My Lords, I join the noble Earl in commending the commitment to our country of our service men and women. It is a deep regret that they are in a position where they are having to risk their lives on an unlawful and unwarranted conflict. On 2 March in this House, the Leader of the Opposition said that when President Trump called the UK should have answered and that the UK should have been fully involved in all the offensive actions in this unlawful conflict unleashed by President Trump with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Government. If we had heeded that, the UK would currently be bombing civilian areas in Tehran and targeting energy installations. Because of the impact on the Strait of Hormuz, we would be seeing the consequences for the UK as a result.
Seeking to tie us directly with President Trump’s decisions was a major strategic error on the part of the Conservative and Reform opposition, especially in the context that more than two weeks into this war we still do not know what the justification was and see no clarity on any endgame and a lack of strategy about what will be next. The Opposition asked us to be fully part of the measures for regime change two weeks ago. They are now silent on this issue. It is appropriate for them to state their position. However, this is the Government’s Statement, the Minister will answer for the Government and I will have a number of questions in a moment.
One of the consequences today is that we are seeing concerns about energy prices in the United Kingdom. This was a wholly predictable outcome. Earlier, we heard questions about seeking greater UK domestic production to try to mitigate this. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the global energy market works and how the United Kingdom is part of it. There is no direct correlation between greater North Sea production and greater domestic consumption. Even if there were, North Sea product is traded on the global market. Therefore, the impact on the global oil and gas market has a direct consequence on the United Kingdom. We export almost as much oil as we produce from the North Sea because of the complexities of the UK energy market.
Given all this, what action will the Government take to prevent some of the extremes if the trajectory of energy prices is up? What package of support can there be, particularly for the most vulnerable who need fuel and those living in rural areas? What is the latest with regard to our Government speaking with other like-minded countries that are seeking to mitigate what could potentially be even worse consequences? Can the Minister state whether any British Ministers have visited the region since the start of this conflict? If so, who have they met and what are our priorities for that diplomatic dialogue?
Turning to something of great concern in Lebanon, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, on behalf of the Government spoke very clearly this morning at the Dispatch Box. I agreed with everything he said with regard to the Government’s position on the concerns for Lebanon. It is extremely worrying to hear senior political figures within Israel talk about cleansing part of Lebanon and creating buffer areas. It is becoming apparent that the tactics that have been used in Gaza may well become the tactics used in Lebanon. The consequences of that, given the UK’s support for sovereign territorial integrity for Lebanon, should be significant.
What consequences would there be for the Netanyahu Administration if indeed there were territorial incursions into Lebanese territory? What are the UK Government doing to ensure that civilians are protected? This should not be discretionary in conflict. The protection of civilians is mandated under the United Nations in international humanitarian law. We are seeing far too many civilian areas targeted. What is now becoming apparent is the potential for collective punishment of certain parts of the Lebanese population, which we have seen elsewhere.
If I had asked the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, a question earlier, it might have been, just to follow through what he accurately said, on the fact that the UK has been a very major supporter through official development assistance for Lebanon over many years—£850 million, I recall him saying. The next sentence, however, is that our current level of capacity is an 88% cut in what the UK is providing to Lebanon for a humanitarian crisis, which is now almost on a par with what it was in 2014. The £30 million of humanitarian support, which has been uplifted with a further amount, is less than a quarter of what the UK provided in 2014. So, the UK is simply, in many respects, not at the table when it comes to humanitarian support.
There is also the very considerable concern that there is likely to be an ongoing cycle of violence and trauma of civilians. That includes the Israeli population, which is having to withstand unjustified attacks from Iran, but we are also seeing continuing violence within the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. What is the latest from the Minister with regards to our representations to the Netanyahu Administration on the West Bank? Have we warned them that there will be repercussions if attempts are made for full annexation? Former Prime Minister Olmert has warned of this, and we should equally be warning of the consequences of it.
Finally, the Minister will probably not be surprised to hear me make an appeal to the Government on the associated issue of Sudan. Much of what is happening in the Middle East and Iran has consequences for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Sudan. What are the latest actions taken by the UK, as the penholder, to seek an end to that war and sustainable civilian government for the country?
Before I sit down, I want to close by saying that whatever our differences—and perhaps on this conflict, compared to previous ones, there are differences across this House—these Benches are resolute in believing that the Jewish population in this country should not be held to account for an external, foreign Government, and there should be no excuse for antisemitism on our streets in the United Kingdom. Some of the incidents that we have seen recently are deeply troubling. Likewise, the growth in Islamophobia, especially against young Muslim children in this country, is utterly unacceptable. I wonder whether the Minister would seek to convene cross-party talks, because even worse incidents are likely. We need to be united across this House to ensure that both those are considered to be completely unacceptable and are stopped.
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions. I join both of them in acknowledging the service of our people in the region, covering a range of services. It is not just military people; the diplomatic and consular staff are doing an amazing job.
On the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on our community cohesion, we addressed that issue on Monday. It is important that we speak with one voice and say that the rise of antisemitism is absolutely unacceptable, and that also applies to Islamophobia. Sadly, we heard some comments from members of the Opposition recently about people praying in public, which were totally unacceptable. We need to come together to ensure community cohesion, because there is no way that anyone alone can be responsible for something such as what is going on at the moment.
The noble Earl mentioned the opinions on our response. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis: the Opposition, and certainly the leaders of Reform, have gone from saying very strongly that we must take action to them now reconsidering their position. The Prime Minister has been absolutely correct on this. As he said on 16 March, leadership is about standing firm for the British interest, no matter the pressure. I believe that time will show that we have taken the right approach—on the economy, on the cost of living, on defence, on energy and on this war—in the best interests of the British people.
On the Strait of Hormuz, we continue to work closely with our allies on a range of options to support commercial shipping through the strait as the threat picture develops. As the Prime Minister said today, alongside partners, we are ready to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait. We know the impact that it is having on the global economy, the global energy markets and, more importantly, our communities here—people. I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, what the Prime Minister announced yesterday: we are providing £53 million to support those households who are most exposed.
We are not just working with allies on the Strait of Hormuz. The Energy Secretary has spoken to BP, Shell and National Gas in the last few days. As noble Lords would expect, their primary concern is the safety of vessels passing through the strait and their duty of care to their employees in the face of ongoing threats from Iran. More broadly, the DfT constantly monitors UK shipping and, as I say, we are working closely with allies and providing advice and guidance where necessary.
As part of their work, the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury have both spoken with Lloyd’s of London over the last week to ensure that appropriate insurance cover is available for operators in the light of the ongoing conflict, including policies to cover businesses for losses and disruption caused by the war, civil war and revolution.
I also stress that we are absolutely focused on our consular work. As the noble Earl said, over 101,000 British nationals have returned to the UK since the start of the conflict, including those who returned on the six UK Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We will continue to work with airlines to increase commercial capacity and volume for British nationals. Commercial options have certainly increased. On Sunday, we saw 35 flights, carrying over 8,000 nationals, arrive back home. There is an estimate of a further 300,000 remaining in the region and, obviously, we will provide what consular support we can. I reassure noble Lords that we are making every effort to support the couple who have been arrested and detained. We are doing everything we can through our consular support.
The question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, related to that from the noble Earl. Obviously, our diplomatic relationships with Iran ensure that we can make those clear representations. I am aware that my honourable friend the Minister for MENA, Minister Falconer, has called in the ambassador here to make those representations strongly, as well as trying to provide consular support.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what ministerial engagement we have had. Minister Falconer has been constantly engaged with the commissioners and the embassy here, but also in many phone calls. The Foreign Secretary visited Saudi Arabia on 12 March to demonstrate our support for regional allies and particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council. We are with them absolutely. She saw the defensive support that the UK is providing in response to the immediate Iranian strikes, and discussed how the UK and Gulf states are working together to address threats to energy and civilian infrastructure. Our priority is to make sure that we keep the economy moving, because it helps us back at home. Our Saudi partners are certainly playing a critical role in protecting critical infrastructure and civilians, including the more than 25,000 British nationals who call Saudi Arabia home. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken with leaders across the wider region, including G7 partners, about that.
I turn to the humanitarian situation, particularly in Lebanon, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. As we discussed earlier with the Oral Question to which my noble friend Lord Lemos responded, it is a critical situation. We not only announced £5 million initially but have added another £10 million to make £15 million of humanitarian assistance to Lebanon and neighbouring areas. As we have heard, the situation is incredibly dire—the infrastructure and the bombing.
We have certainly made our position very clear: we have condemned the escalation and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear with all sides that further escalation of this conflict is in no one’s interest. Hezbollah must cease its attacks on Israel. We have also been clear with the Israelis that they must not expand this war further into Lebanon, but must do everything to protect civilians and comply with international humanitarian law.
I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioning Sudan. This conflict is taking our eyes away from the current situation there. We heard from President Zelensky, who was in Parliament this week, who made it absolutely clear that Putin must not benefit from this conflict. We have been very clear about that. We also must understand that many of the sides within Sudan’s conflict have had support from the players who are now involved in this conflict. We must ensure that we do not forget Sudan and that we keep it high up the agenda.
I do not doubt that we will cover more points, but I conclude that we are engaged in supporting our allies and determined to do what we can through defensive measures to protect our interests. We will continue—the Defence Secretary visited Cyprus earlier this week—to take all possible actions to do that.
My Lords, the key justification of President Trump in launching this war of choice was that it was a pre-emptive action on his part because Iran was poised to produce nuclear weapons. Has not that claim been blown out of the water by the evidence just given to Congress by his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that Iran had not sought to enrich uranium since the massive attacks last summer, and that therefore there was no justification for pre-emption, as suggested by the President? Does this not justify our Prime Minister in his cautious response to the US demand for assistance and his tilt towards closer co-operation with our European allies?
As I said in my initial response, the Prime Minister has been absolutely correct in ensuring that we focus on international law and on our interests. We should not underestimate the threat of Iran—it is a serious threat to us. That is why the previous Government and this Government have put so much effort into ensuring that it does not get nuclear weapons. With our E3 partners, we have engaged in extensive negotiations in the lead-up to snapback, and Iran chose not to accept our demands; faced with Iran’s continuous nuclear escalation, we were compelled to trigger that snapback, and we ensured that we got decisive UN Security Council support for that. We are absolutely clear about the requirement to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons remains—it is a threat that is serious. We also need to understand its actions in the region, not only to do with its proxy facilities but even in what this terrible regime has been doing to its own population. We should be clear about the threat that Iran is to the whole of the world.
Would the Minister accept that many of us applaud the caution of the Government in this situation? I was proud to visit, in a previous generation, the Armilla patrol, but the situation is entirely different from then. Forcing the Strait of Hormuz against organised opposition would be an extremely dangerous undertaking. If anybody wants to cast their minds back into history, they will see that we have a precedent for that from almost this month 110 years ago. Will the Minister accept that we should be very careful in engaging in military action to clear the Strait of Hormuz before there is an operative ceasefire of some kind?
The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been very clear that the most important outcome is a negotiated settlement and agreement to achieve the end of this war. The Strait of Hormuz presents us with a problem. We are in detailed negotiations with our allies because, as the noble Lord accepts, what we are facing now is very different from what we faced 10 or 20 years ago. Technology has changed. As the Foreign Secretary said in the other place, we have not just air drones but sea drones and other different things—it is not just about guns along the bank. It is important that we understand that. We are actively working with our allies to see how we can address this.
Either the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, or the noble Earl—by the way, I should have said happy birthday to him; dealing with this Statement at the end of the week is not a birthday occupation—referred to international law and the law of the sea. The law of navigation and trade is the number one priority for the UK and our ability to trade and be economically viable, so we are going to continue to work with our allies. The noble Lord is right that in the end we need a negotiated settlement.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I associate myself with the constructive and thoughtful way in which he has responded and with the comments made by other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, because of the issues that he raised on Sudan.
Does the Minister accept that there is no hierarchy of wrongs, whether we are talking about the attack by the US and Israel in an unprovoked war on Iran and its population or about Iran itself conducting a blatant disregard of human concerns and pouring wars on its neighbours? I utterly condemn both those actions. Does the Minister accept that there was a peaceful solution in place, according to the Minister from Oman, and that it would have been possible if international laws had not been broken?
I have two questions. First, can the Minister assure this House that in our measured action—and I congratulate our Government on the way they have conducted themselves so far—no support is provided for killing innocent civilians in Iran? Secondly, the Minister will be aware that the al-Aqsa mosque has been closed to Palestinian Muslims for prayers at this auspicious time. Tomorrow is Eid. Has he had any opportunity to make representations to the Israeli Government to say that the mosque should be open?
Lastly, I wish Eid Mubarak to all those who are going to celebrate the end of the month of Ramadan.
I certainly join the noble Baroness in her last comment in wishing everyone a successful conclusion to Ramadan.
It is not a question of simply saying, “That’s wrong and that’s wrong”. What we have faced in relation to Iran is a state that has committed crimes across the globe, even here in this country, and we need to be aware of that. We are facing a situation where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in Iran for standing up for their democratic rights.
The Prime Minister was clear why we made the determination in terms of our view of international law and not putting our forces in any doubt about their role. But once Iran started indiscriminately bombing and attacking its neighbours, which had not participated in the first attack, that was when we needed to ensure decisive defensive action, which we will continue to do. I come back to what I said to the noble Lord just now. At the end of the day, we want to see a negotiated settlement and something that is sustainable, but it cannot be on the basis that Iran can continue to develop nuclear weapons or to pose state threats.
My Lords, I too thank our Armed Forces and echo the greetings “Eid Mubarak” to all who are celebrating tomorrow, but I want to pick up on what the Minister has already said. The Iranian regime, through the IRGC, has cracked down violently on its own people, killing tens of thousands. Via its proxy, Hezbollah, it has attacked British interests at RAF Akrotiri. Can I ask about the threats of Iranian-linked activity on British soil? Twenty IRGC-linked plots are being monitored and four recent arrests of people conducting surveillance on Jewish sites have been made. The pro-Iran regime vigils and demonstrations have added to the sense of threat felt by the Jewish communities in this country—and I declare my interest as a proud British Jew. When will the Government proscribe the IRGC?
I think I have indicated the nature of the regime in Iran and the way that it has undermined and attacked people not only within its own country but across the globe. That is why the UK now has over 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and entities, including, let us not forget, the IRGC, which has been sanctioned in its entirety. Over 220 designations have been imposed since this Government came into office. It is a long-standing position under successive Administrations, as the noble Baroness knows, not to comment on the detail of security and intelligence matters, including whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription. But we recognise, as she rightly pointed out, the threat posed by the IRGC and will not hesitate to take the most effective measures against the Iranian regime. A separate list of proscribed terrorist organisations is kept under review, and the threats to the UK are kept under review. I remind the noble Baroness that we have made a commitment: Jonathan Hall KC, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has examined how the UK’s legal framework should address hostile activity by state actors and entities, and we are committed to taking his recommendations forward.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement and applaud the Prime Minister and the Government for the way that they have responded to the crisis in the Middle East all the way through, both in relation to British people abroad and the entire international situation. I speak as the FCDO envoy on Palestinian governance; I have been there regularly over the last couple of years. I am trying, in a small way, to assist the Palestinian Authority to build an effective Palestinian state, with the rule of law, for the future. This is fundamental work if we want a two-state solution in the future.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for raising the issue of the West Bank in his remarks. The West Bank is suffering quite significantly from a tightening economic stranglehold, where the tax revenues are collected by the current Israeli Government and not transferred regularly to the Palestinian Authority, so most public sector workers are on a small proportion—25% or 30%—of their salary. In addition, there are a thousand checkpoints across the West Bank and, in some cases, there is aggressive settler violence. That is making the growth of the economy, never mind the governance of the West Bank, ever more difficult. But there are some very powerful, effective, thoughtful and constructive Ministers in the Palestinian Authority, and I am delighted that the British Government are doing their best to help them. Does the Minister agree that this is a time, with all the other distractions in the Middle East, to continue that work to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and, if possible, to make its work even stronger and more effective?
I thank my noble friend for his comments and agree completely with him. When the Foreign Secretary presented her Statement in the other place, I think she said that we must redouble our efforts in focusing on and supporting a two-state solution. I acknowledge the work that my noble friend undertakes to support the Palestinian Authority. We made that support clear, which is why we took the decision to recognise Palestine, because we need to ensure that that is the focus.
The Foreign Secretary responded to a number of things. When I last visited the West Bank, I saw the groups of thugs—I do not call them settlers—who sit on top of the hills above Palestinian villages. They do not just harass people: the most horrendous case that we saw this week was a family returning from the shops, and young children being shot. We have made representations and are asking for clear investigations into this. The rule of law applies to Palestinian people too. They deserve the opportunity to be able to live and work in peace.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, particularly around how conflicts abroad should not result in hate on our streets. I fully back his call for a cross-party meeting of senior Members of your Lordships’ House to look at how we can work together to ensure that antisemitism and Islamophobia are not allowed to spread, given what is happening in the Middle East.
I also wholeheartedly back the Minister’s comments about what is happening in the West Bank. Those incidents, such as individuals being attacked, are heartbreaking. Often it is not just the young but the elderly who are brutalised and beaten up for no reason other than the fact that they live there. Your Lordships’ House should be very clear that the Government of the United Kingdom will take strong action against anyone who is involved in that, including sanctioning further individuals.
One point that has not been mentioned so far is the Houthis in Yemen. At the moment they have stayed out of this conflict, but what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made about the impact, particularly on trade, if the Houthis were to enter this conflict? There is huge attention on fuel at the moment, and the fact that energy prices are both affecting us domestically and, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, affecting energy-intensive industries such as steel, in places such as south Wales, south Yorkshire and Scunthorpe.
On the comments about the rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia, we all have a duty, across political parties, to ensure that we focus on greater community cohesion. That is fundamental, because there is no doubt that there has been an increase in both Islamophobia and antisemitism, and we need to address that. My noble friends across Whitehall have been working on how we can work across government to deal with that issue. The idea of discussions is something that the usual channels could look at; it is certainly worthy of consideration.
The noble Lord discussed Yemen. We have seen a huge humanitarian crisis there as a consequence of the actions of the parties, particularly the Houthis. We constantly review the situation and work with our allies: we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia in particular, but our focus at the moment is on the whole region. This conflict is destabilising the whole region; we need to ensure that we give support to our allies so that they can defend their position.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on avoiding the pull towards an illegal and pointless conflict in the Middle East, despite the pressure brought to bear from some national and international corners. We have heard much about the impact of the conflict on oil and gas supplies. What we have not talked about quite so much has been the impact on our diplomatic efforts in the region, and no doubt there will have been a large impact and much disruption to those diplomatic matters. Your Lordships’ House has heard and asked questions in previous weeks about the conditions for Craig and Lindsay Foreman, the two Brits jailed in Tehran a few weeks ago, just before the conflict began. Can my noble friend the Minister update us on the diplomatic efforts that are continuing to be made to secure their safety, security, health and ultimate release, despite the devastating impact of the conflict on the usual diplomatic channels?
I thank my noble friend. The noble Earl raised the Foremans in his contribution and I responded by saying that we are making every effort through our consular services and maintaining that diplomatic link. My noble friend is right to focus on the importance of diplomacy. We talk about the need for defence and for ensuring that our allies have the appropriate support, but the sort of dialogue that we have been engaged in is vital, and we will continue to do that. Our thoughts are very much with the Foremans and with their family. It must be incredibly concerning to be in this situation, and we are making all efforts to provide consular support and make representations to ensure their release.