(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the deployment of UK naval and air assets to the Middle East and the appointment of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as the Supreme Leader of Iran, what assessment they have made of the conflict in the region and the status of the UK’s security and diplomatic relationship with the United States.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and I draw attention to my entry on the register of interests as an adviser to the Arab Ambassadors Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we condemn Iran’s strikes on its neighbours. They are unacceptable and threaten regional stability. Keeping people safe and defending national security is the Government’s first duty, and we continually assess potential threats to the United Kingdom. We continue to have discussions at every level with the US and others. American planes operating out of British bases and British jets shooting down drones and missiles to protect American lives is the special relationship in action. The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader suggests no change in direction from Iran.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, at a time when our Gulf partners are asking for de-escalation and diplomacy, and indeed the United States President has said that he does not require the UK’s intervention, we seem to be intervening and escalating. The Minister delved on the issue of national security, but what is the stated objective of His Majesty’s Government when it comes to resolving this conflict specifically? The Minister referred to the use of UK bases; bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s stated objective that our intervention is defensive and that the US is carrying out a military intervention that is offensive, how does she square those two key strategic objectives?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We want to see a swift conclusion to this conflict; that is in the interests of our Gulf partners, and they are very clear what they would like to see. We are involved in a defensive capacity, as the noble Lord says, because British lives and the lives of our allies and partners are at risk.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, what assessment has been made of the impact of the conflict on BBC Persian staff based in London? What can His Majesty’s Government do to help their security and safety?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Any threats to BBC Persian service staff in London or anywhere else—but certainly any threats in this country—are completely unacceptable, and our security services and the police work hard to keep them safe. One of the atrocious things about the Iranian regime is the way it has sought to act in the way it has against journalists and those wishing to report the truth about what is happening in Iran.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, one of the consequences of the conflict has been President Trump seeming to clear India and other countries to break sanctions and buy Russian oil, which clearly changes the balance of the economy in the Ukraine war. Does the Minister agree that any political party, particularly His Majesty’s Opposition, which chooses unequivocally to support Donald Trump, is absolutely supporting this policy and letting Ukraine down?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right in that all these conflicts are interconnected in many subtle ways that often are not immediately obvious to those seeking to make political points in this country. It is obviously a matter for His Majesty’s Opposition to answer for their own conduct.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, in 2003 the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, met the chiefs of staff just before the invasion of Iraq and we discussed our plan of action. At that meeting, we asked: what is the plan for phase 4? We were told by the Prime Minister that the Americans had phase 4 all in hand. As regards beating a country such as Iraq or Iran in conventional fighting, we can do that—we jolly well should be able to do that—but the difficult bit is the next bit. I ask my noble friend the Minister: have we actually asked the Americans what their plan is now and where we are actually going? This is the most dangerous part of any of these actions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think we all remember the experience from 2003 and the decisions made around Iraq. Somebody who fought in Iraq—a Member of Parliament, Calvin Bailey, who was a wing commander in the RAF—said to me last week that there were two things that the British Government need to bear in mind before they take such a decision again: one is the legality and the other is what happens next. I think he is right. As a mother of boys of fighting age, I do not want to have to look into the eyes of anybody else’s mother and say that we had not done our work adequately ahead of making such a decision ever again.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, sadly, it was universally acknowledged that this conflict was more likely to occur than less likely, with predictable consequences for British interests in the region. May I ask the Minister: why was our military response so tardy and so incomplete?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I just do not accept that that is the case. We are just over a week into this conflict. Decisions were made rapidly at the outset. The initial request was declined—as is well recorded and well discussed—for reasons that have been explained, and I refer the noble Baroness to my answer to the previous question, which I hope explains why. The decision now is around defensive activity, and I think that that is the right position for the UK to take at this point.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, obviously the first duty is the protection of citizens, but what steps are the Government taking to help protect cultural property in Iran and the wider region? Iran, Israel and the USA are all signatories to the 1954 Hague convention, but UNESCO world heritage sites have already been damaged, and many museums are at risk during this conflict.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am an archaeology graduate and I completely understand why the noble Earl asks that question. He is right to draw our attention to this. It is tragic that, alongside women and children, the cultural heritage in many conflict zones suffers. It becomes a target because adversaries understand just how fundamental many of these sites are to the identity of a particular population. So I thank the noble Earl for drawing attention to this.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little on her definition of “defensive operations”, given what the Deputy Prime Minister said at the weekend? Does “defensive operations” encompass using British weapons and bases proactively to take out Iranian missile-launching sites that could be used to target British military assets and British military personnel?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry, but my noble friend the Minister for Defence was saying something while the noble Lord was speaking. I think he was trying to be helpful.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I was trying.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
He always tries to be helpful. Obviously, noble Lords would not expect me to comment in any detail on exactly what is being used, but we have F35s and Typhoons, which are being used to keep our citizens safe. We may have time for the noble Lord to ask the question again; if that was not quite what he was asking, I would be happy to answer him again.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are hearing from administrative figures in the United States, including the Secretary of War, that this is a crusade and that we are fighting a battle between Christianity and Islam. Can the British Government make it very clear that, to quote Tony Blair in his past days, we do not do God; that we think that any suggestion that this ought to be a battle between Christianity and Islam is horrifying and will lead to more than a regional war; that the aims have to be kept clear and limited; and that our support for the United States is also very limited?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is absolutely not the language that we are using. The actions that we are taking are defensive, as I have explained, and it is vital that we all take extreme care with the language we use around this conflict, not least because it can, and often does, find itself repeated and played out on the streets of the United Kingdom.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, can I probe the noble Baroness a little further on her answer to my noble friend Lord Harper? Initially, the UK denied the use of our bases for offensive strikes on Iran and then, 48 hours later, the Government permitted the use of the bases for defensive strikes. Can she explain the difference between striking Iran offensively and defensively please?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are vast books written about international law that the noble Lord may wish to consult. But, clearly, after Iran strikes civilian sites—hotels in Dubai where British nationals are staying, with their lives put at risk—then what we are doing to support the United States is clearly a defensive action.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that, for there to be any stability in the Gulf region and in the Middle East, there will have to be some kind of negotiated outcome on Iran’s nuclear activities, its missiles and its support for proxies? If that is so, what are the Government doing to discuss with the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France ideas that could be brought forward at some stage to achieve those objectives, other than by a collapse into chaos of Iran?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Experience tells us that, at some point, this becomes an issue of dialogue and negotiation. Who is involved, the nature of it, how it is staged and where it takes place are, as of today, not known.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches, and then we will come to other noble Lords.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
Could the Minister comment on the emerging evidence from BBC Verify that a US Tomahawk missile hit an Iranian primary school in Minab, where more than 168 people, mostly children, were killed? Are the Government liaising with the United States on this case and the issues that may arise from it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, we are talking to our partners in the United States about this and very many other issues. We have all heard these reports and, of course, when situations such as this occur, any loss of civilian life is deeply regrettable, whether they be Israeli, Iranian or anybody else.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we might not have declared war on Iran, of course, but Iran has certainly declared war on the West and on us, not just threatening Israel, our closest ally in the region, but organising terror attacks here in the UK, kidnapping British citizens and threatening our citizens and bases in the Gulf. Of course, it would be better if these things could be resolved by negotiation, but what evidence can the Government point to of the Iranians being able to be trusted because they have stuck to any of the agreements that they have made in the past?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I take that as a fair challenge. I am very well aware of the noble Lord’s views on this topic, and we have discussed them on many occasions—but the point that still stands as regards the United Kingdom’s position on this is that we must have clarity in international law, which we do for the actions that we are taking. However, we will also have to have a clear plan and a clear way forward.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the safety of British citizens, and I would like to talk about the safety of British citizens in Britain. As the House knows, 20 terrorist attacks from the Iranians have been stopped here—thank God—and the 21st is probably not very far away. We have all called for the IRGC to be proscribed, but the Government continue to hide behind some sort of legal processes. It has been done everywhere across Europe, and we are still slow—so can we do this? While we are thinking about that, we have the al-Quds march taking place next Saturday, which will be a march in support of the new ayatollah and the regime that the Minister does not like. What are we going to do to stop that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I shall speak to my colleagues at the Home Office about the march. Obviously, how that is policed and what is done about it is rightly a matter for the relevant authorities. On the IRGC, I remind the House that we commissioned a legal report on this, and the recommendation was that the UK Government do not at present have the ability to sanction the IRGC in the way that we would want to, and we are committed to making the necessary changes to allow us to do just that.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood that the tensions in Lebanon and what is happening in Iran will lead to a flood of people seeking safety in Europe? Are we prepared for this, and are we having discussions with our European friends on how best to handle such a flood of people seeking safety?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, and I am particularly worried about Lebanon and what is happening there. Yes, we are mindful of the impact that this can have on the movement of people—and yes, of course, we are talking to our partners and friends in the European Union about this.