’s report. As far as we are concerned, we are determined to follow our bilateral approach at the highest possible levels to make the strongest possible case.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, given that the mother, Laila, is in hospital and could die this week, is it not time to do something more than talk?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not know what the noble Baroness would suggest. This is a judgment call. It is my absolute, sincere hope—shared by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—that we can support Alaa’s mother, Laila, and ensure that she is safe. We are going to do that at the highest possible levels, by working with the Egyptian authorities and conveying our strong message to seek his urgent release. It is a judgment call and, at this stage, I think that we are making the right judgment.

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want in any way to underestimate the importance of the bilateral efforts that the Government are making and that the Prime Minister has personally made, but, surely, given the strategic importance of Egypt to the United States and the significant aid from the United States that supports Egypt and its military, the Prime Minister’s strong relationship with President Trump should be leveraged to try to get justice in this case.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that we should use all possible avenues to amplify our bilateral call, and we are certainly working with allies to do that. At this stage of the game, it is really important that we focus on our specific call.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as a mother, my heart goes out to the mother of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Laila Soueif. I cannot imagine the pain that she and her family are going through. Given that the Egyptian Parliament is about to go into recess for Eid and that there may be little extra chance to have the time to negotiate bilaterally, would not some extra pressure give more comfort to the family? Given the bilateral talks that have been had at the highest level, are there any signs of progress at all that can give any such comfort?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat to the noble Baroness that these things are a judgement call. I reassure her and the House that we have kept the family constantly informed of our efforts, and certainly we will continue to do so. It is our hope and determination to see his early release.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former co-chair of the APPG on Egypt. What grounds do the Egyptian Government give for refusing diplomatic access to Mr el-Fattah, whether it be from the embassy or consular, while he has been in prison? Has the Foreign Office assembled, found or heard any information that has satisfied it as to whether there has been any ill-treatment of Mr el-Fattah while he has been in prison?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hope I have reassured the House that, while the Egyptian authorities do not recognise his British nationality and therefore our consular staff have not been able to see him in prison, we have remained in constant touch with his lawyer and his family, and through his lawyer we are able to determine his current status. The important thing that we have done to support the family is keeping them informed of what we are doing, while focusing very strongly on the highest level of bilateral relations.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has the Minister reflected at all on the incredibly cruel, inhumane and squalid conditions in the Bab al-Khalq prison? What representations has the embassy made to the Egyptian authorities? Can the Minister repeat the point about access? It is incredibly important that he is visited in prison by our officials, so that they can see for themselves these truly appalling conditions.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that we have asked for access, which the Egyptian authorities have so far refused, but we have been in constant touch with his lawyer. The noble Lord is right about some of the conditions, but we are absolutely determined to ensure that he remains safe. We have made that case very strongly when seeking his urgent release—but we remain concerned. I must stress that, when I heard Laila on the radio, I thought her determination, at whatever cost, to see the release of her son has to be greatly admired and respected.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I remember some years ago meeting President Sisi and being struck at that time by the very close relationship which the Egyptians, in personal and commercial terms, have with the Saudi Arabians. Might it be a good idea if we could, through diplomatic channels, encourage our representations in Riyadh to help us over this issue?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, and I responded to a previous question on this. Of course, we make sure all our allies are very much aware of our position and our call on the Egyptian authorities. At the end of the day, what will secure Mr el-Fattah’s release is that bilateral relationship and that bilateral call. It is a difficult judgement call, but we have kept the family informed, and it is very much our hope to ensure that he is released as early as possible.

BBC World Service

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rawlings]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the BBC World Service in the long term.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government highly value the BBC World Service and its contribution to our international objectives. We increased our contribution for this year. Decisions on the World Service funding settlement will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocations process. The Government’s view is that the upcoming BBC charter review is the right moment to look at potential sustainable and predictable funding mechanisms for the World Service in the long term.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but horror stories abound in the press of Donald Trump and Elon Musk slashing staff programmes at the USAGM, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Does the Minister agree that the Chinese and Russian media would hail the Prime Minister as a hero if he allowed the FCDO to slash the BBC World Service budget? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no more cuts but instead further investment, in tandem with today’s defence budget, as in the “message to Moscow” just announced?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reiterate that the BBC plays a crucial part in ensuring that the world is a safer place, and that people are knowledgeable about what is going on. What the US has done with the US Agency for Global Media and how that impacts is, of course, a matter for the US. However, I remind the noble Baroness that we have shown our commitment to the World Service this year with a funding uplift of £32.6 million—31%—in 2025-26. I repeat that any decisions on government funding for the World Service in future years will be made through the ongoing spending review and allocation process. But the importance of the World Service must not be underestimated.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I of course welcome the uplift my noble friend the Minister has spoken about, but does he agree that, today of all days, when we have a review of our defence commitments, what the BBC World Service is doing is worth quite a few submarines in terms of the effect on the world and on our position within it? Will he look again at the danger that the Russians and Chinese will step in if any slots are left vacant by the BBC?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not sure what my noble friend is saying. We stepped up our services in eastern Europe as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the BBC has just launched a new service covering Poland. So we absolutely understand the importance of its role and we will continue to do that, but the BBC has editorial independence, and how it allocates resources is a matter for it. However, I reassure my noble friend that we are committed to the BBC. We gave an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years, until the spending review process is concluded.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, 80% of the World Service budget is currently classed as official development assistance. Last time this Question came up, the Minister said that the Government would make detailed decisions on how the ODA budget would be used on the basis of various factors, including impact assessments. Can he confirm that the Government understand the crucial impact the World Service has in being a key part of our national security, countering myths and disinformation? To pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Dubs, defence is not just about arms.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right, but I would make one correction—the figure is 70%. The point is that, prior to 2010, all the BBC World Service was independent, and it was the settlement the previous Government made as a consequence that shifted the responsibility on to the BBC. However, we did react when we felt that there was no focus, through the uplift and the grant from the FCDO. All the evidence points to the fact that this Government are absolutely committed to the BBC World Service, and we did provide an uplift this year, but I cannot comment on future years. The question originates from that long-term solution, and we are committed to using the charter review to make sure that we come up with an innovative solution that will be sustainable in the long term to ensure the future of the BBC World Service.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the BBC World Service is one of the world’s leading international radio broadcasters, with over 450 million listeners every week. However, it is vital in this multimedia world that the World Service moves with the times and remains competitive and relevant, so will the noble Lord outline to the House the Government’s view on how the World Service can tailor its content and format for a digital-native audience, especially the younger generations?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. One of the points of this year’s uplift was to guarantee the continued presence of 42 language-based services, but over a range of platforms, so it is not just limited to normal radio and TV. The BBC has been looking at a range of platforms to ensure that its reach is maintained. Of course, the BBC is prioritising its service as a whole, both domestically and globally. The reach of the BBC goes beyond that of the World Service, and I hope that continues to be so.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, Russian-backed media are now transmitting on the radio frequency previously occupied by BBC Arabic. While the FCDO funding for 2025-26 is helping the World Service, as the Minister said, to maintain existing language and emergency services for those in crisis, including in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, this cannot be guaranteed after 2026 unless long-term FCDO funding is provided. Does the Minister agree that finding this funding is preferable to making space for Russia and China to move in instead?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I of course understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but the Government uplifted the spending for 2025-26 to ensure that we can reach those people, particularly in Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. The evidence shows that we are able to respond and will respond. It comes back to the original Question: we need to look at a longer-term, sustainable funding mechanism that is not trapped by this yearly review. We are absolutely committed to that, and I understand the intent of the noble Baroness’s question.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, the World Service has been particularly effective at communicating issues of faith and freedom of religion. In light of the increasing need for and importance of this, will His Majesty’s Government ensure as a priority that there is sufficient funding for the World Service, and that this is both retained and enhanced?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The BBC has certain editorial responsibilities, but the right reverend Prelate knows my commitment to freedom of religion and belief, and our appointment of the special envoy is evidence of that. Ensuring that news and views are available across all opinions, and across all religions, is vital in a world where so many conflicts can be driven by misinformation.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, while it is absolutely right that defence and security are more than just arms, I say as an aside before I ask my question that actually having nuclear submarines means that you beat the blighters you are fighting against at sea, and that is quite useful at times as well, when you really have to do it. But my question to my noble friend the Minister is to do with BBC Monitoring, which is crucial in handling operations and crises as they happen. I remember, as a former Chief of Defence Intelligence, that it gives immense insight, and it has been squeezed and squeezed. Are we content that there is a sufficient funding bracket in place for that?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of that monitoring, and the challenges of a multipolar, global geopolitical situation mean that it is even more important. Maybe in the past it was relatively simple, but monitoring a whole range of activities— particularly of malign states and malign non-state organisations—is really important, so we are absolutely committed to that.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it would be utterly inconceivable for us to even imagine walking out of this Parliament building and witnessing every child in London being forcibly walked with their mother to Slough and back again three times, on foot, and offered no shelter or medicine, or sanitary products, if they are a girl, and now, with no food, literally facing dying of starvation. This apocalyptic view would be utterly inconceivable to us, but it is the reality in Gaza.

Now we see, as a result of choices being made at a political level by the political Administration in Israel, a secretive foundation set up as a Swiss Stiftung to finance profiteering mercenaries to weaponise food and medicine to children in an illegally occupied land, which plumbs new depths of moral bankruptcy in the provision of that assistance. Can the Minister first of all guarantee that not a penny of British money will be channelled through this route?

Among this utter horror, hostage families are still going through torture. Indeed, for those families I have seen and spoken to, speaking out against the Netanyahu Administration is extremely moving, because they are still in a situation where their loved ones are not home and they do not even know if many are alive.

I welcome the Government’s Statement and their intent, but I wish to press the Minister that it is time for the Government to go even further. Since the Statement in the Commons earlier this week, now even a British official, carrying out their diplomatic role in a territory that they have an absolute right under international law to access, has been under fire as a result of a so-called warning shot—which is euphemistic—in streets that I have literally walked and where British officials carry out their business. What action have the UK Government taken as a result of this shocking incident?

Since the Statement, Benjamin Netanyahu has confirmed what other extremist Ministers have said, which is that his Government’s policy is now to illegally annex territory, which they have no international legal right to do. Given that this is now his Government's clear policy, it needs to be the UK Government’s policy to move on the recognition of Palestine as a state with urgency. I therefore urge the Minister to take up my noble friend Lady Northover’s Bill in this House and move ahead with the clearest possible intent to prevent illegal annexation and subjugation.

These Benches have regretted that there has been a lack of action since last February, when we called for the wider and expanded sanctioning of those Ministers in the Netanyahu Administration who had sought repression in the West Bank and had activated illegal outposts and settler violence. That, combined with what we now see—the collective punishment of civilians within Gaza—means that those responsible need to be sanctioned by the UK, and there should be no impunity for the tragedy that is being inflicted on civilians there. This means that our Government and our partners need to act.

On the security of the aid being provided, there is of course justification with regard to concerns that Hamas has sought to loot aid, to commercialise aid and to prevent it at the source. However, the time when we have seen the most effective delivery of aid has been when UNRWA has been provided with the ability to do so, with a Palestinian Authority police force, supported by British assistance, able to provide security and get the aid through. Will the Government offer urgent assistance to the Palestinian Authority police forces to ensure that aid, once over the border, can be provided securely?

I remind the House that there is over 100,000 tonnes of aid waiting to get into Gaza and it is being blocked unjustifiably. Will the Government make a clear statement that, until this is allowed through, Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Ministers are not welcome in the United Kingdom, as this would be not conducive to our public good?

Finally, can the Government press the International Court of Justice to accelerate its work to ensure that there is, as we all wish to see, an international standard that international humanitarian law is adhered to and those responsible for its breach are held to account?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the United Kingdom has played an active role in co-ordination with our international partners since the beginning of the conflict. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Territories three times since taking office, and we have pressed for a resolution to secure a ceasefire and to see the return of all hostages. That is absolutely the first ask of this Government: ceasefire and the return of the hostages.

I want to reflect on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made. We are absolutely committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law. By the way, the independence of the ICJ is something that we value. We are not going to put pressure on the court; it knows its job and we will facilitate that, but it is independent and we respect its independence as an international court. We have been absolutely consistent in ensuring that we act in a manner consistent with our legal obligations under international law.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis said, humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool or military tactic. The UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives and puts vulnerable civilians at risk. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. That is why this Government and the previous Government have been committed to supporting the best possible means of getting aid into Gaza, which remains UNRWA. We are absolutely committed to that.

We should see that the blocking of aid and its disastrous consequences do not put Israel’s case. The people of Israel, who want and deserve security, particularly after the atrocities of 7 October, are absolutely not supporting the rhetoric of Netanyahu and some of his Cabinet members, or the means by which it is expressed. We are absolutely determined that we should be very clear about our position. My noble friend Lady Chapman, the Minister for International Development, has been in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories this week. We have made our position on our diplomatic workers very clear to the Israeli Government and will continue to do so. I have visited the Occupied Territories and seen some of the actions of what I would call independent settler outposts, which have behaved really appallingly. Now, with the IDF more focused in Gaza, those very people—the outpost settlers—are taking on the duties of the IDF. I think that that is the cause of some of the problems.

During her visit this week, the Minister announced £4 million in new support to organisations on the ground in Gaza, which we will continue to support. This will cover essential medicines and medical supplies for up to 32,000 people, safe drinking water for up to 60,000 people and food parcels for up to 14,000 people. That is what we are talking about: basic, fundamental issues that need to be addressed. So far, since 7 October, we have provided 405,000 patient consultations across Gaza, food aid to at least 647,000 people, and improved water, sanitation, and hygiene services. We know that the situation is absolutely desperate, which is why we took the action we did. We are, together with our partners, strongly opposed to the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. We have reaffirmed our calls for the Israeli Government to stop its military operations and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, following extremely concerning surges in this type of violence. Of course, we announced as part of the Statement the formal pause in free trade agreement negotiations with Israel, effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deeper trading relationships with a Netanyahu Government who are pursuing policies that are absolutely damaging to the UK, the wider region and, most importantly, Israeli citizens themselves. This is the really important thing: we are committed to a two-state solution and to a political solution. We are doing everything we possibly can to achieve that, and we are committed to supporting the Palestinian Authority and their reforms. I am not going to say how far they have reached, but it is essential we do that, because it will form part of the process for a longer-term solution. We are absolutely committed to ensuring not only that the people of Palestine, Gaza and the Occupied Territories can live in peace and security but that that applies to the State of Israel.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours wishes to take part remotely, and I now invite him to speak.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as a lifelong supporter of the State of Israel, I ask why we cannot, with others and with or without the United Nations, create a safe haven enclave within a part of Gaza, as I successfully argued for in April 1991 in the case of Iraq, to supply hospitals, food security and aid, while requiring a total Israeli military withdrawal from the enclave. The trickle feed of aid is unacceptable. Israel will back off only when it is confronted by real intervention, backed up by the threat of occupying forces within the Gaza enclave from the international community. All we need is the guts to challenge the bullying behaviour of a minority in Likud. Confronted by worldwide anger and intervention, they will back off.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand my noble friend’s frustrations, but our efforts have been absolutely focused on building a strong international alliance and working with allies within the region to ensure that there is a longer-term political process that leads to a two-state solution. The immediate situation requires Israel to stop blocking aid into Gaza and to ensure that we can reach a situation where the political dialogue my noble friend referred to can take place. We are absolutely committed to that. Fundamentally, we urgently need a ceasefire now, we need application of that agreement and the release of hostages, but we also need that aid into Gaza.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. Truth matters. In the other place when the Statement was made, the following MPs repeated the lie that 14,000 babies would die within two days, and I hope that they will put that record straight: Joe Powell; Adnan Hussain; Debbie Abrahams; Ben Lake; Olivia Blake; Tahir Ali; Vikki Slade; Danny Chambers; Imran Hussain; Monica Harding; Carla Denyer; Yasmin Qureshi; and Josh Fenton-Glynn. Words have consequences. Yaron and Sarah, two young representatives of the State of Israel, were murdered in cold blood in DC. These were two beautiful souls gunned down as a direct result of toxic, antisemitic incitement against Israel and Jews around the world, and I register an interest as a Jew, a proud Jew. Yehi zichram Baruch: let their souls be for a blessing.

We are concerned about the situation in Gaza, which was, I remind the House, caused by Hamas. The USA and Israel have been working on an alternative delivery agency to address legitimate concerns about aid diversion, confiscation and abuse by Hamas, so can the noble Lord confirm whether the UK has been involved in developing this scheme, or have the UK Government refused to take part?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have been absolutely clear that the proposals by the Israeli Government will not meet the humanitarian aid situation, which is so desperate. It is really important to acknowledge that, of course, words hurt. Of course it is wrong to quote numbers without verification, whether they contribute to the situation or not, but what are we talking about: 14,000, 7,000, or 1,000 babies? What number is acceptable? I heard Tom Fletcher on Radio 4. He was obviously a dedicated civil servant, he was a diplomat, and I was moved by his comments. He is a man who is absolutely committed to his job. I am not going to respond to the numbers he quoted, but I will respond to what he made very clear: that the situation is so desperate that we need action within 48 hours. That is what this Government are demanding, and that is why we have imposed these restrictions on the Israeli Government. The noble Lord knows my views about the security of the State of Israel, and I just think that the Netanyahu Government are doing nothing to ensure the security of Israel.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, I consider Tom Fletcher a friend and former colleague. On a personal level I also consider the Minister a friend, but will he reflect on what he has just said? I do not doubt that Tom Fletcher hears this and feels very sincerely, but the claim that 14,000 babies would die in 48 hours was a grotesque inaccuracy. As the Minister has said, in the early hours of this morning two Israeli embassy officials—Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky—were gunned down on the streets of the American capital by a gunman who shouted: “Free Palestine”. I am deeply troubled by and oppose what is happening with aid in Israel and Gaza right now, but these words matter. We have a growing level of extremism and hate and a risk to British Jewish citizens here that may well result, I am afraid to say, in similar action being taken on the streets of London. We have to do more to stand up against the demonisation of Israel while this conflict is going on.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will not tolerate any demonisation of Israel or its people. It is people who I am most concerned about. I have very good friends in Israel and have been a supporter of Israel’s security for many years, so I will not take lessons about this. I am not interested in the figures that Tom Fletcher cited; I think he was trying to convey the urgency of the situation, which requires Israel to stop blocking aid getting into Gaza. That is the issue. Aid must never be used as a political or military tool, and that is what is happening. We are absolutely concerned to take those actions.

I say to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that we should all be concerned about the impact on communities and community violence, particularly antisemitism. We should not tolerate antisemitism in any form whatever. I will not tolerate any trope that leads to that sort of language, but I will not stop being extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It should concern us all that so many people are suffering—that food and water are not getting in. It absolutely needs to be addressed now.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on how we can support the people of Gaza? In all the comments about support, no one has spoken about the dissent by the people of Gaza against the regime of Hamas, which threatens, kills or kneecaps the people of Gaza if they dissent. What journalists exist in Gaza are threatened if they criticise Hamas in any way. What are we doing to support the people of Gaza against Hamas?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The answer is supporting the Palestinian Authority on their road back to reform to become much more legitimate. That is the pathway to a two-state solution. There is no role for Hamas in the future. It is a terrorist organisation that has committed heinous crimes. We should never forget those crimes. The noble Lord is absolutely right that it is repressive and resisting any form of scrutiny, but the Israeli Government have not allowed journalists into Gaza as well. We should be very clear: we want a road map to peace and a solution, but that will be achieved only if we can ensure that the Palestinian Authority can reform, be supported and be the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people. Palestine is not just the Gaza Strip; it is also the Occupied Territories. We need to ensure that all the people of Palestine, represented by the Palestinian Authority, can have the voice they deserve.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I had the unfortunate need this morning to privately message my long-standing friend Ted Deutch, the leader of the American Jewish Committee, whose event on peacebuilding was ended with the murder of two Jewish people. When Jewish people cannot walk the streets of Washington safely, that shows how dangerous a world we live in.

From my capacity as government adviser on antisemitism for the last six years, I know that every time there is such an incident, the Government in this country immediately renew and relook at the security of the British Jewish community. It does no damage to ask the Minister to ensure that, as that is happening, our citizens—particularly those in sensitive areas or international organisations, and our diplomats abroad—are fully incorporated into such reviews. Jewish people in particular, wherever they are at the moment, are in danger from terrorists. Will the Minister take back the strong message that, whatever important decisions the Government make on our position on Israel and Gaza or on freeing the hostages, they need at all times to demonstrate to the British Jewish community that they are reinforcing their priority of tackling antisemitism in this country and abroad?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I heard on the “Today” programme this morning a discussion on precisely these issues. It is really important that we challenge antisemitism. I hope I have conveyed today the very clear distinction I make between the Government of Israel and its people. The people of Israel deserve all our support and protection, particularly from malign states such as Iran that are trying to undermine it and committing state terrorism across the globe. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the need to protect our communities. I am determined that everyone should be able to express an opinion and walk safely through our streets. Sometimes walking that path can be extremely difficult; I am criticised on the one hand for saying that I support the State of Israel and on the other for saying that what is happening in Gaza is unacceptable. I think everyone in the House feels the same and wants a two-state solution that provides security for both communities. We will continue to work towards that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. I think the final sentiments just expressed by the Minister reflect where we are across the House on this emotive and human issue. There are practical steps that the United Kingdom Government can take. First, since last September I have alluded to out-of-the-box thinking on the delivery of humanitarian aid; we must work with Jordan and Egypt. It is not perfect and land solutions must be provided, but out-of-the-box thinking, including air deliveries, would provide some respite.

Secondly, diplomacy matters. When Ashdod port was not being opened, I remember calling the Moroccan Foreign Minister because Eli Cohen, the Israeli Foreign Minister at the time, was of Moroccan heritage. Relationships and being on the ground matter. I welcome the Development Minister being there. We should invest in those relationships. It is not always about public statements. It is about private diplomacy and building relationships with voices within Israel who want to see an end to this, including the hostages’ families.

Finally, on sanctions and the egregious abuse of human rights, in 2019 the previous Government set up the regime that has been exercised, but the Minister will be aware that, unfortunately and regrettably, there are those in the democratic Government of Israel who are touting things that the Israelis reject. I refer to Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Sanctions were worked up on them that the previous Government were considering. The Minister may not be able to comment on timing, but it is important that the levers of diplomacy are exercised in a way that reflects the true standing of the British Government as a friend to Israel and a friend to Palestine.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He and I have worked very closely over the years on precisely the issues he refers to, and I totally agree with him on the diplomatic effort. Sometimes the most effective diplomatic effort is the one you do not see. Shouting is not always the way to achieve the change we want, which is why we are heavily engaged in this, as he acknowledged. My noble friend Lady Chapman is visiting Israel and the Occupied Territories this week, but she has also been to Jordan, and Minister Falconer regularly speaks to neighbouring countries. The noble Lord is right: we are not ruling out anything in terms of aid, and he repeatedly reminded me that air drops and sea routes could way be a way of alleviating the desperate situation. However, blocking aid on the road routes has had a disastrous effect, and we are committed to tackling that.

The noble Lord is right to point out that there are voices in Israel that are extremely concerned. He knows I cannot comment on future sanctions, but we have taken new UK sanctions to target three individuals, including prominent settler leader Daniella Weiss, as well as two illegal outposts and two organisations that have supported, incited and promoted violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Along with Daniella Weiss, the individuals and entities sanctioned are Harel Libi, Zohar Sabah, Coco’s Farm, and Libi Construction and Infrastructure. We are committed to focusing on these actions. The noble Lord knows we are actively considering future designations, but I cannot comment on when, or who they will be.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, the Palestinians who survived bombing are being starved to death. We have heard about the accuracy of the statistics—14,000 babies dying in 48 hours. Okay, it might not be 48 hours, but it might be a long, slow death of days, weeks or months if this carries on. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of what is taking place and of the extremist statements made by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. When asked about Palestinian statehood, the Foreign Secretary talked about timing; surely the time is right now. Can the Minister give more details? Does he mean days, weeks or months? Do the Government support a peacekeeping force, and would the UK be involved in that?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have covered the urgent humanitarian situation, but as the noble Baroness and the House know, this Government—and the previous Government—are committed to a two-state solution, and support for that is unwavering. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state at a time that has most impact in achieving this reality and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear that this does not need to be at the end of the process. We are in constant dialogue with all partners on how we can best use the international conference for the implementation of the two-state solution in June to advance Palestinian statehood. There are key points on which we can move this agenda, and, with the French and Saudi leadership, we are committed to the two-state solution conference in New York. It comes at a crucial time to ensure that a Palestine state remains viable.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to get into the issue of the numbers, but the fact is that it is 10 weeks since aid was allowed into Gaza. We cannot but be moved, not only this House but this nation, by the pictures of young children, some of whom were born after 7 October. Given the dire situation, particularly with baby food, will the Minister consider emergency air drops of baby products within the next 72 hours?

I raise also the issue of access to sanitary products for women and girls. From reports I have seen, there is a dire shortage, and women and girls are often going without them, so will the Minister also consider emergency air drops of sanitary products?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern; I think everyone in this House is concerned about how we can get aid in. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, reminding me, when I made such calls, that it is not simply a matter of sending a plane over a piece of land and dropping material. The most important area we have discussed is how we distribute the aid. How do we get that aid specifically to the people who most need it? UNRWA and the road routes are so important because they can deliver the amount of aid that is needed in a short period. However, I am not ruling out anything we could do to alleviate this situation. But we must be clear that blocking aid into Gaza has been the responsibility of the Government of Israel, and that should be where our focus is.

Jimmy Lai

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent steps they have taken towards securing the release of Jimmy Lai.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, British national Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for this Government. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release him. The Foreign Secretary committed in the House of Commons that Ministers would raise Jimmy Lai’s case with the Hong Kong and Chinese officials at every opportunity, and we have been doing so. Our diplomats have attended his trial and continue to press for consular access.

I know the right reverend Prelate will be retiring at the end of the month. I express my gratitude and, I am sure, that of the whole House for all his work.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. We are, as he has pointed out, absolutely committed to strengthening support for British nationals abroad, including by introducing a right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations. The department is considering a package of measures, which we will announce in due course, alongside options for stakeholder consultations. The FCDO is committed to strengthening support for British nationals overseas, including through the appointment of an envoy for complex detention cases. We will announce further details in due course.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in conveying my own gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for the outstanding contribution he has made on this and on so many issues over his time in your Lordships’ House. I declare my interests as one of the Members of Parliament sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China, and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch.

Why, on this apparent normalising of relations with the People’s Republic of China, have we not made conditional action to release Jimmy Lai from the Hong Kong prison in which he and over 1,000 political prisoners are still incarcerated? Secondly, given that it is two years and four months since a request by Sebastien Lai—whom I met this morning with his family’s lawyer, Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC—to meet the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Opposition, why has the Prime Minister still not acceded to that request to meet with him and the family? Will the Minister agree to take that request back to No.10 Downing Street to ensure it is actioned expeditiously?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I said in my opening comments that this Government are absolutely committed to pursuing this case and we will do so at all levels. Certainly, the Foreign Secretary has done so, but so has the Prime Minister in his meeting with President Xi. I know that Minister West has also met with Jimmy Lai’s son—I think he is present here—and we will continue to do so. It is really important that we highlight this case at every single opportunity.

The noble Lord mentioned normalisation of relationships. Of course, China is a big economic player globally, but we are absolutely taking a consistent, long-term strategic approach in managing our relationships, rooted in those interests. We will co-operate where we can and compete where we need to but, most importantly, challenge when we need to.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I too send my best wishes to the right reverend Prelate on his retirement.

It is worth repeating that Jimmy Lai has now been detained in solitary confinement for 1,600 days. He is an elderly, ill British citizen. I too was privileged to meet his son Sebastien yesterday. His case is, of course, just another example of the tyrannous and repressive nature of the current Chinese Government. President Trump, to his credit, said that Jimmy’s case will be on the table during US-China trade talks. Can the Minister reassure the House that the case is equally important to the UK Government?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat: it is absolutely important. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, which the Chinese of course deny because he is a dual national. But we have absolutely remained committed to raising his case at every opportunity and we will continue to do so. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this case today, because it is up to us all of us to constantly raise it to ensure that we never forget Jimmy Lai’s situation.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, commend all the work of the right reverend Prelate, and also the family of Jimmy Lai, who have been stalwart defenders.

I am sure the Minister will agree that no matter how big a global economy is, it is our duty to defend our citizens when they are treated so badly. But it is also our duty to act when that state operates under transnational repression here in the United Kingdom, issuing bounties on those who are defending the rights of those being persecuted in Hong Kong. I have met them, and I know that other Members of this House have too. What actions, not just diplomatic representations, are being taken by the Government to ensure that the transnational repression in this country is halted and those responsible are held to account?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important subject. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments, whoever they are, to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas. The safety of Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance. Hong Kong Police issuing arrest warrants encourages reckless behaviour on UK soil and damages Hong Kong’s reputation. On Christmas Eve, the Foreign Secretary strongly condemned the Hong Kong Police’s targeting of individuals exercising their right to freedom of expression. Following reports of letters sent to UK residents, FCDO officials again raised the matter with the Chinese embassy. Counterterrorism police are dealing with the referral, and officers are in contact with the individuals concerned. As I say, we will not tolerate such interference in our democratic processes.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

What have been the practical consequences of the many conversations the Government and their representatives have had with Hong Kong and other Chinese authorities? There is a lot of “raising the issue”, but we are looking for some consequences.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Do not underestimate the fact of raising these issues. The noble and learned Lord knows full well that the Chinese Communist Party does not like being criticised for these actions. It is important that we continue to raise this at every possible level, particularly in international fora, which we will continue to do. It is absolutely staggeringly awful that such a man—a British citizen—should be in prison just for expressing his opinions, and we will continue to raise this at every possible opportunity.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I, too, join the tributes to the right reverend Prelate for his work and welcome the Government’s announcement of a special envoy, which was reported through various committees. It is essential that that be done. The President of the United States has said publicly that he, too, will raise the issue of Jimmy Lai. What liaison and co-ordination has taken place with the United States? As the Minister knows, when we work together, we achieve the kind of results that my noble and learned friend has just highlighted.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct. I must correct something I said earlier by mistake. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen; he is not a Chinese citizen, which I alluded to, so I correct the record. The noble Lord is right that whenever we take action, if we take it collectively with our international allies, we have greater impact. We are working across the board with all international allies to ensure that this case is properly raised.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans. He has been wonderful on the gambling legislation and on issues such as this one, and on defending the rural economy and as Convenor of the Lords Spiritual. For that, we are very grateful.

I was held in one of Amin’s notorious prisons, and I was confined in a cell that was much shorter than me. I got out because the Chief Justice of Uganda confronted Idi Amin. Instead of words, which are seen as criticism, what real, definite action are the Government willing to take?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat: do not underestimate the value of words, and I think the noble and right reverend Lord understands that. They do have an impact, particularly in the current geopolitical situation, where China’s reputation and trading issues are at stake. It is important that this case, in particular, has the highest profile. It will have an impact. We need to make sure that we do not forget Jimmy Lai and that we constantly raise his case at every opportunity.