Employment Rights Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because it is appropriate for workers who meet the qualifying criteria to receive a guaranteed hours offer without having to make a request for one.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, and shall also speak to Motions B, E, E1, H and H1.

I start by thanking your Lordships’ House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage. The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration that it received during earlier stages. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.

I believe that the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons strikes the right balance between promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers, while providing the flexibility that good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success.

By now, after the extensive debates we have had at each stage of the Bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards for workers. These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them today. However, I will speak to Motions A, B, E and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the Bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously and we have had the pleasure to meet the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, to discuss their amendments. I will take these in turn, outlining why the Government believe these amendments are unnecessary or would disrupt the balance of the Bill.

On the right-to-request model for the right to guaranteed hours, I will speak to Motion A, relating to Amendment 1, and Motion A1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period explaining the workers’ right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The Government fully share the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.

Having discussed this with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guaranteed hours contract as the Bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should then be a right to request or opt into guaranteed offers after each reference period. I share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers while seeking to carefully manage burdens placed on business. The Government share this intention and are committing to delivering the promises set out in Make Work Pay and supporting businesses to drive the country’s economic growth. I certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters.

I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it the most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.

I move on to Motion B, which relates to Lords Amendments 7 and 8 on the right to payment and the definition of short notice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for originally tabling the amendments for consideration. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the Bill would pre-empt the Government’s planned consultation and limit our discretion to consider a range of options. The Government have chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations, allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation while enabling the Government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary legislation.

There will be a familiarisation period, so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations. I hope this reassures noble Lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled with more than the period of short notice, which is to be set in regulations. Therefore, Amendment 7 is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have mentioned the lack of detail in the Bill. As somebody who has been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I am very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law in a Bill. That has been the practice, from my experience, since the mid-1980s.

My noble friend has just made the point about the business and trade discussions. Business groups have written urging many noble Lords to support amending the Bill, particularly the qualifying period. The Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives and organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal. We will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect, adopting a very sensible approach of proper consultation. Any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer’s favour. My noble friend made the point that repealing the two-year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is that most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair.

I welcome the current journey of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As my noble friend pointed out, when this protection was introduced there was a six-month qualifying period. The Conservative Government increased it to one year, then to two years, so I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is now on. If he goes from two years down to six months, it will not be very hard for him to accept day-one rights. We are on the right pathway and can very much welcome that.

I welcome the Resolution Foundation’s contribution, which I have heard on the radio and read. It is important that employees can enforce their rights. We are contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But, to come back to my noble friend’s point, what often constrains our economic growth strategy is that many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they are currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades and new occupations. That is what is happening in our economy at the moment. The flexibility that we want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day- one rights.

I come back to the other amendments. On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, we are determined to address the issue of one-sided flexibility. I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally, but the current one-sided flexibility can leave people unclear on when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Under the Bill, there are several ways, depending on the circumstances, in which an employer can approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, such as using limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways. The Bill absolutely covers that.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. To create an economy that works for all, we want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, and we think that employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. The Bill is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that right.

The provisions in the Bill will apply to all employers, allowing good employers to benefit from a level playing field, which is the important point here. We need to recognise that most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. This legislation is underpinning those good employers, so that the cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. We are trying to ensure that there is fairness at all levels.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I was hoping to hear an answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: without a qualifying period, will employers take on people with a criminal record? That question has not been answered. Secondly, Clause 25 talks about the right not to be unfairly dismissed, so this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying period is not quite right. Will the Minister answer that difficult question? Would you employ somebody who has a criminal record without a qualifying period?

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I was about to make exactly the same point, but the noble and right reverend Lord beat me to it. The Minister has not addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against the day-one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders, who we are trying to get rehabilitated, or many young people—20 year-old boys and girls—who have never had a job before. The Government’s own impact statement seems to bear this out. The Minister has not even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly has not addressed it in his reply. This is the best argument made against the Government’s proposals.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Sadly, I have not got through my contribution in response to all the questions, so please give me a bit of time. I will certainly address that specific question when I get to it.

The general point on day-one rights that we are trying to make—my noble friend made it very adequately —is that they currently apply in certain circumstances, so they are not a novel, innovative thing, and they have been a demand for some time. On probation, most good employers have probationary periods that they use for a purpose. That purpose is ensuring that employers can retain an employee so that they can offer opportunities to improve and address issues of competency or capacity.

So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss; they are an opportunity to continue employment. It is important to say that, and the point about a chilling effect is not correct, because all good employers have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within the probationary period. This legislation tries to promote that and to ensure that it exists.

I was looking for a particular page, which I have now found. There was a particular issue in relation to offenders.

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

Ex-offenders.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, it was on ex-offenders. I certainly saw a page on that and will hopefully get to it soon. I will repeat the point I am making: the probationary period is an opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job.

There we go; I knew I had the page somewhere and that I had read it. Currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

[Noble Lords]

No.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Two questions were posed to me: one was about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

We seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that, if this day-one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person will not be employed in the first place. It is not that they will be fired afterwards; it is that the employer will not feel able to take the risk or take a chance on them in the first place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

If you have a spent conviction, you do not have to disclose it, so I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I challenge noble Lords on their experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, sitting opposite me— I am sorry to name her in person—worked with me in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country. It has very positive employment policies, including very positive policies for flexible working, and also proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.

The simple fact that needs to be understood is that probationary periods provide the opportunity for an employer, who has spent a lot of money recruiting someone, to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think we need to consider the position of SMEs, as well as big employers such as Tesco. I cannot speak for Tesco any more, but it contributed to a letter that was sent to us all, and everybody was concerned on this point. Some of this probationary stuff has to be written into the Bill, or at least published before the Bill is passed: when I was a civil servant, you did the SIs at the same time as the Bill. We really need clarity here before we pass the Bill, because we cannot go into reverse once it is passed.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I wish I had heard the noble Baroness say that when she was a Minister and many other Bills were being pushed through in recent years and we did not have statutory instruments. A classic case that noble Lords here will remember was the minimum service level Bill that was pushed through the last Parliament. There was no indication of statutory instruments there. I repeat that the important point is about the opportunity to properly consult and agree a proper process to introduce the necessary secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I would argue very strongly that it does. I come back to the point—and I make it strongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his party increased the qualifying period. It started at six months, then went to one year and then two years; now he is saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one rights at the beginning. That is what we need.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the Minister what his answer to that is?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thought I had made my response. This is what we are trying to do: where there are specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that a probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses have three or six months and can extend that to ensure that issues of capability and competency are addressed. We are also ensuring that we look at all other opportunities. My noble friend made the point that every change we have made in the labour market to improve the conditions and the opportunities for workers and employees has been resisted, and resisted strongly, particularly by the party opposite. But we now have the situation—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the Minister could respond to this. There are more opponents to these parts of the Bill than just the party opposite, as the Minister described them. All the concerns that have been raised—across the House, but also outside this House—have come from a wide range of organisations and interests that are actually interested in workers’ rights. They are concerned that a lack of forethought about what day-one rights mean will impact some people, who will never get the chance to have workers’ rights because they will not be employed: it will lead to a risk-averse employer.

I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers’ rights view. That is misinformation and is not even reflected in the discussion we have had today. So will the Minister answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation but by a wide range of employers and organisations that are worried that, just because it says on the tin that this is for workers, that does not mean that it is in the tin, and that the consultation afterwards will not help a Bill that is cemented into law?

This Government constantly tell us about the rule of law. We are worried that they are about to make a law that is unbreakable with any consultation afterwards and that that will be bad for workers. That is the driving factor of our concerns.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.

There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.

The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.

Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7A and 8A.

7A: Because it is unnecessary; the Bill already produces the effect provided for by the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 23A and 107A to 120A, do not insist on its Amendment 106, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 106.

23A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

--- Later in debate ---

120A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.

47A: Because requiring employers to permit workers to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance hearings by persons other than trade union officials or other workers would likely lead to an increase in the cost, complexity and length of such hearings.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions M and M1. In this group we will debate amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade union industrial action ballots. I will take these in turn, to outline the Government’s belief that these amendments are unnecessary.

I will first speak to Motion G, relating to Amendment 47, and Motion G1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter.

The Government believe that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or who have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend. This means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.

Employers are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they wish and deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions to the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu, which, instead of seeking to change the law on right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see whether any changes are appropriate. I am happy, today, to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the Government to consider this issue in further detail. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord and I ask him not to press his amendment.

I will now speak to Motion M, regarding Amendment 62, and Motion M1, insisting on this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are clear that we want to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more co-operation and less disruption. This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016—an Act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandate. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Some 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as was mentioned in the previous stages of the Bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament, and elections for MPs and local councillors, do not normally include any turnout threshold, but are not therefore considered less legitimate. Further, local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%.

Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations in future, with the intention, with good reason—I notice my noble brother opposite has made a comment—that this is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. I hope that that will encourage greater participation than that provided by the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates have broad and demonstrable support.

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made throughout the Bill’s passage. I hope your Lordships agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and the measures set out in the Bill. I hope noble Lords agree to the Motion before them. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on having introduced a really important issue. Undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any individual and, as my noble friend Lady Barran pointed out, these individuals do need to be accompanied. I therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this, and I agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been raised in this debate.

Motion M1 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I must express my disappointment in Brother Collins—the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and his whole attitude that we no longer need 50% to call a strike. What sort of message does that send?

It has been over one year since this Government came to power. In that time, they have proceeded and presided not over progress but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations and said that a new partnership was on the horizon. However, what we have had instead is a Government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it “reform”. Their great idea is to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, removing the last protection that the public have when vital services grind to a halt.

They handed out no-strings-attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA, with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. What happened then? It spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, admitted that the majority of BMA members did not even vote for strike action. Yet this Government’s answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption: hospitals stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark and the very arteries of our public lives clogged by chaos.

It does not stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, labour shortages and regulation will now face inspectors at their doors; refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines. What a message to the entrepreneurs, builders and wealth creators who keep this country moving. I urge the Government to accept this amendment to protect our small businesses, entrepreneurs and public services.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.

In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.

I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.

Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.

I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.

We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A.

48A: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H, that the House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 61A and 72A.

61A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

72A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 59 restores the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years—even during the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major—before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, whereby new members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. The Government believe, as I said earlier, that the 2016 Act placed unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against trade unions’ core role of negotiation, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We have a clear manifesto commitment to repeal it.

We seek to redress this balance and remove burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. We are not—and I make this absolutely clear—removing choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out. This same form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatever on any other aspect of their union membership. Most union membership forms are now online and most of these details are contained in a highly accessible form. So we are not removing choice; people will be very aware of what they are doing.

It is important to stress that trade unions are not groups that conscript or compel members to join them; they are democratic organisations whose political funds are ultimately controlled by their members through the democratic structures of the union. All members are free to participate in these democratic structures and thereby to decide how their political fund is used. Members who object to a union’s political fund can use the union’s democratic structures to close the fund, get involved in the union to be part of the decisions about how the fund is spent, and opt out of political fund contributions on an individual basis. These are all important elements of choice.

Political funds are one mechanism that union members can utilise to represent their collective interests. Political funds are not just about affiliations to certain political parties. Indeed, some unions do not contribute to any political party at all. Political funds can allow unions to participate in campaigns on a range of issues in their members’ interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas, and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence about the issues they face at work. Indeed, as I have repeatedly said, UNISON operates two separate political funds, or two parts of one political fund, related to affiliation and to wider campaigning.

I also remind noble Lords that establishing a political fund is not a requirement for trade unions and that the majority of unions do not operate one. Political funds are set up through democratic structures of a union and must have sufficient support from its membership to do so. These structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how political funds are utilised. What we propose today returns us to a system that is both workable and proportionate. We do not wish to saddle unions with excessive paperwork when the principle of choice is already safeguarded.

I hope this reassures noble Lords that automatic opt-ins will reduce the administrative burden on unions while retaining members’ capacity to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. Once again, I hope we can move on in relation to this issue and respect what the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto, restoring the rights for unions that have existed for over 70 years. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

[Lord Burns]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 61 and 72.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, because I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, seeks to test the opinion of the House, he will have the support of the official Opposition.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, context is of course all-important in this debate. An arrangement was made that lasted from 1945 to 2016, and the important thing to keep stressing is that this is about the ability of unions to express their policies and concerns in a particular way, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, highlighted, is highly regulated. But the decisions of a union involve all the members. The policy of a union is decided by the democratic structures that determine the outcome or objectives of those political funds.

There is no doubt that we were all very surprised and concerned about the sudden introduction in 2016 of something that changed a practice that had existed from 1945, and in 1945 the opt-out was introduced to replace what a Conservative Government had done in 1921. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said to me when we met, there had been a swing between two positions that could create uncertainty. But in 2016, everyone in this Chamber knew exactly what the impact of the original proposals in the 2016 Bill would result in, and that it would have a severe impact on the political activity of trade unions.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does the Minister accept, in talking about the impact on trade unions, that the position is now very different in terms of the historical context, given that union membership has shrunk to such a degree in the workplace that it is now more dominant in the public sector than in the productive private sector? Does he accept that, under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, we are pivoting one section of the workforce to a position of dominance over all sections, and it is rather undemocratic?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position at all. In fact, historically, a lot of public sector unions did not have political funds, and if they did, they certainly did not affiliate to any political party. I mentioned in my introduction that when NUPE merged with NALGO, they had two separate arrangements to ensure that the culture and traditions of those two unions could be maintained.

I come back to the point that no one was expecting the arrangement that had existed since 1945—a highly regulated arrangement, let us not forget, around political funds—to suddenly change. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches expressed concern about that. In fact, such concern was expressed across all parties that it resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Burns, organising a Select Committee that actually mitigated against that sudden change of opting into a political fund. The noble Lord proposed a sort of soft landing, so that the measure would not impact on unions immediately, and it was introduced for new members. He has given us the figures about the new members, and certain unions have a churn.

I repeat: political funds are the funds of the whole union policy decision-making process. Individual members, whether or not they contract out of the political fund, still have an absolute right to determine the policy through the democratic structures of that union and can determine whether the union expresses support for one political party or another.

I come back to a fundamental principle, which I urge noble Lords to consider: that a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is where unions can have an important voice. On many occasions I do not agree with union policies, and on many occasions we may feel uncomfortable about those policies, but they are a vital part of our democracy. What was decided in 2016 was to stop or hinder that voice, and we are trying now to recognise trade unions as a collective voice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that they are not like the National Trust or other such organisations. They are democratic organisations that are highly regulated through a whole host of legislation, and, of course, the political fund rules have to be submitted and approved by the certification officer.

I urge noble Lords to think back to the 2016 debate —to why all sides of this House were concerned about the impact of those proposals, and to focus on why trade unions need to have a political voice. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about new members applying online. The old idea was that the contracting-out provisions were in a rulebook, a magazine published once every so often. Now, the Bill will make it clear to members when they join what they can do. That is an important element of choice. I urge noble Lords to consider the position and to support the Government’s Motion.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I think it was suggested that it might be difficult, if not impossible, for members to find out how their political fund was expended. Does the Minister agree that Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives every member the right to inspect not merely the accounts but all the accounting records of a union political fund or general fund? That means every receipt, bill and invoice. They can inspect those records, even accompanied by an accountant.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as I got carried away with the points I was making about contracting out and forgot to address his specific issue, which he raised with me previously. I have the letter that my noble friend Lady Jones wrote to him, and I am quite happy to be absolutely clear that we are removing the additional reporting requirement introduced by the 2016 Act for unions to provide additional information about their political expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer. We are simply returning to the reporting requirements that existed pre 2016, with unions’ annual returns available for public inspection—an additional point my noble friend made—and they will continue to include information relating to governance and finance of the trade union, including management of their political funds, as they have done for many years. Repealing the 2016 Act is of course a manifesto commitment. But my noble friend is right that accountability on expenditure is very much through access to information that is provided for already in legislation.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed but not entirely surprised. I can assure the Minister that I have no objection to how political funds are used. When the whole notion of political funds was established, it was clearly for the support of political parties—that was what the debate was back in 1910 and 1920 and that is not the issue at heart.

The issue is how people express their decision on whether they wish to join the political fund or not. I continue to hope I can persuade the Government there is merit in trying to find a settled resolution to this issue which all parties can support. I believe it can be done. The Minister already outlined the procedures that will be required under the Government’s proposals in terms of telling people what the political fund is for and explaining to them that they have the ability to opt out. I think all we require is to move that along so that people are presented at the time they join with a clear choice. They should know exactly what is in front of them and what the options are. That is the way in which we can move this issue on; it has gone on, as we discussed when we met, since 1921. It has gone backwards and forwards. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 62A.

62A: Because it is appropriate to remove the provision that industrial action is regarded as having the support of a ballot only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in the ballot did so.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.

Motion M1 (as an amendment to Motion M)

Moved by

Starvation as a Weapon of War

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend for securing this debate. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The simple fact is that millions of people today are dangerously malnourished because of conflict, and too often this malnourishment has devastating consequences, in particular for children. It has severe and often irreversible impacts on their physical growth, cognitive development and immune system, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and ill health, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, highlighted.

It also impacts on the very thing we want to achieve: economic development. Growth, jobs and education are the key elements for changing this disastrous situation. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, is absolutely right about malnutrition: addressing nutrition is the foundation for real change. The Government of course acknowledge that the deliberate deprivation of food, water and other essentials for civilian survival is a growing and persistent threat.

Let me address the questions from my noble friend Lord Browne and other noble Lords on ODA and the current situation. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that for us to achieve a safer and more prosperous world, we need to address aggression, particularly the prevention of conflict, which is a priority. Certainly, the difficult decisions we have made have been in response to the aggression committed by the Russian Federation. But I stress what noble Lords have heard me say before: ODA is not our only tool in ensuring peace, prevention and development. We need to use every tool in our toolkit to ensure that we can focus. A key element of that is supporting those conditions to ensure investment and increase trade. We are absolutely focused on that.

Promoting compliance with international humanitarian law is at the heart of our foreign policy. Our debate has underscored a sobering truth: as many as 70% of major food crises are directly linked to conflict and insecurity, according to the World Food Programme. We have seen patterns of sieges, blockades and denial of access in multiple contexts, so ably evidenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, whose personal experience is true evidence of this terrible situation. In too many cases, these patterns are not collateral consequences of war; they are being used deliberately to weaken, punish and displace civilian populations.

It was against this backdrop that, as the Minister covering Africa and human rights, I attended the launch event in May this year for the Government’s legal handbook on conflict, hunger and international humanitarian law. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, this handbook is not only a guide for our diplomats, lawyers and Armed Forces but a very important advocacy tool, setting out clearly what the law requires of all parties to conflict, including non-state armed groups. This is important because famines are significantly less likely to occur if all warring parties, including non-state armed groups, comply with international law.

The handbook also firmly backs UN Security Resolution 2417, as my noble friend set out, which helped the United Kingdom in 2018 when we joined the consensus on the amendment on the intentional use of starvation as a method of warfare in non-international armed conflicts—which was adopted, as she rightly pointed out, by the ICC Assembly of States Parties in 2019. Our position on ratification remains under review. The simple fact is that we need to ensure a very strong coalition for action, as she pointed out.

Many noble Lords also referred to Gaza, where we are witnessing a catastrophic man-made famine. As the Prime Minister said, the welcome ceasefire agreement must be implemented in full, without delay, accompanied by the lifting of all restrictions on life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza. To respond to my noble friend Lord Browne, the Foreign Secretary delivered a very strong message at the UN Security Council on 23 September. We also led joint statements with over 30 partners, pressing Israel to allow food, medical supplies and fuel to reach those in most desperate need. The ceasefire is that opportunity to get desperately needed humanitarian aid in there, fast.

We are also funding a £74 million aid package this financial year for Palestine and Palestinians across the region. Alongside our diplomatic efforts to increase humanitarian access, this is contributing to providing food, shelter and support for over two million people. There is no doubt that this is saving lives.

Many noble Lords, but my noble friend Lady Brown in particular, along with the noble Lord, Lord, Oates, highlighted Sudan. We are deeply alarmed by the UN fact-finding mission’s findings that starvation has been deliberately used there as a method of warfare. No one could have failed to be moved by this morning’s BBC “Today” programme, which had first-hand evidence of the impact of that starvation on not only the civilian population in general but children in particular, and its absolutely horrific consequences. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, almost 25 million people are acutely food insecure, and almost 9 million are on the brink of starvation. This is absolutely abhorrent. I congratulate the BBC for reporting on that, but we are not getting sufficient focus on Sudan, and we need to do more.

As the third largest humanitarian donor in Sudan, we have already provided aid to over 2.5 million people since the conflict started. To reassure noble Lords, we are using our position at the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council to call out violations and demand rapid, unimpeded humanitarian access. At last year’s UNGA, I also led a meeting where we brought in first-hand evidence from the victims of sexual violence and from those who were suffering as a consequence of food deprivation. In October, we led efforts to renew the UN fact-finding mission’s mandate for a third year, securing the strongest council support and reinforcing the independent mechanism investigating human rights abuses across Sudan.

I will briefly mention Ukraine. We are fully committed to holding Russia to account for its illegal and barbaric actions, and we have welcomed the agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe to have a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. It is a good example of how we can hold people to account. We are absolutely strong supporters of the ICC, and we are determined to hold those responsible for serious violations of IHL to account. To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, we are also supporting Ukraine and the training of its troops in international humanitarian law. It is a good idea to see how that works in practice, and how we can spread that good practice.

It has been a great, important debate, focusing on issues that are often too silent. We must ensure that starvation must never be a weapon of war. We must never be silent when it is used as one, because protecting civilians is not optional; it is both a legal obligation and a moral imperative.

Equality Act 2010: Meaning of “Sex”

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are considering the draft updated code and, if the decision is taken to approve it, the Minister will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 sitting days to consider the code when it is laid. It is important that the correct process for laying the code is followed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has today had to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities, reminding her that it is six months since the Supreme Court judgment, which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, and six weeks since the commission submitted its draft of the new code of practice for implementation of a judgment that the Home Secretary reportedly regards as “beyond reproach”.

Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that the pitfalls of delay in producing the statutory guidance include that service providers continue to rely on the existing 2011 code, which is now partly illegal and must be quickly revoked and replaced, and that many organisations continue to drag their feet, wrongly claiming that they need to wait for the code, and risk breaking the law in their treatment of women and same-sex attracted people?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The code is absolutely important. That is why it needs to be dealt with properly and appropriately. The draft code, which is over 300 pages long, was submitted on 4 September and it is really important that the Government consider this across Whitehall. We also have a duty, as specified in the Equality Act, to consult the devolved Administrations, too. So the timescale the noble Baroness is talking about is not a delayed process. It is absolutely important that we ensure that the Supreme Court ruling is properly applied in the draft code of conduct, and we will ensure that it is done properly.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that six weeks, which included the summer, is actually not a very long time? Does he agree that the crucial matter here is to ensure that the guidance is right, respects the dignity and rights of individuals and groups, places an equality duty on public bodies and businesses, in scope with our legislation, and ensures that legal challenges are avoided by not rushing into this matter through being bullied by the EHRC, editorials in the Times, and others?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. As the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who is in her place, acknowledges in her letter, it is important that the Secretary of State can take a fully informed decision. That is also why, although the letter was received today, officials have approached the Equality and Human Rights Commission, requesting additional material that needs to be reviewed as part of giving a thorough consideration of the code. It was acknowledged in today’s letter that the request for additional information is necessary. Obviously, we have not received this information from the EHRC.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is highly desirable that the guidance, or codes of practice, when published, should be as sensitive as possible about the needs and interests of those individuals who have by long usage or certification acquired a gender different from that of their birth gender?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Viscount acknowledges, we have a duty under the Equality Act to ensure equality of treatment, including for trans people and others. It is important that that is understood. The Equality Act remains in place and providers should continue to follow the law. Practically, this means that providers should consider the needs of all their service users when designing and delivering services. If they are uncertain as to how to apply the Equality Act to their specific services, they should obtain legal advice.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, I serve on the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have not had any dealings with the Commissioner for Human Rights, but is the Minister aware that yesterday he shared his observations that inconsistencies between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act could leave some trans people in an “intermediate zone”—a problem that was identified in 2001 and led to the Gender Recognition Act? How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that the code of practice prevents that discrepancy?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand that many trans people may have read the human rights commissioner’s correspondence. I reread it this morning. It will undoubtedly raise concern among trans people. We have been clear that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, a protected characteristic within the Equality Act.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government received the full revised code of practice on 4 April. Only three chapters of it were altered in the updated version following the Supreme Court ruling. Can the Minister explain why there has been such a delay to review only three chapters and how much longer it is expected to take?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the noble Baroness’s assertion. The department received the final draft code on 4 September. It is 300 pages long. That code needs detailed consideration because, as my noble friend pointed out, we want to avoid uncertainty. We want to ensure, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission is absolutely concerned to ensure, that there is absolute clarity on the Supreme Court decision. That is why we will take the necessary time to ensure that, when it is presented for full consideration by Parliament, it is as accurate and legally proofed as possible. There has been no delay.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

Can the Minister indicate how the Government plan to monitor future case law in this area to ensure that statutory codes remain accurate and up to date, particularly if the courts further clarify the relationship between sex and gender reassignment under the Equality Act?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Put simply, that is why we have the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and that is why it has a responsibility independent from government to do precisely that. That is why we will give full and proper consideration to the draft code. It is important that we maintain that balance and understand our respective roles and responsibilities under the Equality Act.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given the gross misrepresentation of trans people as a threat to others, I urge the Minister to encourage the Government to take all the time that is necessary to get the guidelines absolutely right, so that we can reverse the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court and the subsequent misrepresentation of that judgment. Furthermore, I urge the Government urgently to address the Equality Act to ensure that trans people maintain the protections that they have within the legislation.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Of course, we recognise that the application of the Supreme Court ruling is, in some settings, complex, which is why it is important that this code is given full and proper consideration. That is why the independent EHRC code of practice is so important, and we will do that. I will allow the noble Baroness to intervene at this late stage.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for the Minister, who has given very fulsome answers today. He referred to me. Therefore, I would just like to clarify for the House, because I know the Minister would not wish to mislead the House, that the time period needed for the code to be laid in Parliament is not 40 sitting days: it is 40 calendar days under Section 15 of the Equality Act. The further point that I want to clarify is that we were asked to provide the equality impact assessment last Friday. We provided it to the Government on Monday. We are here to serve the Government with any information that they need at pace.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, I have huge respect for her and the responsibility she has. It is a very serious responsibility. From her letter to the Secretary of State today and the debate we have had this afternoon, it is clear that we have to consider this matter seriously and take into account all possible risks and issues to ensure that we have a legally proofed code that is understood by everyone in respect of their responsibilities under the Equality Act. In respect of the 40 days, I must admit that my briefing does say 40 sitting days—but I am prepared to be corrected and I thank the noble Baroness.

United Kingdom: Soft Power

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s soft power, having regard in particular to the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities.

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

My Lords, we recognise the opportunity and potential that the UK’s soft power presents. The Soft Power Council is advising government on how best to shape a new strategy on soft power. The British Council reaches around 600 million people globally, promoting UK values and interests. The BBC is the world’s most trusted global broadcaster. The United Kingdom is the top destination for study and research, with four universities in the world’s top 10 and 17 in the top 100.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to the importance of soft power. As a humanist, perhaps I may quote something from the 1940s, when a question was asked of Stalin about the power of the church. Stalin’s answer was, “How many divisions has the Pope?” We are in a fantastically privileged position, but we are going to lose it all if we do not put our full effort into improving our soft power. The BBC is losing out to Russia and China. I beg the Government to do more for soft power.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I must declare an interest as well, as a humanist. My noble friend is absolutely right, but one reason why the Soft Power Council is essential is that it is not restricted to UK government. Our soft power is not only about UK government action, although that is important; it is about how we mobilise all elements of soft power. By the way, in all the countries I have visited in Africa, every leader speaks to me about one thing—and, on many occasions, they share my pride in Arsenal. They talk about the Premier League. Its reach is massive. We should understand that soft power is not limited to the number of things that we talk about; it is about economic development and growth, education and research.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I declare my interest as being in receipt of a British Council grant to enable me to study at a Danish university. Does the Minister share my concern at the poor ability of British people to speak a foreign language? Is that something his department will look at, to ensure that there is more foreign language teaching in schools?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness. Spreading the English language has been the most important element of the British Council’s commercial activity. I also agree that how we support the teaching of foreign languages here is important. I was in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning making that exact point: how we communicate is really important. When I have visited countries, I have seen that those that want economic growth and development see English as a tool for business. They do not see it as a cultural issue; they see having English taught in their schools as a way of growing their economy. Even in the francophone countries, that is what they tell me.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the risk of further World Service closures, which might result in Russia or China immediately occupying those frequencies? Would not more robust, long-term government funding for the World Service be a sensible protective measure against disinformation?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: we should not underestimate the importance of the World Service and its reach. It has exceeded the target we set for it, to reach 306 million people, so we know how important it is. The noble Baroness makes a really important point. We need a fully funded World Service and a long-term, sustainable solution, and we think the upcoming BBC charter review is the right place to do that. I hear what the noble Baroness says about radio frequencies. Certainly, any change to broadcasting radio facilities is subject to dialogue with the FCDO.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, while soft power is of course a vital instrument for advancing the UK’s values and global influence, there is another side to it. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the ways in which soft power can be used also by hostile states, such as Russia, Iran and China, to undermine democratic societies, including our own, and what steps the Government are taking to mitigate these risks.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have had many debates in the House about this, certainly about malign influence and misinformation, particularly in the use of social media and other forms of communication that have not been mediated through journalists and fact-checking. The noble Lord is absolutely right. We obviously need to take proper countermeasures in terms of security. That is what the national security review is doing, and I know the noble Lord had questions about that. However, the context of the debate—and it is why my noble friend’s Question is so important—is about being positive about our soft power, not seeing it as being particularly about defence and security but seeing it as being about how we can spread our values about how we work, particularly supporting economic growth.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, notwithstanding English football, one reason why we are among the top for soft power reputation around the world has been the very partnerships to which the Minister has referred. We have invested official development assistance strategically to build those partnerships, especially through the BBC World Service and the British Council and through development research from our universities. However, is the Minister not as concerned as I am to read the Independent Commission for Aid Impact report today, which says that UK ODA will now be at 0.24%, the lowest ever since statistics have been compiled about UK development assistance? If we are to maintain our position in the world, will the Minister listen to those who are saying that we need to continue to invest in those very bodies which have developed the partnerships that have been so successful over the years?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think my noble friend Lady Chapman has answered these points. There is part of a spending review and lots of decisions have not yet been made. We will get more detail in the next few weeks and certainly by November. However, I shall repeat what I said before on our soft power and our focus on economic development: ODA is not the only tool in our toolkit. When African leaders speak to me, and certainly those in the global South, they do not say they want aid; they say they want economic diversification, inward investment and value addition. Our City of London is one of the biggest providers of capital to African companies—it is those sorts of areas of soft power that we need to focus on. The partnership approach we are now taking is that we are listening to the continent and responding to it.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the British Council. As has been acknowledged, the British Council is a vital soft power interest for the United Kingdom. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that his department is now actively engaged in how to alleviate the Covid-era loan burden which was provided by the previous Government. Alleviating that Covid-era loan is vital to securing the financial sustainability of the council and its role in supporting British interests and soft power globally in these troubled times.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure my noble friend that we are working with the British Council on a plan to return it to financial sustainability. We are committed to a successful British Council that is financially stable, and our funding is over £160 million in 2025-26. FCDO officials are working closely with the British Council on a financial turnaround plan to ensure that its finances are returned to a stable footing and that the council can continue delivering for the UK for years to come.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is entirely right to emphasise the importance of soft power. I just add a note of regret that Joe Nye of Harvard, who is a strong friend of this country and the inventor of much of the thinking behind the whole soft power concept, died very suddenly recently. The world needs a man like that now, and we will miss him.

The Foreign Secretary deserves some credit too, because he has brought forward the Soft Power Council, to which he kindly invited me. The only snag was that when we discussed it and an emissary came to discuss it with me, they were full of new ideas but they seemed to have overlooked one vital idea: that by far the biggest soft bed and fertilising area for soft power in this world is the enormous and growing Commonwealth. There was no mention of that in the initial Soft Power Council report. I know that the Minister thinks quite differently, so could he take a message back to his office and remind them that soft power and the Commonwealth are two massive supports for the prosperity and security of this country as well?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am tempted to say I agree with the noble Lord, but then I am in danger of suggesting that I am not in agreement with the Foreign Secretary. Let me be very clear: we are at one, because the Commonwealth is very important. We have a new secretary-general, who is working through it, and we are giving support to her in the development of a clear strategy focusing on the best bits of it. However, as the noble Lord knows, I see the Commonwealth as more than simply an association of Governments. It is about people and how we bring them together, whether civil society, businesses or other organisations. The simple fact is that the Commonwealth adds value to business and economic development, and we are absolutely focused on delivering that in the future.

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.