Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, we are in agreement with the Government that Iran must never have a nuclear bomb, so will the Minister finally get off the fence and accept that the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear development facilities were absolutely necessary and justified? Iran’s destabilising influence is already prevalent in the UK, as was made clear by the director-general of MI5, who pointed to 20 Iran-backed operations being foiled by the security services in their excellent work. Will he also update the House on the steps that Ministers are taking to tackle Iran-sponsored hostile activity here in the UK and against UK interests overseas? Does he accept that, given the threat it represents, it is now time to proscribe the IRGC, and that, because of the threat they represent to UK maritime activity, it is time also to proscribe the Houthis?

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

As the Prime Minister has said alongside our allies and partners, Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon. Iran must urgently resume co-operation with the IAEA to enable it to verify its nuclear material. As I have repeatedly said to this House, ultimately only a diplomatic solution—that President Trump has highlighted—can address the nuclear issue for the long term. Iran must urgently come back to the table and negotiate. Alongside France and Germany, we will continue to work with the US and Iran towards an agreement that ensures that Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon.

I am absolutely clear on state threats: we will not tolerate any Iran-backed threats on UK soil. Iran continues to pose an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue. It poses a threat to dissidents, journalists and our Jewish community in the United Kingdom. Since 2022, over 20 threats to the UK have been foiled. The Home Secretary announced on 19 May that Jonathan Hall’s review delivered recommendations to tackle state threats. We are committed to taking those forward, including through the creation of a new state threats proscription-like tool.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, hundreds of both Iranian and Israeli citizens were very regrettably injured and killed as a result of the strikes. We were told by our American friends that the Iranian nuclear programme had been obliterated. We now know that it has not; it may be delayed by just a matter of months. We were also told that, as a result of those strikes, the Red Sea threat would be removed. As of yesterday, we have seen that that is not the case. So we know that military action will not be the means by which we have long-term change in practice by the Iranian regime or safety in the Red Sea. What diplomatic actions will the UK take as part of our E3 network? What practical steps are we taking to ensure that Tehran is part of the negotiating table? We know that military strikes have not worked, so what are we doing to ensure that diplomatic efforts will?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to speculate on what we may or may not know about the outcome of those strikes, but what I do know and have repeatedly said—and the noble Lord is right on this point—is that ultimately only a diplomatic solution will deliver a sustainable, long-term solution. The Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Secretary Rubio, Foreign Minister Sa’ar, Foreign Minister Araghchi, our E3 counterparts, the EU high representative and our G7 allies. We have also spoken to all our allies in the region to ensure that we can put the maximum pressure to ensure a negotiated solution. We will use all diplomatic tools to support those negotiations, including, as I have previously said, the snapback facility.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, while I welcome the Government’s efforts in recent months a great deal, will the Minister accept that those who are calling for Iran’s current situation to be seen as a weakness may be gambling a little, because Iran has frequently demonstrated that when it is cornered it turns more belligerent? Is it not now time, on the back of Mr Witkoff’s success in reviving some kind of JCPOA, to concentrate on that part of the diplomatic story as well?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister responsible have been absolutely focused on diplomatic efforts. I also repeat that President Trump has made it clear that negotiations are the only sustainable, long-term solution to the nuclear threat that Iran poses. That is what we are working towards. I am absolutely confident that President Trump will be able to deliver that negotiated settlement, because it is in everyone’s interest.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not about time that we got around to proscribing fully the IRGC? We are talking about a latter-day combination of the Blackshirts, the SA and various other fascistic organisations. They do the bidding of a death cult that is dominated by clerical fascists. It is about time we got around to banning it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat that we have Jonathan Hall’s review, which delivered a number of recommendations, all of which the Home Secretary has accepted, including the creation of a new state threats proscription tool. I also point out that we have a large number of sanctions against Iranian individuals and organisations, including the whole of the IRGC.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, in assessing malign actions, may I suggest that the ordinary criminal law should be used whenever possible and that proscription should be the instrument of last resort, because otherwise we are in danger of trivialising the concept of terrorism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I said, Iran poses a serious state threat, and we have already foiled more than 20 plots in the UK. Those plots have been focused on all our citizens, but particularly communities, including the Jewish community. I do not underestimate the threat that Iran poses, and I think all possible action needs to be considered to secure our people and make sure that they can walk our streets safely. We have seen what Iran can do, and it is very serious. We need to respond. We do not think that proscription of the IRGC is appropriate at the moment. I am not going to predict our actions, but we have been clear that we will take Jonathan Hall’s review recommendations seriously, and we will implement them all.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the reality is that Iran represents not simply a nuclear threat but a much wider threat. Given that the IRGC and military intelligence have been summoning the relatives of political activists who live abroad and telling them that unless those political activists stop their activity anything could happen to their relatives at home, and given that more than 700 people have been arrested in the past few weeks and that more than 150 people have been executed in the past month, is it not time to move on from the mantra that it is not yet time to proscribe the IRGC? Will the Minister tell us what the state threats prosecution tool would do that proscription would not do?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to predict exactly what form that will take, but I agree with the noble Baroness that Iran and all its state organisations pose a threat and we need a holistic approach. That is why we asked Jonathan Hall to conduct a review and why he has come up with some very serious recommendations. Those include a new state threats proscription-like tool. How that will eventually work I cannot determine. It is important to stress that not only is Iran a serious threat to our citizens here but its human rights record is appalling. It also poses a threat to the families of our BBC Persian service people. We have to act seriously on all aspects of that threat.

Deep Sea Mining in International Waters

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the International Seabed Authority and the government of the United States of America about plans to enable deep-sea mining in international waters.

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom supports a moratorium on the granting of exploration contracts by the International Seabed Authority until sufficient scientific evidence is available to assess the potential impact of deep sea mining on marine ecosystems and strong, enforceable regulations are adopted by the ISA. The Government note the US executive order. As a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Kingdom is committed to the continued work of the ISA.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As the House knows, the demand for critical minerals is growing fast. They are needed because of their place in modern technology, on which our current and future lives depend. The International Seabed Authority has been trying to develop governance for the use of international seabed mining. The problem, as my noble friend has alluded to, is that the President of the United States has issued an executive order that allows the United States to develop what he has called “the next goldrush”. Do the United Kingdom Government continue to support the International Seabed Authority? If there is to be seabed mining, will they use their best endeavours to ensure that it is done within the framework of the United Nations?

Given that later today we will be discussing the Chagos Islands, I invite my noble friend to reassure the House that the United Kingdom will preserve the right to prohibit deep sea mining around Diego Garcia.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, as a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Kingdom fully supports the work of the ISA. The UK has been fully engaged in the work of the ISA since it was established, following the entry into force of UNCLOS in 1994. There are strong protections in place against deep sea mining around Diego Garcia. Under the agreement, the United Kingdom has the right to exercise rights and authorities required for the long-term secure and effective operation of the base out to 12 nautical miles and is responsible for environmental protection on Diego Garcia. Additionally, we negotiated a further 12 nautical-mile buffer zone out to 24 nautical miles, in which Mauritius cannot place any maritime installations, sensor structure or artificial island that might be required for subsea mining without UK consent.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s continuing commitment to the moratorium on deep seabed mining. On the wider protection of oceans, when might we ratify the high seas treaty? Will that be done by the end of this year?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It has been made public that legislation will be introduced by the end of the year to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. That agreement includes processes to ensure better co-ordination and co-operation between international bodies responsible for ocean governance, including the ISA.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Will the Government confirm, as the ISA has, that their view is that the executive order is contrary to international law, when it comes to the law of the seas, and contrary to the requirements under UNCLOS? Did the Government note the statement by the head of the ISA, in response to the executive order, in which she reminded all parties of UNCLOS, which includes the United Kingdom, that they

“have a duty not to recognize any acquisition or exercise of rights over minerals recovered from the Area”?

Can the Minister reassure the House that in our trade talks with America, we have made perfectly clear that we will honour the international law of the sea, honour our commitments under UNCLOS and not trade with any US enterprises that disregard them?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I need to respond in a positive way. I can be absolutely clear what we are in favour of. The major priority for the ISA is to agree a regulatory regime for exploitation, and we have been engaged in these negotiations from the start. The ISA has agreed a road map for continued work on the regulations with a view to their adoption in 2025. We will actively participate in those negotiations at the council of the ISA next week. We are absolutely committed; we know what we have to do. We know that the ISA council has agreed that deep sea mining should not take place in the absence of these regulations. That is what we will be committed to, and that is what we will say to all our allies.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, at the start of April I wrote to the department about the high seas treaty—I have still not had a reply—so some of my questions have already been asked. What deadline has the ministerial team set for the drafters to meet for this treaty?

I was at an oceans conference last week. The Minister has said that these minerals are like gold. The circular economy means that we have enough critical minerals already in the world to supply an enormous need, so what are the Government doing to encourage the circular economy of precious metals to avoid the ghastly prospect of deep sea mining?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will not repeat my answer about the BBNJ. I was at the UN General Assembly where we signed our commitment to ratify it. The noble Baroness has made a really important point, because in my consultation on the Africa approach we have been absolutely clear about how we work in partnership with African countries on rare earth minerals and other minerals that we need for greening our economy. We are absolutely committed to working with them in a partnership that delivers processing in those countries, so that the people of those countries benefit from the jobs and income, and we ensure a brighter, greener future for the globe.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether the Government feel that, given the lack of understanding of the risks of deep sea mining, there is a better case for promoting public engagement with this issue scientifically?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is exactly what our negotiations next week will be about. The precautionary principle is at the heart of the Government’s approach to deep sea mining. What we have in place is not a ban, which would be inconsistent with UNCLOS. Once the preconditions are met, we will consider proper exploitation licences on their merit. The important thing is that we need to better understand the implications. We need to protect our planet, and that is what we will continue to do. The minerals that we need to green our economy are not simply at the bottom of the sea. We need to work in partnership with Africa, which is a huge resource.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the progress of the UK’s scientific network of experts on deep sea mining? How are its findings being shared with the ISA?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

In my meeting with the civil servants this morning, I spoke about our participation in next week’s meeting of the council of the ISA. We will ensure that we take into account all the expert advice, not restricted just to that from this country but in working with our allies in the council of the ISA to ensure that all available information is in place so that we can develop strong, proper regulations.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, since we joined the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994, this has never been a party-political issue in this country? It has been supported by all parties, and that should remain the case in future.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I do think that we are working on a cross-party basis. These are long-term issues about the protection of the environment and of ecosystems that we know very little about and on which we might rely. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I am confident that the noble Lords opposite agree.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s ongoing position. To be candid, I made this announcement on behalf of the previous Government two years ago. It is important to understand that many countries around the world, including Commonwealth countries, are concerned that other people are trying to dictate policy on their behalf. Will the Minister look to make sure that the science network that has been developed continues to help our Commonwealth and interacts with the extensive US network that is also working on this?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, and that is exactly what we have been doing. In my recent discussions with new Secretary-General Botchwey, we have been making exactly that point.

UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this has been a fascinating and interesting debate. Just to reflect the noble Lord’s recent comments, of course this is a political judgment that the Government have had to make, and certainly the previous Government also had to consider it. I personally think it is very sad that, instead of it being about a political judgment, it has become a partisan party-political issue. Some of the comments that have been made are very regrettable, because, as my noble friend Lady Liddell summed it up, the Government are absolutely committed to the security of this country—as were the previous Government—and that is what this agreement is about. Anyone who questions that is not doing a service to this House or to politics generally.

I thank the International Agreements Committee for its report, which is a very thorough piece of work. But it acknowledges that the treaty should be ratified.

Before I go into the substance of the debate, I also want to wish the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, a very happy retirement. I have known him for some time, from when I first came into the House. He and I have always worked together; whether we were on the opposition or government side, we were absolutely focused on that. I also congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, on her excellent maiden speech. There was one common theme of both her father’s speech and her own, which was the importance of the international rules-based order and the rule of law, and that is fundamentally what this debate is about. I thank them for their contributions. I am really sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, is retiring, but he deserves it. However, I know that the noble and learned Baroness will make extremely important contributions to this House about the importance of law and the rule of law, and the importance of judges and the people who supervise those laws. I am very grateful for their contributions.

On 22 May, the Prime Minister signed the landmark agreement with Mauritius to secure the future of the strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This is one of the most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership to date. As noble Lords have stressed, key allies and international partners back the agreement, including the Five Eyes, India, Japan and South Korea; the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, also welcomed the deal, as did the Commonwealth and the African Union. This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.

The treaty was laid in the House for scrutiny on the day of signature under the usual processes set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson; he knows that I greatly admire his oratory, but before the treaty is ratified, the Government will bring forward primary legislation, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way.

This was a difficult decision, and one we took after great consideration—because it matters. The military base on Diego Garcia is a strategic asset which underpins our national security, supporting operations that keep the British people safe, enabling the rapid deployment of operations and forces across the Middle East, east Africa and south Asia, and helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states. Its unique strategic location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific.

Some of the base’s capabilities are rightly secret. They include airfield and deep-water port facilities. These support a wide range of air and sea operations, including berthing our nuclear-powered submarines and sensitive satellite communications. In recent years, the facility on Diego Garcia has helped to collect data used in counterterrorism operations against high-value Islamic State targets. This included information that was used to disrupt threats to our country and reduce the risk to coalition operations significantly.

The base makes a core contribution to the United Kingdom’s important relationship with the United States, as we have heard in this debate. Our defence, security and intelligence relationships are deeply intertwined. Indeed, almost every operation from the base is in partnership with the United States.

As your Lordships will know, the operation of the base on Diego Garcia has been under threat for decades. Under the previous Government, Mauritius secured a string of legal and political victories against the United Kingdom that created the immediate jeopardy facing the base: a comprehensive rejection of our arguments by 13 judges to one at the ICJ in 2019; the loss of the UN General Assembly votes by a margin of 116 to six; a maritime delimitation judgment handed down in 2021 by a special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on the basis of Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and not UK sovereignty; obligations placed on the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration by UN bodies to cease specific activities; and various procedural blockages at international organisations, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty organisations. Precedents were set. International political support fell away.

I say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that it is highly likely that further litigation would have been brought quickly by Mauritius against the United Kingdom—which is why the previous Government committed to negotiate—in which we would have had no realistic prospect of defending our position on sovereignty. As the International Agreements Committee said in its report, the evidence it heard confirmed that any international court would be unlikely to find in favour of the United Kingdom. In that circumstance, the committee stated,

“the future of the Base … would be at greater risk”.

As a number of noble Lords have said, the evidence of the eminent judge Sir Christopher Greenwood KC bears repeating here. As he says, the advisory opinion is

“a very authoritative guide to the legal position. In reality, it would be very difficult for any state just to ignore an almost unanimous opinion of the international court”.

The serious consequences for the base operations cannot be overstated. Put simply, it would not be able to operate as it should, putting at risk our national security and prosperity, and the impact could be felt extremely quickly. Legally binding provisional measures could be issued within weeks of a case being brought, potentially affecting our ability to patrol the waters around the base and undermining the base.

As the International Agreements Committee has confirmed, a binding judgment against UK sovereignty would very likely have followed. This would give rise to real impacts on the operation of the base and on the delivery of all its national security functions. These impacts could include our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, from interference and to ensure access to the base by air and by sea—in effect, to control the maritime area around the base.

When this Government came to power, like the one before, they concluded that agreeing a treaty now, on our own terms, was the only way to secure the proper protections, including from malign influences, that would allow the base to operate as it has done well into the next century. We have negotiated robust security provisions to protect the United Kingdom and the base for decades to come. The International Agreements Committee agrees that the treaty is successful in protecting base operations—full control of Diego Garcia. This includes full control and management of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is key to our ability to counter hostile activities.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that there is a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent, meaning that we can protect UK interests. That is a rigorous process to prevent any activities on the wider islands—some of which are over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations. This includes joint UK decision-making, meaning that there are no developments unless we agree; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and binding obligations to ensure that the base is never undermined. Protections within the treaty were designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment, including through interagency review processes under two US Administrations, both of whom supported the UK proceeding with the deal.

There has been some inaccurate reporting, as we have heard in this debate, about the apparent requirement that the UK notify Mauritius in advance of military operations. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who raised this first, that this is a complete misunderstanding of the treaty. There is no such requirement. The UK has agreed to inform Mauritius of military action, as is standard practice in most international basing arrangements. This does not need to be in advance, and no sensitive details of military activities would ever be passed on. I am sure that noble Lords will have already noted that the International Agreements Committee tested this point in particular and agreed that the treaty did not oblige the UK to notify Mauritius in advance of operations. A noble Lord asked about the terms of termination of the agreement. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, acknowledged that there are very limited conditions for termination—namely, if we do not pay or if we attack Mauritius.

The costs of the treaty have been published in full and laid in the House. The noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Howell, cited the figure of £30 billion to £35 billion. I believe that that figure is deliberately misleading, and I think noble Lords will understand this point. It is fundamentally wrong to present numbers that ignore the effects of inflation and the changing value of money on the real cost of a deal that lasts 99 years. The average cost per year in today’s money is £101 million, and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. This compares well to other international basing agreements.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, who first mentioned the fact that France recently announced an €85 million per year deal with Djibouti. Diego Garcia is 15 times larger, more capable and more strategically located, and can operate with complete operational freedom. That is before counting the waters surrounding the island and the additional buffer zone which I just mentioned, which cover a further 6,200 square kilometres of UK operational control, and the prohibition of hostile activity on the outer islands. The cost represents a fraction of a percentage of the total defence budget—less than 0.2%. This makes it possible for us to access, use and benefit from the most highly sophisticated and strategically important military facility in the world. It upholds our end of a defence and security partnership with our closest ally. That is at the foundation of how we keep our country safe.

Many noble Lords have confirmed the strength of feeling about the impact of the treaty on the Chagossians. I am absolutely sympathetic to that point, and certainly to the concerns raised by both the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in his Motion. The Government have expressed deep regret for the way Chagossians were removed from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s, but the negotiations on this treaty were necessarily state to state. Our priority was to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia, and this is what we have achieved.

Nevertheless, we recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians and the different views within the Chagossian community, many of whom did welcome the deal. The deal meets many of the requests we have heard from Chagossians over recent years. For the first time since the 1960s, a programme of resettlement can begin on the islands, other than Diego Garcia. We will work with Mauritius to initiate a new programme of visits for Chagossians to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. The UK will capitalise a trust fund for the benefit of Mauritius, in the region of £40 million. This is part of the financial package within the treaty. Separate to the agreement, we will also increase our support to Chagossians living in the United Kingdom through new and existing projects.

I say to my noble friend Lord Grocott that, while there is no permanent residency on Diego Garcia for security reasons, there are no restrictions on applications by Chagossians to be employed on Diego Garcia and live on the island during that employment. Chagossians have previously worked in the military base.

However, I fully understand the strength of feeling on this subject and the concerns highlighted in the report of the International Agreements Committee and the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. So let me be absolutely clear to the House: ahead of ratification, this Government will commit to making a ministerial Statement in both Houses providing a factual update on eligibility for resettlement and the modalities of the trust fund. This will enable further discussion in a proper manner, in line with the desire of the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I hope that, in the light of this assurance, he will not feel it necessary to press his Motion to a vote.

On the unique environment of the Chagos, both the United Kingdom and Mauritius have committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. At the United Nations Ocean Conference, this commitment was reaffirmed in a meeting between the Mauritian Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary. They discussed further co-operation on environmental protection across the archipelago and the Mauritian plans for the creation of a new marine protected area. Under the agreement, the United Kingdom will continue to manage environmental protection on Diego Garcia, which includes the important Ramsar wetland site. We have additionally agreed to support Mauritius in the establishment of marine protected areas, and officials have already begun discussions with their Mauritian counterparts on what this will involve and how environmental standards can be maintained.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, made a point about the coastline of Diego Garcia. Like all small atoll islands, it is naturally dynamic and I will not speculate about future erosion. However, scientific surveys have concluded that the overall land area of the parts of the island not shaped by military construction has decreased by less than a single percent over the last 50 years.

This has been a really important debate, because we have been absolutely focused on the security of this country. None of this has been particularly easy. This was a difficult decision—not one we took lightly, but one we had to make and handle carefully, for all of our sakes. So, lastly, I underline how important a role this landmark agreement has to play in our future, by securing the strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. It is important for stability in the Indian Ocean region and beyond, important for our defence and security partnership with our closest ally, the United States, and important for our national security here at home in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much. The House will be pleased to know that I will not try its patience by going through the many points that have been made. There was much that I could disagree with—many points of error that I could pick up on and some factual statements that I think were wrong. However, if the Minister will permit, I would like clarification on one point that he made earlier. At the start of his remarks, he said that the Government would bring forward legislation before the treaty is ratified. To be absolutely precise, does he mean they would bring forward that legislation and that that legislation would be passed?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, the noble Lord could have interrupted me when I was giving my contribution. It is absolutely clear that we need primary legislation, which we will bring forward before ratification.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

That legislation would have to be passed by Parliament before ratification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not understand. The noble Lord has been here long enough. How does legislation get effected in this Parliament?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

This is a simple question to the noble Lord. I am very well aware of the procedures. Is he saying that the Government will bring forward the legislation before the treaty is ratified or that the legislation would need to be passed by Parliament before it is ratified? In other words, he will not just bring it forward and then ratify the treaty before Parliament has approved it. It is a simple question, to which I would like a simple answer.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have answered the point repeatedly. I said it in my opening contribution and I will not continue this up and down dialogue.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I think the House well understands that we did not get an answer to that question. There are many other points that I could make and many questions that have not been answered. He did not respond to any of the points from my noble friends Lord Ahmad or Lord Wolfson, so I hope he will be able to do so in writing. In the meantime, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Middle East

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, every casualty in the Iran-Israel conflict is one that could have been avoided, but it is worth remembering that, in the same period, almost as many people have been shot in Gaza simply queuing for food, and the crisis in the region continues.

On Iran, the US clearly decided to escalate to de-escalate. It may yet re-escalate, because the whiplash of posts from the President this morning are hard to follow with a degree of reassurance, but I hope that a ceasefire can be operational, even though the most recent updates require us to be somewhere between pessimistic and cautiously optimistic. The Trump Administration seem to think that war plays out like a reality TV show, but this is real violence with real deaths and real-life consequences, not so much for egotistical men in their 80s and near-80s as for the victims, who are primarily civilians—women and children in particular.

The Tehran regime is clearly homicidal, but we may find out that it is probably not suicidal. The US and Netanyahu Governments are clearly tactical, but we will find out that they are probably not strategic. The Minister told the House last Thursday that the US was seeking to de-escalate at the very time it was deciding to escalate. The immediate repercussions are being seen, and we cannot now know for certain what will follow.

Trump and Hegseth said the Iranian nuclear programme was obliterated and ended. Now US officials are giving a more sober view of “damaged” and “delayed”. The IAEA’s information is probably more reliable: that it is likely that there has been significant damage—but this is difficult to verify. Even more difficult to verify is the impact the strikes will have on preventing weaponisation in the medium term. The IAEA warned against military strikes for the very reason that they would likely make it even harder to verify, and I suspect that may be the reality now.

Unquestionably, Iranian options in the next period are more limited than they would have been 10 days ago, but it is rash to think that we know whether Iran will continue to act immediately or play a game of time on a calendar it has operated under for many years. I was in Iraq the last time Iran claimed the US would pay irreparable damage, for the killing of Soleimani outside Baghdad Airport; instead, it signalled and then performed a largely performative display of attacks near Erbil. Full escalation or controlled tit-for-tat is a delicate dance where miscalculation is deadly, but it may well be being played out.

We therefore cannot predict the next 48 hours from Tehran, not to mention the next 48 days; nor for that matter, and with deep regret, can we necessarily predict that from the Trump Administration. We can predict heightened rhetoric taking on increasingly macho and jingoistic terms. From loose talk of regime change, the current Tehran regime will likely become even more repressive, and more secretive and patient in rebuilding its proxy relationships and other interests.

Last week in the Chamber, and just a few moments ago, we heard noble Lords drumming a jingoistic beat. We also heard—more rightly in my view—caution. I would advise the House to listen to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. These Benches agree with the Government’s position of not participating.

As much as I agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapon capability—and I strongly agree that Israel should have the ability to defend itself against unacceptable calls for its destruction—we continue to see too many tacticians and too few strategists. As an Iraqi friend, who, incidentally, detests the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran, told me recently, Netanyahu was a cheerleader for regime change in Baghdad 20 years ago and helped persuade Bush and Blair. He handed it to Iran. He wanted Gaza to be in violent competition with the West Bank to prevent a two-state solution and bolstered Hamas. He successfully lobbied Trump for the US to leave JCPOA, which restarted the weapon capability path of nuclear Iran, and now he has positioned Trump into looking weak if he did not join his tactics on bombing and regime-change rhetoric. At each step of the way, quick tactical wins led to strategic errors.

We of course hope for a ceasefire with Iran, but we fervently hope for respite for the civilians in Gaza and the West Bank too—so I close with regard to the situation there. It is alarming, after all the suffering of the civilians within Gaza, to see the recent reports of Hamas now recruiting. The very circumstances exist now for Hamas to regain strength. This is what we were told would be inconceivable with the war aims of the IDF. Reconstruction preparedness is now even harder, given the policy choices for the Gaza Humanitarian Fund to be a mercenary and profiteering operation to supply food and medicine.

So I ask the Government: what work are they doing with our allies to ensure that food is being supplied, and on the restrictions at the border—not assisted by the Knesset law preventing UNRWA working with third parties to co-ordinate the delivery of food and medicine—to ensure that the people of Gaza no longer have to experience the indignity of queuing in danger areas for food? Will the Government provide clarity on the future funding for both programme and humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza delivered through UNRWA after July?

The medieval scenes that we see, of people having to queue to receive food and medicine across an apocalyptic backdrop, mean that the current situation must end. The GHF approach has been a deadly failure, and the acute shortage of food, deliberately being withheld at the Gaza border, must end. I hope that, if there is breathing space with Iran and Israel, we can at least focus on getting the aid in, which is desperately needed.

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

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, comments and questions. I say to the noble Lord opposite that I am rather disappointed with his tone because I thought that, in the other place, the shadow Secretary of State made it clear that she was with the Government on putting forward peace and security. The security of this nation is vital. His tone rather underplayed those comments.

I make it clear that we have long had concerns about the Iranian nuclear programme, and we have been very clear that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The US has taken action to alleviate that threat. It is important that we now de-escalate the situation, stabilise the region and get all parties around the negotiating table. Although a ceasefire between Iran and Israel is an opportunity to secure much-needed stability, the events this morning clearly show how fragile and volatile the situation is. We strongly urge both sides to do their utmost to hold to the terms of the ceasefire.

On the action, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to the assessment. One thing that President Trump has been absolutely clear about is that this action is not the end of the story in dealing with the nuclear threat in Iran. He has made it clear that he wants to negotiate a deal, and that is fundamental for the long-term security of the Middle East.

As I say, we have been very clear about the nuclear programme. It is important that we get all parties back around the negotiating table. We have strongly supported diplomatic efforts to reach a lasting settlement, as President Trump has indicated. This is now the moment of opportunity; we can have a diplomatic outcome, because only a diplomatic outcome will provide a lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear programme. We have made it clear to Iran: negotiate with the US. That is backed up by the E3, and that is what we as a country should do to make our position more secure.

I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for what they have been trying to do over the past three days. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the US Secretary of State, Rubio, the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Iranian Foreign Minister to urge de-escalation. He has also spoken to other regional counterparts, including the Egyptian, Lebanese, Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini and Cypriot Foreign Ministers—all strong allies of the United Kingdom. We are absolutely committed to that diplomatic effort. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Trump, Prime Minister Carney, the King of Jordan, the Sultan of Oman and the German president to support de-escalation—all vital allies of this country—and provide security. The Minister for the Middle East met the Iranian ambassador yesterday to stress the need for a return to diplomatic efforts.

We made clear our condemnation of Iran’s attacks on Qatar and Iraq yesterday. Our focus again has been on de-escalation and diplomacy to end this crisis. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that we stand with our allies in solidarity with the US and Qatar, and we have let Qatar know that it will always have our steadfast support. We are aware that Qatar has communicated—it has sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General. It is, of course, up to the UN to respond to that letter.

The United Kingdom did not participate and is not participating in the Israeli and US strikes. We continue to urge restraint. Our priority is stability in the Middle East. The situation remains volatile, and we remain clear that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. More broadly, we have always supported Israel’s right to self-defence and its right to protect its citizens. The UK has consistently pushed for a ceasefire since the escalations began, and we continue to work with international partners.

The Minister’s efforts over the past two days have been about protecting our citizens and trying to get UK citizens out of harm’s way. That is why we organised the flight from Tel Aviv—and, hopefully, another one took off today. The interests of our country are a priority, but our UK citizens are also a priority.

In relation to the noble Lord’s comments, I am not going to provide a legal commentary right now. As I said last week, all actors must abide by international law. The noble Lord is fully aware of the long-standing convention reflected in the Ministerial Code. It is not routinely disclosed whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice, and the content of that advice is not routinely disclosed. The convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in the light of thorough and candid legal advice. However, I repeat: all our efforts are about ensuring the security of this country and peace in the Middle East.

To be very clear, as I have said before in this Chamber, I am a friend of Israel and have always recognised the threats to its security and the tough neighbourhood it lives in. The Government cannot accept what is happening in Gaza or the West Bank, but this must never undermine our support for Israel’s security. We have to be very candid with our ally about the situation in Gaza. We all understand what a frightening time it must be for Israeli citizens, running into bomb shelters. The Foreign Secretary has expressed his personal concern. That is why we are absolutely focused on ensuring that we contain this conflict and avoid escalation.

I am clear about the threat from Iran, but we will not give up on diplomacy or the interests of the people of Gaza. We plead with the Israeli Government to open the borders so that we can get the necessary aid in. We have made it absolutely clear that the hostages, or, sadly, the bodies of the hostages, must be returned immediately. We must see a ceasefire.

We are a very strong ally of the United States and we are working together. President Trump has made it clear that he wants to see a long-term deal on the possession of nuclear weapons in Iran. The United Kingdom and its E3 allies will support him in that effort. I hope the noble Lord opposite will do the same.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, unlike the extraordinary accusations made by the spokesman for the Conservative Party just now, I congratulate the Government on the carefully thought-out and nuanced position they have taken on the military conflict between the US, Israel and Iran. I thank my noble friend and his senior colleagues for the efforts they are making to try to find a long-term and lasting diplomatic solution to the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran. Turning to what is happening in Gaza, can my noble friend tell the House a little more about what is happening with the replacement of the completely failed Israeli-American system of aid distribution, which I think the Conservative spokesman said he thought was fine? Have steps been taken to replace it with NGOs that are familiar with the best ways of distributing aid in Gaza, so that we do not see any more slaughter of Palestinian civilians desperately trying to get food aid for their starving children?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her comments. To be absolutely clear, we are leaving no stone unturned in getting aid into Gaza. We are working with a range of NGOs—everyone possible—but we remain committed to the solution of ensuring that aid is properly distributed through the main agency, UNRWA. We have sought assurances on that and we have taken every opportunity that we have had to put it to the Israeli Government that they should open those routes to aid to ensure that it can get through. We are now in a desperate situation; as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, those seeking aid through the US-Israeli agency are being shot as they approach the distribution points. That cannot be right. We must be able to get proper aid in through the appropriate agencies.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concern that the first port of call for the Iranians to be provided with something not immediately available in the world—scientific expertise in nuclear weaponry, to replace the nuclear scientists whom we know have been killed—was Moscow? Is the Minister confident that, against the backdrop of the talks that will necessarily take place, and as we cannot yet identify what has happened to the uranium and given that particular port of call, we will keep our eye on the ball over what Iran will do in future?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right, and we should be concerned that that was the Iranian Foreign Minister’s first port of call, and we should be aware of what Putin said to him. However, that means it is imperative that we support President Trump, who has made it clear that the only long-term solution to ensuring Iran does not have a nuclear weapons capability is to “do a deal”, as the President puts it. We will absolutely be supporting our ally in achieving that fundamental objective.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Statement and the commitments the Government are making, but history teaches us that you cannot bomb an idea or a resentment out of existence. Going back to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the difference between strategy and tactics, what scenario planning are the Government doing to address the next three or four generations of terrorists who are being born amid the traumas of the current violence?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point: that our actions should not be only in international diplomacy but should look at our communities at home and how we bring them together. It is also important that we ensure that all our communities are safe, and that is why we are taking every possible action, particularly against malign states who intend to intervene. He is right that we should focus on community building and ensuring that the terrible conditions do not provoke people into taking the kind of horrendous actions we have seen in the past.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister and urge the Government not to follow the drumbeat of escalation and to learn the lessons of Iraq in 2003. On the understandably delayed UN conference initiated by the French and the Saudis, and now that we have this window of opportunity with the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, what actions are the Government taking to bring forward as soon as possible the date for that meeting? It is urgently needed; we cannot take our eye off what is happening in Palestine, particularly in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct and as I said last week, we were extremely disappointed about the postponement of the conference, but it was inevitable because it was not going to be possible for all the participants who needed to attend to be there. Let me reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with the French and the Saudis to ensure that the two-state solution conference takes place as soon as possible. The Government will be working very hard to ensure that the conference is a success and that we can look towards the long-term future.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend the Minister in his position and observe that the stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is at complete variance with what his Government did in 14 years of power—which was not to start nuking everybody and seeking to attack aggressively, but to pursue the very diplomacy that he seeks to promote now. As a former UK Middle East Minister, I suggest that we need to recognise the two main fault-lines in this region: first, Palestine and Israel, and, secondly, Shia/Sunni, which means Iran and Saudi. What is needed is a regional summit of the Saudis, the Gulf states, Egypt, probably Jordan, certainly Israel and Iran as well, to try to provide a long-term stable plan for the region.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend and, as I said in response to the earlier question, that is why we have been working with France and the Saudis on the two-state solution. Of course, it looks extremely difficult to apply, but in working hard with allies in the region, I believe that that can be the long-term secure future that can resolve those issues.

I repeat that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East, not just in the past few days but all this week, have constantly been in touch with all our Middle East allies—across those divides, if you like—to ensure that we focus on long-term security, stability and de-escalation. That is what we have been focused on. The long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear capabilities is what President Trump said: do a deal and secure the long-term future.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their decision to move towards proscribing Palestine Action. I urge them to take the next logical step and proscribe the people who are paying for Palestine Action and for terrorism on our streets in Europe: the IRGC. Can they act quickly, because we need to make our streets safer?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I totally agree with the noble Lord that we need to make our streets safer. Iran’s destabilisation of the Middle East, human rights violations and nuclear escalation also include threats to people in the UK. All these actions are absolutely abhorrent, and we will not hesitate to take the most effective measures against the regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We are working at pace to identify further ways to deal with state threats, including those from the IRGC. On 4 March, we announced that we will place the Iranian state, including its intelligence services and the IRGC, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme. As the Home Secretary announced to Parliament on Monday 19 May, the review of Jonathan Hall KC delivers a suite of recommendations to tackle state threats, and we are committed to taking them forward, including the creation of a new state threats proscription tool. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that we are focused on dealing with that threat.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome and admire the way my noble friend the Minister has presented the case for the Government today, in his calm and measured way—in stark contrast to the belligerence of the Opposition spokesman. I am glad that my noble friend is in charge of these things and not the Opposition spokesman.

I ask my noble friend to reflect with me—and, I hope, come to the same conclusion—that western intervention in the affairs of the Middle East rarely seems to end happily, whether it is drawing boundaries, supplying arms or changing Governments. Can he assure me that the watchword of this Government—going forward on this series of crises, with new things happening every day—will be one of extreme caution? It is so much easier to get embroiled in a conflict there than it is to get out of one.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. I reassure the House that I am absolutely committed to working with all sides, including shadow Ministers opposite, to ensure that we put the security of this country first. There is no partisanship here; we want to work together to ensure the security of this country. My noble friend is right that, in a situation that can escalate so quickly, caution is absolutely essential. The key element here is how we work with our allies, not just those across the Atlantic but particularly those in the region. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has not been provoked yet to ask me a question, but he has been absolutely right in his past contributions, particularly as Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, when he focused on building strong alliances with our allies. This Government and I are determined to follow in those footsteps.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows better than most of us, this is a very complex situation. The Government have handled it rather well so far; it has been a very complex week and the decisions taken have been very accurate. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will be extremely careful in relation to Iran; that is where the difficulties will arise and where we could find ourselves, at short notice, in a very difficult situation.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord. We are determined to actually focus on all those diplomatic tools we have available. We are absolutely focused on that. I also reassure noble Lords that we did not participate in the US or Israeli strikes. We were given due notice, as we would expect as close allies of the US. We have been moving assets to the region to make sure that we are in a position to protect our own interests, personnel, assets and allies. Our first duty is to ensure that our forces and bases in the region are safe and secure. We have been moving assets to the region for that reason.

I agree with the noble Lord. We are cautious and absolutely focused on diplomatic efforts, but we remain committed to protecting our troops and assets.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement on the de-escalation of the crisis in Iran, but my heart bleeds for the people of Gaza who are being killed—men, women and children—while trying to collect food and water. According to Reuters, 44 people were killed by Israeli strikes in Gaza on Friday while collecting aid. Can the Minister assure the House that British weapons supplied to Israel are not used to kill innocent men, women and children in Gaza?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The simple answer to the noble Lord is that I can give him that assurance. We have absolutely complied with those licences. We stopped issuing licences for exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza. We are absolutely complying with what he says.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, for more than 30 years, the leaders of the Arab League and its friends, the EU and Europe as a whole have sat on their hands and looked on as this despotic Islamic Republic of Iran has acquired nuclear capability. Does the Minister support the military action taken by the USA in endeavouring to destroy the imminent danger, not only to Israel but to the rest of the world in general? Would he also agree with me that securing the release of the 50 hostages still held in Gaza might go some way in alleviating this conflict?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness on the last part of her question. We have been very clear that the immediate release of all hostages is vital and we have been absolutely clear on the demand for an immediate ceasefire.

The noble Baroness implies something that is not necessarily the case. The US has taken action to alleviate the threat that Iran poses. As President Trump has repeatedly said, and said this morning, the long-term solution of stopping that threat—stopping Iran having nuclear weapons—is a deal, and I have confidence in President Trump in achieving that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to congratulate the Government on the way they have been handling the current situation. I fought in a number of wars, and there is nothing like fighting in a war to make you realise that you do not want one. The actions we are taking I think will help stop that. Historically, bombing campaigns tend to never win a war, and they do not get you in that direction. Looking back historically, I worked at length with the Americans, our very close allies, in stopping Netanyahu attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities—this is going back a few years. The Minister will probably remember that they actually did dress rehearsals at time.

Can I just clarify with my noble friend the Minister that, if we want to have long-term security for Israel, the only way is to stop fighting and negotiate?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right and I pay tribute to him for his service to this country. He is absolutely right that in the long term—I keep repeating this—the US actions have resulted in alleviating the threat. President Trump has made it clear that the long-term solution is a deal, and that is what this Government will be focused on supporting. We have made it clear, and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said to Iran, “Negotiate with the US and reach a deal that removes this threat for ever”.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken about short-term tactical victories versus long-term strategic outcomes. Iran is known to have had 400 kilograms of 60% purity enriched uranium. If it went to 90%, which is relatively easy, it could produce about 10 warheads. The International Atomic Energy Agency and JD Vance have both said they do not know where that uranium now is, and it can be moved in scuba tank-sized objects. A spokesperson for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said:

“It’s difficult to overstate what a big deal this is”


and called this a “potential disaster” for nuclear non-proliferation. Do the Government agree with that analysis?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We absolutely agree about the threat that this poses. Nobody could have been more concerned to see, prior to the attacks on those nuclear sites, the long truckloads. We do not know where they were going or what was in them, but I think we can all assume that it was not just empty packages that were being taken out. That is why—I am sorry I keep repeating myself—President Trump knows that the actions that he took are not sufficient to remove this threat in the long term. A negotiated deal, with the presence of proper inspection that we have had, is absolutely vital for the future security of the region and the world as a whole.

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.

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.

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.