Middle East
Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Purvis of Tweed
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, given that we had the opportunity yesterday to discuss Lebanon, I will focus today on Iran, Palestine and Sudan. I agree with the noble Lord that we are feeling the impact of the US-Iranian war here in the UK. Some 102 days ago, we were called on by the Conservative Opposition to be “all in” with the Trump Administration on the Iran war. I warned that that would be a mistake, as the case had not been made and there was no clear means by which it would be ended. Now, we have ceasefires in which the firing has not ceased. There is no end to the war, and civilians are still paying the price.
The convulsion in the global trade and energy markets continues and there seems to be no immediate or medium-term respite for the communities affected by it, especially those with humanitarian needs. Yesterday I was at a briefing on the situation in Afghanistan, where we were told in very clear terms that ships with food supplies—vital nutritional supplies—for Afghan children had been held up because they were waiting to exit the Strait of Hormuz. Both the United States and Iran have not offered any respite to allow humanitarian relief through the Strait of Hormuz, so I would be grateful if the Minister made strong representations that there are humanitarian consequences to the closure of the strait.
President Trump seems to have crippled the civilian economy in Iran, actively harming the very people he said the US was on its way to help, and, at the same time, has given the homicidal regime in Tehran astonishing strategic advantage. Its proxies have noticed, and it is why people are still under the thumb of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists after all this violence. Yesterday we heard from some in this House that there needs to be more violence to solve the situation, but as the former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid has said, “For the thousandth time”, violence without diplomacy is not sustainable, and I agree with him.
On the ongoing situation and tragedy in Gaza and Palestine, can the Minister confirm our Government’s assessment of the actions of the Board of Peace and any of the technical elements within it? We read reports that the Board of Peace currently has zero authorised funds available to it. Is that the Government’s assessment? Given the stasis and confusion of the Trump Administration regarding their intent for the Board of Peace, I remind the House that the Conservative Opposition said that we should be part of that too.
What is the current means by which humanitarian assistance is being provided within Gaza? I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s Statement: there is a considerable lack of action to deliver sufficient levels of humanitarian aid—it is not even anywhere close to where the 20-point plan said it would be. What is the Government’s assessment of the scale of the assistance being provided?
On the continuing violence in the West Bank, it is regrettable that there is still too high a level of impunity for those perpetuating violence there. I agree with the putting in place of additional sanctions, but there is too much impunity for not only settlers but those in the outposts. The outposts are prohibited under Israeli law, and there is lack of policing of the activity there. Will the Government ensure that anyone facilitating those who are sanctioned, either through financial or political support, will be brought within the sanctions regime and that that will apply to people in this country too?
Finally, there is far too little scrutiny of the Sudan conflict in this House, this Parliament and the UK, but it is incredibly linked with what is happening in the Middle East. Does the Minister agree with two of the key principles in the 12 September statement released last year by the Quad countries that Sudan’s future governance should be through an inclusive and transparent process, where civilians lead and are not controlled by any warring party, including those of the Muslim Brotherhood, so that Sudan, as well as other civilians across the region, can have more sustainable peace?
We all need to focus our minds on community cohesion now, and this links with the Urgent Question which we have just heard. There have been repugnant Islamophobic statements from the far right and repulsive antisemitic statements and actions from groups including the far left in this country. I reiterate my call for high-level, cross-party talks to lead to a consensus that antisemitism has no place on the streets of our country and is not British and that no single person in this country should be held to account for the actions of foreign Governments. It is not in the spirit of our country and it is repulsive.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments on the Statement made by my right honourable friend. I will try to deal with some of the questions that they raised; if I am not able to, I will follow up in writing.
Let me start with Iran. We are obviously concerned by the recent escalation and rise in tension. We absolutely encourage the US and Iran to continue with talks and to focus on de-escalation. I think that everyone in the House would agree with that.
I note the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about humanitarian aid not getting through the Strait of Hormuz. I am concerned about that and I promise to look into it further. The Strait of Hormuz must be reopened for trade, and indeed for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and elsewhere. The UK is working with the French on the multinational military mission to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but we cannot do that—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about this—until there is a sustainable ceasefire and we know exactly what is required. We are at the forefront of bringing together international co-operation to ensure that, once there is a ceasefire and the Strait of Hormuz is reopened, it stays open, with our support.
The noble Lord asked about proscription and so on. We are following the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC. The noble Lord will know that the National Security (State Threats) Bill has been introduced in the other place. We are determined to address state threats from proxies; it is absolutely essential for our national security and the safety of our communities. This House will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill very soon with my noble friend Lord Hanson. We hope, as the Home Secretary said yesterday, that it will be brought to the statute books shortly. It will give the Government powers similar to terrorism powers to act against state threats from proxies. We take that very seriously indeed.
The Government entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. We do not think that this war is the way to deliver that outcome, but we will continue to work with our allies and partners to focus on that. We do not want to see proliferation under any circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me to reaffirm the UK’s long-standing support for the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese armed forces. I am happy to do that. We will look specifically at what more help we can give them. I do not have time to talk at great length about Lebanon, but the situation in Lebanon is terrible. I answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, not so long ago about this. We regard Israeli strikes as reckless and disproportionate. The Lebanese Government are the legitimate authority in Lebanon and we will continue to support them and their armed forces. Hezbollah attacks on Israel must stop and Hezbollah must demilitarise. We are committed to that.
Turning now to Gaza, words almost fail me, frankly, to describe how extreme and serious the humanitarian crisis is there, and words rarely fail me. There are 1.9 million people displaced; there is a water and sanitation crisis; there is a public health crisis; there are families without shelter; and there are children without food. I know noble Lords know these things, but it is really important for us to understand what is going on. I do not have time to go through a long list of what is needed, but it is essential that food, medicine and fuel get through to Gaza as soon as possible. The problem is not that aid is not available—we have food rotting in warehouses. The problem is not that funding is not available. The problem is access. These crossings must reopen, they must stay open and the aid must get through.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me about UNRWA. As the noble Lord knows, there have been a lot of concerns about UNRWA, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has raised them with me in the past. UNRWA now has Christian Saunders in charge and it has a reform programme, which we want to see taken forward. The reality—I am sorry, as I know this is a difficult dilemma—is that UNRWA is providing life-saving basic services on the ground. In order to get those services delivered, we have to continue to work with UNRWA.
On Palestinian governance, Hamas decommissioning has not started, and we want to see that happen as soon as possible. I am happy to say more about the support that we are giving to the Palestinian Authority following our historic recognition of the Palestine state and the two-state solution, but Hamas decommissioning is essential for making progress with Palestinian recognition.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about sanctions in relation to settlements on the West Bank. We have just announced a fourth round of sanctions, as my right honourable friend said in the other place. Our sanctions regime on West Bank settlers is stronger than that of any other country. He knows I am not going to give a running commentary on future sanctions, but we will use our sanction powers. As he knows, we have used them extensively in relation to the West Bank, including on members of the Israeli Cabinet in a personal capacity.
I want to say one other important thing which has been mentioned about the West Bank: the Government do not want to see UK companies involved in work in the West Bank. My right honourable friend has tightened the guidance and we shall keep that under review. We do not, under any circumstances, want UK companies involved in settlement building in the West Bank. The Prime Minister issued a joint statement on 22 May, specifically on E1, saying that we do not want UK companies involved in that. Further, we have been in touch with the Charity Commission about charities that purport to support West Bank settlers and, in relation to my earlier comments, those that are involved with the Iranian regime. We want to see the Charity Commission doing more in relation to those purported charities, and we are working with it on that.
I am happy to repeat what my noble friend Lady Chapman said in relation to Israel’s right to self-defence—of course we understand and support that. We have not forgotten what happened on 7 October, and we have made it clear that attacks on Israel from Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran or any proxies should stop. We are friends and allies of Israel and we will continue to be so. We do not support movements for disinvestment and all the rest of it.
We are concerned about antisemitism, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned. We have provided £80 million to the Community Security Trust, but I am not complacent, and I do not think anyone in the Government or your Lordships’ House is complacent, about this. We have to do more. We have to bring different bits of the Government together to work more closely on antisemitism. We are not where we want to be. That is partly to do with what is going on in the international arena, but we must address these issues domestically as well. In that context, I entirely endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about community cohesion.
On Sudan—very briefly, because I am now nearly out of time—we indeed endorse the Quad process and, as the noble Lord knows, we are part of that process and want to see the kind of government that he recommended and talked about.
Taiwan
Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Purvis of Tweed
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I entirely agree with those observations from the noble and gallant Lord. That is, as he knows, a priority area for investment and engagement. It is not just the status of Taiwan that we take seriously in that region; it is all the various things, which he knows better than I do, that might threaten maritime routes. We support UNCLOS, as he knows. As far as defence and security are concerned, we are very alive to concerns about that region.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Given the Minister’s reply to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend regarding the Government’s assessment of the posture of China, and given the need for Parliament to be fully aware of what the Government believe is the posture of China, why did the Government not publish the China audit?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised that question before. I reiterate what I have already said and what has been said before: the China audit was completed and its findings included in the national security strategy in the way I set out earlier.
UK Development Partnership Assistance
Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Purvis of Tweed
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the two new Peers on their maiden speeches. It is with great pleasure that I welcome my noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton to her place in your Lordships’ House and congratulate her on a really inspiring and wonderful maiden speech. I am delighted to hear that she has such a long-standing and impressive commitment to prison. As it also one of my interests, we are both, if I can put it like this, alumni of the prison system and I look forward to collaborating with her on that. We already know from the poem she quoted in her maiden speech that she deserves to be here.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Barber of—I have to pause to get it right, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan did—Chittlehampton on his excellent maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord for all his work, but particularly in recent times as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance and for his support to the Palestinian Authority to build its delivery and governance capabilities to progress the vital reform agenda. I have been an admirer of my noble friend Lord Barber for many, many years—decades, in fact—from a distance and I very much look forward to working with him now.
I would go so far as to say I adore my noble friend Lady Liddell, but I deplore her attitude to cricket—as I am sure my noble friend Lord Barber does, too, so we will have to work on her together.
On behalf, I think, of the whole House, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I knew this was going to be his last contribution in your Lordships’ House, but he, in typical fashion, did not want any fuss and did not want it labelled a formal valedictory—which characterises the sort of person he is and why we have come to respect him so much. I want to thank him for his outstanding work as a parliamentarian serving your Lordships’ House, and also for his 29 years in the House of Commons. His personal and political qualities ensured that he served in the Cabinet of two Prime Ministers of the last Labour Government.
He has successfully been able to be both loyal to his party and to Parliament and a genuinely original thinker. His reputation is as someone kind and generous to all, from the most junior staff to the most senior. On a personal note, my first appearance at this Dispatch Box was to answer a Question from my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. He laid great stress on the fact that it was my first Question, with the result that everyone was nice to me, including, if I may say, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who indeed was again today. Your Lordships’ House will be diminished without him, but we wish him and his family the very best, and I particularly want to applaud his departing comments about optimism, which I must say I share.
I am grateful, as all contributors have been, to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her long-standing commitment and passion, and to her delivery and achievements in this area of development as Minister and in other ways.
I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the feeling that there is a shared sense of commitment and responsibility across your Lordships’ House in this area. There are of course differences of opinion, but there is also a strong consensus about the importance of this work and the key priorities that we have as a nation.
Noble Lords do not need me to remind them that we live in a time of, as it was characterised in the national security strategy, radical uncertainty; a number of noble Lords discussed that, including the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. The Government make no apology for making a positive and definitive choice to strengthen our hard-power capabilities in pursuit of national security and the national interest. I very much agree with my noble friends Lord Browne and Lady Liddell that hard-power and soft-power capabilities go together, and I entirely agree with the comment by my noble friend Lord Barber that together they represent a superpower.
I do not intend to make a partisan speech, but I will just say that this Government have greatly enhanced the UK’s national reputation by the standards of recent UK Governments. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that my noble friend Lady Chapman is in Africa doing her job and I am here doing mine.
As a number of noble Lords have acknowledged, the UK has deep expertise and experience in development, conflict prevention and resolution, as well as in soft power. Our long-standing track record in these areas gives us significant convening power alongside our direct and multilateral delivery. The world’s problems are interconnected, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said, and therefore our responses must be interdependent, mutually reinforcing and more strategic. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, that security will not be achieved by defence alone, although we all agree that defence and security are extremely important.
I begin by confirming that this Government’s commitment to international development remains firm, but we feel, perhaps contrary to what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it is time for a new approach. The last few decades have seen significant reductions in extreme poverty, which was an overarching goal for the last Labour Government. At the same time, humanitarian need—particularly humanitarian need that arises from conflict and indeed climate change, which perhaps has not been mentioned so often today—is rising, while resources come under increasing pressure not just in this country but across the globe. We are also seeing international humanitarian law facing renewed challenges. I emphasise that the context in which the Government intend to set out our plans in this area reflect that changed context, and it is an important backdrop to our conceptual and policy thinking in this area.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Bates, mentioned the cuts that have been made to the official development assistance budget. As I think everyone in your Lordships’ House knows, there will be further announcements about allocations in the coming weeks.
At a time when resources are challenged, we need to prioritise. That is why we are sharpening our focus on three big development priorities: humanitarian need, health and climate change. We are backing multilateral development organisations—which I note that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, supported—because we believe that that is how we make the biggest difference and achieve the greatest impact; it is something that the noble Lord laid a lot of emphasis on. We are significant contributors to Gavi, the Global Fund, the World Bank’s IDA programme and the African Development Fund. The latter is an African-led organisation; I emphasise that because we believe that these partnerships need local as well as international leadership.
We know that multilateralism is not perfect, so we are championing much-needed reform, including the UN Secretary-General’s UN80 Initiative. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned the need to improve the performance of some multilateral institutions, and we strongly support that.
We also strongly support the work of the UN’s Emergency Relief Coordinator, and the impressive humanitarian reset that Tom Fletcher has put in hand. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, kindly invited me to a briefing that I think sounds absolutely terrific. He also acknowledged the history of others in that place, including my noble friend Lady Amos, who I think was here earlier. That is a very important and impressive part of what we are supporting, particularly Fletcher’s commitment to what he called “hyper-prioritisation”—that is something that I really want to get across.
The principles behind the Government’s important strategic shift in development reflect the changed world; I know that this has been set out in other contexts, but this is the context for today’s conversation. We want to move from being a donor to being an investor; from service delivery to strengthening systems in government; from global delivery to more local delivery; and from giving grants to providing expertise. That is what our partners want to see; they are ambitious to move beyond aid.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, talked about Africa with their great expertise, and they drew our attention to the opportunities of the big demographic, digital and other changes that are going on there. Those are the countries that want to move beyond aid. It is through these multilateral partnerships—with respect, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on this point—that we maximise the impact of every pound that we put in, as well as the many strengths and capabilities that the UK brings to the table, from financial to scientific and technical expertise. Those areas of expertise will be worth more than money.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister provide clarity on the move from being a donor to an investor? Before the cuts, what proportion of UK ODA was purely a donation and not linked to a partnership programme with the country that we were working with?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I have said, we will set out the context and the decisions that surround ODA funding. However, I stress to the noble Lord that we still have, and we will continue to have, country-based programmes. That is still an important part of the mix. If he was asking me to characterise some other change, I do not have much more to add. Turing to conflict and diplomacy—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister clarify where the donations came from? If there were any, what proportion of UK ODA was from donations? The Minister said that we have gone from a donor model to an investor model, but there were no donations.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not think I have anything to add. There is a long history of the use of the term “donor” to characterise providers of overseas aid, but we are not debating that now, if the noble Lord will forgive me. I do not really recognise the characterisation he is putting forward.
A number of noble Lords mentioned conflict and diplomacy. Conflict in the world, as we all know, has become ever more deadly and complex, and the UK’s diplomatic, development and security levers are more than the sum of their parts. We are working very closely alongside our international partners, old and new, wherever we can. This work expands effort to prevent conflicts as well as to resolve them.
A number of noble Lords stressed the need for conflict prevention, and that too is part of what the Government are committed to. We want to stabilise fragile places for the long term, not just to respond to conflicts once they have arisen. We also want to protect our shared security online—that has not had much attention in this debate, but it is important nevertheless—and improve our ability to identify and assess risk and strengthen the systems. We need to issue early warnings of conflict—a point that my noble friend Lord Browne emphasised.
Above all, our commitment is to save lives. We also want to uphold international law. We want to break the vicious cycles that blight so many lives with appalling violence and cause people to flee their homes. We must work to strengthen democratic structures and civil society organisations in exactly the way that my noble friend Lord Barber has been working in Palestine. This commitment to both preventing and helping to resolve conflicts and stabilising the situation sits alongside our efforts to target life-saving humanitarian relief in a deeply troubling world. The UK remains a leading humanitarian actor, and we will continue to support those in crisis, especially in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me to set out the Government’s approach to UNRWA and Palestine, and I am very happy to do so. Following the US-led ceasefire agreement, there have been some improvements in the level of aid co-ordinated by the UN entering Gaza. It remains insufficient and needs upscaling rapidly to ease the suffering. The UK has provided £81 million of humanitarian and early recovery support as part of our £116 million programme for Palestine this financial year. The UK is doing all we can to alleviate suffering. Quantifying how much UK aid has entered Gaza is difficult due to the complex operating environment. Despite the restrictions on access, we know that UK aid is having an impact. The Foreign Secretary met UNRWA Commissioner-General Lazzarini in November and was clear that the UK continues to support UNRWA politically and financially, recognising its vital role in delivering essential services such as health and education to millions of Palestinian refugees across the region. This financial year the UK has committed £27 million, which will enable UNRWA to scale up life-saving aid including food, water, shelter and medical care for Gazans facing famine conditions.
A number of noble Lords mentioned women and children. The UK is a long-standing leader in preventing sexual violence in conflict, and we are setting a gold standard globally for engaging survivors through our survivor advisory group and survivor champions. The International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, which the UK helped to create, remains at the forefront of global action to prevent sexual violence. Importantly, as well as supporting services we are backing global efforts to make sure that perpetrators of appalling violence are held to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, kindly warned me of her question—so I am prepared to answer it—about what the UK will do during our presidency of the UN Security Council. I can confirm that we will embed women, peace and security considerations across the council’s work. As the Foreign Secretary set out in the high-level event commemorating the 25th anniversary, which the noble Baroness referred to, the UK is committed to amplifying women’s voices, participation in building peace, stepping up efforts to end impunity for sexual crimes in conflict, and ensuring that our humanitarian work goes further to address the particular impact of crisis on women and girls. This work will be underpinned by the UK’s refreshed approach to women, peace and security, including our ongoing work to strengthen delivery, accountability and cross-government co-ordination.
Lastly, on conflict, I draw attention to something that I do not think anyone has mentioned, which is our amazing worldwide demining and action groups, the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. The UK has done more than any other country on demining, and it represents an extremely important building block in conflict, security and stabilisation.
I turn to soft power. The UK regularly appears near the top of the league tables on soft power, but we are not complacent and we are obviously aware of the rise of other global actors. Soft power is about people-to-people relationships, going beyond government to government, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, and others noted, and our soft power assets allow us to reach the people that government finds it difficult to reach. We will be saying more about the links between development soft power and ensuring the UK’s security when we publish the soft power strategy later this year, which I hope will answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked. Our work in soft power, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised, is stressed by the British Council, and I should declare my interest as the longest-standing trustee of the British Council for many years.
El Fasher
Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Purvis of Tweed
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I entirely agree with her view that women must play a full role in the transition that we look forward to in Sudan, although it may be some time coming. On conflict-related sexual violence, which my noble friend refers to, noble Lords will know that we have been dedicating a lot of effort to that issue. We are currently designing a dedicated women and girls programme on gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence, which assures a strategic approach to gender mainstreaming, and we have new humanitarian programmes that will provide dedicated resources to women-led organisations. I should say to my noble friend that we are also concerned about reports of sexual violence against men and boys in the area.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Security Council resolution for the protection of civilians was passed in June 2024. On its anniversary, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, what enforcement measures—which it is the duty of us as penholder to put forward—there were to enforce the Security Council resolution. Her answer to me on 17 July was:
“I often find myself asking what the point is of many of these declarations and resolutions in these situations”.—[Official Report, 17/07/25; col. 2000.]
Further to my noble friend’s question, what is the point of being a penholder in the Security Council if we are not actually implementing measures to enforce resolutions for the protection of civilians that the Security Council itself has passed?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have already said that there is a meeting of the UN Security Council today to discuss this further. I understand the frustration that he expresses. The biggest problem now is humanitarian access. Until we make progress on that, with the help of the warring militias, we will make very little progress on the wider ceasefire.