Middle East

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:21

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 9 June.

“With permission, I will make a Statement on the Middle East—first on the Iran conflict and Lebanon, and secondly on the situation in Palestine. May I apologise to the shadow Foreign Secretary, to you and to the House for the delay in sending across a copy of the Statement?

This weekend, we saw worrying and dangerous escalation, with Lebanese Hezbollah continuing to fire into northern Israel, Israeli strikes against southern areas of Beirut, and the direct exchange of missiles between Iran and Israel, presenting one of the most dangerous moments since the fragile ceasefire was agreed. Over the last 48 hours, we have made clear the need for urgent de-escalation, because a resumption of conflict is in no one’s interest. I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister on Sunday evening to convey that point directly.

Both Israel and Iran have indicated that they have ended their strikes, which is welcome, but there was some reporting, just before I entered the Chamber, of strikes again this morning. It is vital that we have a diplomatic way forward to end the conflict in Lebanon, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, restore regional stability and prevent Iran from ever developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon.

As we have previously made clear in the House, Israel’s recent escalation in Lebanon was reckless and disproportionate, and it deepened the humanitarian crisis that has already seen more than a million Lebanese people driven from their homes and thousands killed. We strongly condemn Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel, including its northern communities. At Iran’s instigation, Hezbollah—a proscribed organisation—is dragging Lebanon into a war that is against the interests of its people and its Government. It must end these dangerous attacks and disarm. The US-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon must be properly observed by all parties.

We want to see a swift and successful conclusion to the ongoing talks between the US and Iran. We need an agreement that gets the strait fully open with no tolls or charges. Last week, I discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in China and Foreign Minister Jaishankar in India. Every country has a stake in freedom of navigation, and the UK will continue to speak up for that across the world. In partnership with France and other countries, we stand ready to play our part once agreement is reached to support de-mining and provide reassurance to shipping through a multilateral maritime mission. With cost of living pressures at home, we need a lasting settlement that delivers peace and stability in the region and the full restoration of global trade.

Let me turn to Palestine. Nine months ago, at the UN General Assembly, I confirmed the UK’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. We did so, alongside partners, in recognition of the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and to defend the viability of the two-state solution. We did so as part of a wave of international diplomatic energy in support of peace in the Middle East. It was a crucial moment of hope that we could end the violence and suffering and begin to build a better future of lasting peace and security for Palestine, Israel and the wider region, but today the situation is bleak and the viability of the two-state solution remains in grave peril.

Let me turn to Gaza. The ceasefire remains formally in place, but it is being regularly violated. Since October, more than 900 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed. Some 1.9 million Palestinians remain displaced and dependent on humanitarian aid, and aid is down this year, not up. Some 90% of water and sanitation infra- structure has been destroyed and not rebuilt. There are families without shelter and a public health crisis, with rodent infestations and communicable disease, and we are currently at barely half the level of the 4,200 trucks a week promised in the 20-point plan.

Israel’s registration law continues to severely restrict the operations of international non-governmental organisations, while key crossings remain closed. It is a total moral outrage that children are still going hungry while food that they need rots on shelves because aid agencies cannot get it in. Meanwhile, Hamas decommissioning has not yet started, and they retain a tight hold on areas of Gaza. Instead of the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops, Gazans are restricted to just 40% of the territory and are unable to access their land beyond the yellow line.

We urgently need new international energy, new pressure and new action to resuscitate the 20-point plan. For the UK, that means pressure in three priority areas. First, increased aid is urgent and must be unconditional. Despite all the challenges, UK aid is making a difference on the ground. Last year, we provided more than £80 million of humanitarian and early recovery funding, with funding protected again this year, enabling 650,000 people to receive food and improving access to water, sanitation and hygiene for 300,000 people.

UK support for mine clearance has enabled 45 acres of land to be made safe for community use and helped to clear 24 key sites, including medical facilities. Today, I can announce a further £1 million to support mine-clearance efforts, but some UK aid is still stuck in warehouses, including in Jordan and Egypt. Humanitarian support is a fundamental right—it cannot be bartered against other aspects of the peace plan. The Netanyahu Government must recognise their urgent humanitarian responsibility to open crossings and end the arbitrary restrictions so that the UN, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and international non-governmental organisations can fulfil their lifesaving mandates.

Secondly, we continue to press for the decommissioning of Hamas weapons to get under way. Hamas must destroy their terrorist infrastructure and weapons production sites as a first step towards full demilitarisation, and we have offered UK technical expertise to support this. Meanwhile, Israel must deliver on its commitments to withdraw.

Thirdly, we need practical support and the access that was promised for the transitional Palestinian National Committee. There are still too many obstacles in its path, and it is still not operating within Gaza itself, which makes it easier for Hamas to retain their hold. We have offered practical support to the committee as it endeavours to fulfil its mandate, and we will lead international calls to support it in co-ordination with the Palestinian Authority, because Palestine should be run by Palestinians.

That brings me to the West Bank. Following the ceasefire agreement, I warned that sustained peace would not be possible without a comparable effort to protect the viability of Palestinian statehood and rights in the West Bank. Instead, we have seen the opposite. Last week, a seven-month-old baby—his name was Sam Abu Haikal—was killed in his mother’s arms after the Israel defence forces opened fire on a family car in south Hebron. The UK supports the calls for an immediate and transparent investigation and robust accountability. Over the weekend, a gunman in Israel opened fire, with one killed and five injured—an attack that, shockingly, was applauded by Hamas.

We have also seen rising and incredibly disturbing settler violence, with Palestinian families and communities driven from their homes, brutally beaten while farming their own land. There have already been 950 violent incidents this year; in April, settlers shot dead two Palestinians while attacking a school, one of whom was a boy of 14. The UK condemns this shocking violence that terrorises Palestinians, and many Israelis are horrified by what they are seeing from settler extremists. The Netanyahu Government have condemned some settler violence, but that rings hollow when there is scant accountability and when the agenda of the hard-line settlers has now become intertwined with the approach of this Israeli Cabinet.

As such, let me set out what new action this Government will take. First, I am announcing a new wave of sanctions to target the networks that are supporting this violence—organisations including the Farms Association, which fundraises for illegal outposts that act as strongholds for settler aggression; Ahavat Gilad, which serves as the Farms Association’s financial conduit; and Artzenu, which has fundraised for military equipment for armed settler squads. This is the fourth package of sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers under this Labour Government. We have targeted some of the most notorious individuals, the most significant settler entities, and the extremist figures in the Israeli Cabinet who are inciting these acts. Today’s measures mean that the UK is second to none among international partners in targeting those who are facilitating and inciting settler violence.

We are also going further. On 22 May, the Prime Minister led a group of other world leaders in warning businesses not to bid for construction tenders for E1 or other settlement developments. However, this is not just about construction contracts, so today, alongside the Department for Business and Trade, I have strengthened our business risk guidance to make it clear and unambiguous that British citizens and businesses should not conduct any economic or financial activities in illegal Israeli settlements. Alongside my right honourable friend the Culture Secretary, I have also written today to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, requesting that it open an investigation into evidence of UK charities having links to illegal settlements. The Minister for the Middle East, my honourable friend the Member for Lincoln, Mr Falconer, will meet the commission’s chief executive officer tomorrow, because no UK charity should be supporting or enabling these breaches of international law.

The principles we are acting on are, I believe, widely supported across this House. We believe that settlements are a fundamental barrier to peace and a flagrant breach of international law, and that violent settler groups should not be profiting from the land they have seized from Palestinians. We also believe that we must continue to distinguish and protect trade with people and businesses across the state of Israel, trade that reflects long-standing and important ties between our countries and communities. We will continue to co-ordinate our approach with close allies and look at further concrete steps to counter settlement expansion and promote peace and security.

Finally, let me address our support for Palestinian governance. We are keeping up the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to deliver their vital reform commitments on education, welfare payments and elections. We are expanding direct practical help to the PA to reform and deliver effective government for their people, drawing on the deep expertise of the UK envoy for PA governance, Lord Michael Barber.

However, the PA face an enormous fiscal and healthcare crisis because the Israeli Government have a stranglehold on the Palestinian economy, including by withholding $5 billion of Palestinian tax revenue. That means that schools and health facilities struggle to stay open for more than one or two days a week. An effective PA is directly in Israel’s interest, so it is both utterly wrong and incredibly short-sighted for the Netanyahu Government to seek to undermine them at every turn. The UK has stepped up our efforts in support, alongside our support for reforms. This year, we provided the PA with funding that helped 5,300 health workers to sustain front-line services. Today, I can announce that we will provide at least £10 million further to support the Palestinian Authority to pay salaries over 2026, bolstering their ability to function and helping dedicated health professionals to do their essential work across hospitals, clinics and maternity services. Our focus will be to build more effective, more democratic and more accountable governance, and to reinforce the unity of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as inseparable pillars of the state of Palestine.

International pressure and partnership on the ground have been vital over the past 12 months, so later this week, I will travel to Paris along with other Foreign Ministers in advance of the peacebuilding conference. That conference will bring together Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups alongside international partners dedicated to advancing the two-state solution, because the momentum of last year must be reinvigorated for the sake of peace and security for all.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this important Statement.

The situation in the Middle East continues to cause global instability, and families here in the UK are feeling the impact at the petrol pump and in the shops. We all have an interest in securing stability in the region, and we should all hope that ceasefires eventually lead to lasting peace.

In recent days, we have seen a significant increase in tensions following the Iranian regime’s use of ballistic missiles in an attack on Israel. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for her confirmation that Israel has the right to defend itself. When Israel faces terrorist attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, when the Iranian regime fires ballistic missiles at Israel, we must all, in my view, be united on Israel’s right to self-defence.

We must all recognise that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, both internationally and, sadly, here in the UK. This House voted three times in the last Session to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, and Ministers now tell us that this is something the Government are committed to and that it will happen as soon as Ministers can. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s planned timescale for proscription?

Iran also continues to obstruct shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and the regime has murdered its own citizens in droves and refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to reassure the House that urgent work is ongoing with our US and EU partners to secure the safe passage of shipping through the strait, and can he say what work is being done to ensure that Iran eventually ends its nuclear programme? Noble Lords across the House, including on the Government Benches, will agree with us when we say that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.

Turning to Gaza and the West Bank, my right honourable friend Dame Priti Patel was right when she said in the other place:

“We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the West Bank and in Gaza”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/26; col. 164.]


There remain concerns about the delivery of aid which urgently need to be resolved, and we support all efforts to secure peace.

In that context, we know that Hamas must be disarmed and it must have no role in the future Government of Gaza or in the West Bank. Concerningly, however, Hamas is still a threat, and it is still powerful in Gaza. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the House a sense of the Government’s reaction to the news yesterday that the United States Agency for International Development has referred 101 current or former UNRWA staff members to the US State Department over their affiliation with Hamas, and in some cases, their involvement in the 7 October attacks themselves.

We believe that it would of course be preferable for the Lebanese Government to disarm Hezbollah. The questions my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked in the other place about the support the Government are giving to Lebanon went unanswered. Can the Minister say whether the Government have plans to go beyond the support we are already giving to the Lebanese armed forces, and to help them contribute to the disarmament and disbandment of Hezbollah?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, given that we had the opportunity yesterday to discuss Lebanon, I will focus today on Iran, Palestine and Sudan. I agree with the noble Lord that we are feeling the impact of the US-Iranian war here in the UK. Some 102 days ago, we were called on by the Conservative Opposition to be “all in” with the Trump Administration on the Iran war. I warned that that would be a mistake, as the case had not been made and there was no clear means by which it would be ended. Now, we have ceasefires in which the firing has not ceased. There is no end to the war, and civilians are still paying the price.

The convulsion in the global trade and energy markets continues and there seems to be no immediate or medium-term respite for the communities affected by it, especially those with humanitarian needs. Yesterday I was at a briefing on the situation in Afghanistan, where we were told in very clear terms that ships with food supplies—vital nutritional supplies—for Afghan children had been held up because they were waiting to exit the Strait of Hormuz. Both the United States and Iran have not offered any respite to allow humanitarian relief through the Strait of Hormuz, so I would be grateful if the Minister made strong representations that there are humanitarian consequences to the closure of the strait.

President Trump seems to have crippled the civilian economy in Iran, actively harming the very people he said the US was on its way to help, and, at the same time, has given the homicidal regime in Tehran astonishing strategic advantage. Its proxies have noticed, and it is why people are still under the thumb of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists after all this violence. Yesterday we heard from some in this House that there needs to be more violence to solve the situation, but as the former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid has said, “For the thousandth time”, violence without diplomacy is not sustainable, and I agree with him.

On the ongoing situation and tragedy in Gaza and Palestine, can the Minister confirm our Government’s assessment of the actions of the Board of Peace and any of the technical elements within it? We read reports that the Board of Peace currently has zero authorised funds available to it. Is that the Government’s assessment? Given the stasis and confusion of the Trump Administration regarding their intent for the Board of Peace, I remind the House that the Conservative Opposition said that we should be part of that too.

What is the current means by which humanitarian assistance is being provided within Gaza? I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s Statement: there is a considerable lack of action to deliver sufficient levels of humanitarian aid—it is not even anywhere close to where the 20-point plan said it would be. What is the Government’s assessment of the scale of the assistance being provided?

On the continuing violence in the West Bank, it is regrettable that there is still too high a level of impunity for those perpetuating violence there. I agree with the putting in place of additional sanctions, but there is too much impunity for not only settlers but those in the outposts. The outposts are prohibited under Israeli law, and there is lack of policing of the activity there. Will the Government ensure that anyone facilitating those who are sanctioned, either through financial or political support, will be brought within the sanctions regime and that that will apply to people in this country too?

Finally, there is far too little scrutiny of the Sudan conflict in this House, this Parliament and the UK, but it is incredibly linked with what is happening in the Middle East. Does the Minister agree with two of the key principles in the 12 September statement released last year by the Quad countries that Sudan’s future governance should be through an inclusive and transparent process, where civilians lead and are not controlled by any warring party, including those of the Muslim Brotherhood, so that Sudan, as well as other civilians across the region, can have more sustainable peace?

We all need to focus our minds on community cohesion now, and this links with the Urgent Question which we have just heard. There have been repugnant Islamophobic statements from the far right and repulsive antisemitic statements and actions from groups including the far left in this country. I reiterate my call for high-level, cross-party talks to lead to a consensus that antisemitism has no place on the streets of our country and is not British and that no single person in this country should be held to account for the actions of foreign Governments. It is not in the spirit of our country and it is repulsive.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their comments on the Statement made by my right honourable friend. I will try to deal with some of the questions that they raised; if I am not able to, I will follow up in writing.

Let me start with Iran. We are obviously concerned by the recent escalation and rise in tension. We absolutely encourage the US and Iran to continue with talks and to focus on de-escalation. I think that everyone in the House would agree with that.

I note the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about humanitarian aid not getting through the Strait of Hormuz. I am concerned about that and I promise to look into it further. The Strait of Hormuz must be reopened for trade, and indeed for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and elsewhere. The UK is working with the French on the multinational military mission to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but we cannot do that—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about this—until there is a sustainable ceasefire and we know exactly what is required. We are at the forefront of bringing together international co-operation to ensure that, once there is a ceasefire and the Strait of Hormuz is reopened, it stays open, with our support.

The noble Lord asked about proscription and so on. We are following the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC. The noble Lord will know that the National Security (State Threats) Bill has been introduced in the other place. We are determined to address state threats from proxies; it is absolutely essential for our national security and the safety of our communities. This House will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill very soon with my noble friend Lord Hanson. We hope, as the Home Secretary said yesterday, that it will be brought to the statute books shortly. It will give the Government powers similar to terrorism powers to act against state threats from proxies. We take that very seriously indeed.

The Government entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. We do not think that this war is the way to deliver that outcome, but we will continue to work with our allies and partners to focus on that. We do not want to see proliferation under any circumstances.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me to reaffirm the UK’s long-standing support for the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces. I am happy to do that. We will look specifically at what more help we can give them. I do not have time to talk at great length about Lebanon, but the situation in Lebanon is terrible. I answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, not so long ago about this. We regard Israeli strikes as reckless and disproportionate. The Lebanese Government are the legitimate authority in Lebanon and we will continue to support them and their armed forces. Hezbollah attacks on Israel must stop and Hezbollah must demilitarise. We are committed to that.

Turning now to Gaza, words almost fail me, frankly, to describe how extreme and serious the humanitarian crisis is there, and words rarely fail me. There are 1.9 million people displaced; there is a water and sanitation crisis; there is a public health crisis; there are families without shelter; and there are children without food. I know noble Lords know these things, but it is really important for us to understand what is going on. I do not have time to go through a long list of what is needed, but it is essential that food, medicine and fuel get through to Gaza as soon as possible. The problem is not that aid is not available—we have food rotting in warehouses. The problem is not that funding is not available. The problem is access. These crossings must reopen, they must stay open and the aid must get through.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about UNRWA. As the noble Lord knows, there have been a lot of concerns about UNRWA, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has raised them with me in the past. UNRWA now has Christian Saunders in charge and it has a reform programme, which we want to see taken forward. The reality—I am sorry, as I know this is a difficult dilemma—is that UNRWA is providing life-saving basic services on the ground. In order to get those services delivered, we have to continue to work with UNRWA.

On Palestinian governance, Hamas decommissioning has not started, and we want to see that happen as soon as possible. I am happy to say more about the support that we are giving to the Palestinian Authority following our historic recognition of the Palestine state and the two-state solution, but Hamas decommissioning is essential for making progress with Palestinian recognition.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about sanctions in relation to settlements on the West Bank. We have just announced a fourth round of sanctions, as my right honourable friend said in the other place. Our sanctions regime on West Bank settlers is stronger than that of any other country. He knows I am not going to give a running commentary on future sanctions, but we will use our sanction powers. As he knows, we have used them extensively in relation to the West Bank, including on members of the Israeli Cabinet in a personal capacity.

I want to say one other important thing which has been mentioned about the West Bank: the Government do not want to see UK companies involved in work in the West Bank. My right honourable friend has tightened the guidance and we shall keep that under review. We do not, under any circumstances, want UK companies involved in settlement building in the West Bank. The Prime Minister issued a joint statement on 22 May, specifically on E1, saying that we do not want UK companies involved in that. Further, we have been in touch with the Charity Commission about charities that purport to support West Bank settlers and, in relation to my earlier comments, those that are involved with the Iranian regime. We want to see the Charity Commission doing more in relation to those purported charities, and we are working with it on that.

I am happy to repeat what my noble friend Lady Chapman said in relation to Israel’s right to self-defence—of course we understand and support that. We have not forgotten what happened on 7 October, and we have made it clear that attacks on Israel from Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran or any proxies should stop. We are friends and allies of Israel and we will continue to be so. We do not support movements for disinvestment and all the rest of it.

We are concerned about antisemitism, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned. We have provided £80 million to the Community Security Trust, but I am not complacent, and I do not think anyone in the Government or your Lordships’ House is complacent, about this. We have to do more. We have to bring different bits of the Government together to work more closely on antisemitism. We are not where we want to be. That is partly to do with what is going on in the international arena, but we must address these issues domestically as well. In that context, I entirely endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about community cohesion.

On Sudan—very briefly, because I am now nearly out of time—we indeed endorse the Quad process and, as the noble Lord knows, we are part of that process and want to see the kind of government that he recommended and talked about.

16:40

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, if I may, it is completely naive of the Government to expect the Lebanese Government and armed forces to deal with Hezbollah. They are completely incapable of doing that and have been for years. The only people capable of dealing with Hezbollah are the IDF. If Israel does have the right to defend itself, and if we want to see peace, we should be supporting the Israelis in dealing with Hezbollah.

On this question of antisemitism, singling out Israel and holding it to standards not applied to other countries are clear examples of antisemitism under the official IHRA definition. This is already the second debate this week on Israel. Over the last few years, Parliament has discussed Israel more than any other issue—not just more than any international issue but more than any domestic issue, including the economy, unemployment, crime or the NHS. The public out there look at Parliament and think this is utterly mad. Do the Government and Parliament not understand that singling out the world’s only Jewish state, holding it to standards not applied to anywhere else, and falsely accusing Israel of committing these terrible crimes is bound to drive hostility towards people who are identified with Israel, which is the vast majority of the Jewish community? This is why I believe Parliament is playing a large role in driving the explosion of antisemitism that we have seen on the streets of Britain.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I can answer the question first. The noble Lord raised two issues in relation to Hezbollah; let me try to deal with those. We have made our position clear on Hezbollah. He takes the view that the only people who can deal with Hezbollah are Israel, but we do need to see progress on its actions in Lebanon and we will continue to support the Lebanese Government. We think that is the right thing to do. I am sorry if the noble Lord does not agree with that, but we do think it is the right thing to do.

With regard to Israel, I hope—I was going to say my noble friend, and I think he is my noble friend in some ways—my noble friend Lord Austin would not include me or any of my remarks in what he said about Parliament and Israel, and I do not entirely concur, frankly. I do think, though—and, to this extent, I agree with him very strongly—that we should watch our language and mind our words. People do watch out for and listen to what we say, both here and in the other place, and I would not want to endorse the view that Israel should be held to higher standards than other countries. But it is a very concerning situation and, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we are supporters of Israel.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register on the Middle East and conflict resolution. Perhaps I could push the Minister further on the issue of Lebanon raised by my noble friend Lord Callanan. The United Kingdom, as he rightly acknowledged, has a long-standing support for Lebanon and the Lebanese armed forces. During the last visit I made with the then Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Cameron, to Lebanon, President Aoun—who was then General Aoun of the Lebanese armed forces—requested uniforms and training. These things are required now; they should not be requiring consideration. I press the Minister: what specific support are we giving in support of Resolution 1701 of the UN Security Council, with Britain playing its part and exercising its levers? I am also a bit concerned by the fact that there has been no high-level engagement—visits to Israel and to the Occupied Palestinian Territories— since 2024. We must engage with the Government of Israel to ensure that we see long-term peace and stability in the region. At the moment, I cannot see that happening.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his experience and track record in this area. On the question of the practical help that we should be offering to Lebanon and the Lebanese army, I am very happy to accept his challenge. If there are practical things we can do, we should be doing them. That is absolutely right. I will take that back to the department and find out exactly what the situation is. That does not seem to me at all inconsistent with where the Government stand on this.

On the question of discussions with Israel, the noble Lord will know that in the current situation these things are extremely difficult. But we will keep talking to all the parties involved. We have a significant role in the various groups that have been set up around all these conflicts and we will continue to be part of that, including talking to Israel.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that no minority has contributed more positively to this country, in the past and now, than the Jewish community in our midst?

The Statement is one that I generally recognise and applaud, and it appears to have all-party support. But are we not in danger of ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is so intertwined within the communities in Lebanon that it is very difficult indeed to expect the Lebanese Government to launch a campaign against it? Should we not also recognise that there is no real prospect of Hamas decommissioning its weapons? That would be the end of Hamas. It is also unrealistic to expect the Israeli Cabinet, as currently constituted, to exert any real pressure on settler violence. These assumptions are all somewhat unrealistic.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Let me try to deal with some of the points my noble friend has raised. Frankly, I would not want to single out a particular community as having made a greater contribution to this country than any other. But I absolutely recognise the contribution the Jewish community has made to this nation’s life, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances for that community. I stand absolutely four-square behind my own admiration for the Jewish community in Britain.

On Hezbollah and demilitarising, let me be absolutely clear. The Government do not think Hezbollah has any place in the future of Lebanon. That is our view. On decommissioning Hamas, our view is that we want to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian governance. That is why we have taken the steps we have to support the Palestinian Authority. We have given it £10 million this year. We want to deliver some basic services. We are funding 5,300 health professionals in Palestine. My noble friend Lord Barber—Michael Barber—is working there too.

The thing I really want to stress, in relation to what my noble friend Lord Anderson said, is the importance of civil society. When I travel in that region, many people in Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, and so on, do not share the views of their Governments and the various actors in the areas. Tomorrow, I am happy to say, the Foreign Secretary, along with Canada and Australia, will launch a peacebuilding fund that seeks to work specifically with civil society in Israeli and Palestinian communities. I greatly welcome that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the £10 million extra funding that will go to the Palestinian Authority. Can he explain why this Government are making that payment without first requiring the Palestinian Authority to comply with the demands of this country, the EU and the United States to address governance concerns so as to remove not just inefficiency but corruption, and why we are paying that money when the Palestinian Authority refuses to abandon its outrageous policy of paying the families of convicted murderers?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Government do not support the prisoner payments, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, and we have addressed that issue directly with the Palestinian Authority, so we hope that that is not going to continue. On the wider point, though, I sense that what the noble Lord is really asking me is whether we should require more of the Palestinian Authority before we part with large sums of money, and so on. To be direct about that, my answer is that we are committed to the two-state solution. The Palestinian Authority needs our support. Without that, there is no prospect for the two-state solution, including change in the approach to settlements on the West Bank. I know it is not comfortable; I am not pretending it is. I am not suggesting that this is all straightforward, and he knows I am not, but we feel that we should get behind the Palestinian Authority, within reasonable bounds.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to these questions. I will focus on Lebanon. There is talk about how the Lebanese army and the Lebanese Government should do this and do that, but can the Minister tell us how the Governments of the UK have reduced aid to Lebanon? It is all right talking about what they should do, but the Lebanese army has had its aid reduced. The problem with Lebanon in a nutshell is that Hezbollah is very active in the south of Lebanon and the north of Israel, and no one is talking about the Israeli villages and kibbutzim in northern Israel, which are evacuated and under attack. What Israel is doing, rightly or wrongly, is defending the people of northern Israel. What is needed is that Hezbollah should do what was agreed originally: it should stay on the Beirut side of the Litani River. If it stayed on the Beirut side of the Litani River, there would be less contact and less reason for Israel to attack. Can the Minister please help us by telling us how we can resolve this?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

On the question about Hezbollah, I think I have made the Government’s view clear. On the question about our support for Lebanon, we have provided, as I think the noble Lord knows, a great deal of financial assistance over many years to the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese army, and we are still committed to supporting them. He knows, as we all know, what the pressures are in terms of development aid and the decisions the Government have taken; but I do not think it would be fair to say that the Government have not supported the Lebanese Government. On the question about northern Israel, of course we want to see territorial integrity in those communities, and we understand the pressures they are under, but we want to see territorial integrity in the whole neighbourhood.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the Government said that the two-state solution was still the only way forward, and that is certainly my belief. Does the Minister not concede that, if the building in the E1 area—3,000 new houses—goes ahead, that will build out, in effect, any chance of a two-state solution ever? Given that, I think, that is a fact, does he not think that yesterday, in the Statement, the Foreign Secretary could have gone a bit further, and rather than advising British companies and British citizens not to take part in the construction or the purchase of any property in the illegal E1 area, that should have been made illegal?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not want to take a doom-laden view on this, but the Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries have made very clear what the consequences of E1 going ahead will be. That is why we are against it, and that is why we have set our position out clearly. I would not want to go quite as far as the noble Lord does in saying that it ruins all hope of the two-state solution, but it is very serious. On the other point he made—this point was made extensively in the other place—about why we do not ban this altogether, the Government’s view, and I want to be completely straightforward about this, is that there is legitimate trade with Israel and legitimate activities with Israel and civil society and we do not want to compromise them. If this advice is insufficient, if I can put it like that, we will review it and keep it under review. We are completely clear, as I have already said, and I am very happy to reinforce it, that we do not want British companies involved in E1 or any of the other settlements on the West Bank, and we will do what is necessary.

I shall come back very quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have the official answer to his question on prisoner payments, so I had better read it out for the record to prevent myself getting into trouble. We welcome the important commitments made by the Palestinian Authority to reform prisoner payments so that welfare payments are needs-based and delinked from violent actions. I hope I have made that clear, and I will not have to correct myself.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, at the start of the American operation against Iran, His Majesty’s Government refused the use of some bases, including RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia. Since then, permission has been granted to the Americans. Does that permission still stand, and will it stand until operations against Iran are complete?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that this is not our war and that we will permit the use of our bases for defensive reasons only. That remains the position of the Government, and it has not changed.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

Let me help the Minister. In a previous answer, he said that it is difficult to go to Israel. El Al flies twice a day from Heathrow, and I am sure any Government Minister who wishes to can go to Israel. In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary said that the Minister for the Middle East was due to go to a meeting, I think today, with the Charity Commission’s chief executive specifically to discuss UK charities having links in disputed areas. Will the Minister explain whether the said Minister raised the issue of charities in the UK supporting the IRGC, the Muslim Brotherhood or Palestinian rejectionists or—dare I say it—is it just Jewish charities that are concerning the Government?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am sure I did not mean to say that it is difficult to go to Israel, but even if I did say it, I am grateful for the helpful advice on that. I think the noble Lord knows what I meant, which is that this is a complex dynamic and who we talk to when is not straightforward. On the Charity Commission, the meeting took place this morning. I can confirm that it was not confined to charities that support West Bank settlements. I am very happy to ask the department to write to the noble Lord about the others, but I know it involved some of the places, charities and activities that he is talking about. I was not there, obviously.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the pointless recognition of Palestine, which ran counter to international law, has made no difference at all. I note that in the Statement it is taken for granted that east Jerusalem will be part of Palestine. I remind the Government that when Arabs were in control of east Jerusalem—indeed, the whole of Jerusalem—between 1948 and 1967, they wrecked it. There was no Jewish access to holy places. They were deliberately desecrated. The thought of that happening again is really too dreadful. It is about time that the Government came to terms with the possibility of a two-state solution. If 2 million Arabs can live in Israel peacefully, why cannot some Israeli settlers, as they are called, live in Palestine, if it is ever created, without any trouble?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Government’s view, as I think the noble Baroness knows, is that we support the two- state solution. That is why we recognise Palestine. I know she is a long-standing critic of that position and I understand her scepticism, but that is the Government’s view, and we want to try to make that work. On Jerusalem, that is the most important city for many people of many faiths around the world, and of course we shall want to see it protected.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

We want to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Lib Dems.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place—

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, we have just had a Conservative contributor. We will now listen to the Lib Democrats.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, there have been plenty of Conservative contributions. I want to press the Minister. He said the Government would regularly review potential action against those involved in illegal settlement activities. Will they commit to reviewing that on a monthly basis, as asked by my colleague Calum Miller in the other place?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not think I quite have the authority to give that commitment on behalf of the Government today. As the noble Lord knows, and as I said in my opening response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I am not going to give a running commentary on future arrangements about sanctions. That is not the Government’s view. However, as I have said, we are at the forefront in relation to West Bank settlements, and we will continue to review that as necessary.