Middle East

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

How the United States and Israel act when they feel under threat is a matter for them. The noble Lord, Lord True, tuts, but I suggest that he calms down a bit; I think it is a bit rude to be tutting from a sedentary position. That is a matter for the United States and for Israel, while of course we will always answer for and defend our actions and act within international law in this country’s interests.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, many people went to Israel to celebrate tonight the festival of Purim, which is the story of Queen Esther saving the Jewish people in Persia, somewhat ironically, instead of which they are in bomb shelters awaiting missiles to attack. They are ashamed and embarrassed, as are many people, of the actions of the Prime Minister in prevaricating, delaying and dithering, and then supporting half-heartedly, as the noble Baroness has said herself, attacks against the evil regime of Iran that has perpetrated attacks in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained. In opposition, Labour called for the IRGC to be proscribed. They have been in office for I do not know how long, but nothing has happened. The reason given for not proscribing the IRGC was because we needed an embassy in Tehran. What is the excuse now?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There are two points that I will raise with the noble Lord. First, I completely, utterly and totally reject his characterisation of the decision that has been taken. There were two separate decisions. If he thinks it is acceptable to say to British soldiers and our military, “You can go into action without a clear international legal basis to do so”, he is mistaken. We are quite clear on that, and I am confident in the decisions taken by the Prime Minister on my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General’s advice.

Secondly, on the IRGC, I was talking to my noble friend Lord Coaker about this earlier, because he remembers discussing this issue when the party opposite voted against proscribing the IRGC—although the noble Lord did not; I think he was the only Member on his side to vote with us.

The noble Lord will know that we do not comment on ongoing discussions or what is under consideration, but perhaps there is something I can say that will help him. He will be aware of Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of Jonathan Hall’s stand-alone report last year, where he made the point that existing counterterrorism legislation, when applied to state threats, is not as fit for purpose as it should be, and that creates challenges. He has made recommendations, and we are committed to implementing all of them. If the noble Lord would like more information on that, I can supply it; I think he was unaware of it. That takes us a step forward, not particularly regarding the IRGC but in how we respond to state threats in dealing with issues such as proscription. I will be reporting back to the House on that issue in due course.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

With respect, we are discussing the Trade Union Bill and the opt-in or opt-out of the Trade Union Bill. As I said, PPERA came in to deal with another matter separately, perfectly properly.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I do apologise to the noble Lord—I rarely intervene on these matters, but he has moved me to do so. He has been speaking in his contribution so far about funding to political parties but, earlier today, when he intervened on me, he said that the Bill had nothing to do with political party funding. How does he square those two comments?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

They have been raised and the point has been made that there have been no complaints. I am trying to make the point, which I hope the poll makes perfectly clear, that Unite members themselves are not aware of this opt-out/opt-in and of the effect of the opt-out, and their views do not necessarily reflect the level of donations made by Unite on their behalf.

The concept of money being taken from you without your specific and particular permission is alien. With great respect, private companies have to have permission from shareholders, as I have already said. For any amount over £5,000, there has to be a specific vote by shareholders. Individuals who are members of Unite have an opt-out; they do not have the ability to state that they wish to opt in. Accordingly, it is a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. Taking out the whole of Clause 10 would be a very retrograde step. I encourage the Minister to ensure that it stays in.