Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Deep Sea Mining in International Waters

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have a Motion in my name in the debate. I thank the Minister for the open way in which we have had discussions since the agreement was laid before Parliament and put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for her willingness to host briefings in the department. I commend the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House for their work and the extremely helpful findings and recommendations they have made. So far they have not been referred to, but we will doubtless hear more about them in the next contribution. I reiterate what I have said on many previous occasions: that the clerks, in particular of the International Agreements Committee, serve Parliament with distinction. They carry out a vital role for this House and for Parliament as a whole.

I look forward to the contributions from my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lord Alderdice, with the experience and perspective they bring, and thank my noble friends on the respective committees for their consideration. I too am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his many years of very distinguished service, in particular as chair of the House’s European Union Committee. I congratulate them both on securing the family handover with such elegant precision today. If the usual channels failed in one thing, they have succeeded in another for this debate.

I want to consider three main areas: first, the circumstances that led us to this debate; secondly, the treaty itself, the issues it raises and why there needs to be further consideration of some of them; and thirdly, what we as a House should do going forward, including why the Motion in my name has been tabled and should, I hope, be supported.

We are here today because of the decision by the previous Conservative Government on 3 November 2022 to

“begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory … /Chagos Archipelago”.

That Statement by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, repeated here by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith—the other one—specifically referred to

“taking into account relevant legal proceedings”

and the

“intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues, including those relating to the former inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/22; col. 354WS.]

That Statement, which apparently is now “obscene”, “dangerous”, “self-harm” and “a surrender”, was made by the noble Lord Callanan’s Government. This was a major change of policy. If the Benches on my right are in any doubt about that, it was a change of policy because the position was, to quote from a Written Answer from the previous Government made on 20 April 2021:

“There are no current plans for discussions with the Government of Mauritius on the future of the Chagos Islands”.


In March 2022, just weeks before the policy change, the Government said:

“The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory”,


and on Mauritius, that

“we do not recognise its claim. However, we stand by our commitment, first made in 1965, to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes”.

So, since the Government—the Conservative Government—still needed it for defence purposes but made the decision in November that year to open negotiations to cede sovereignty, the change of policy was significant. The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative Government’s policy. Some who agreed with it then disagree with it now, but that does not change the fact that the Conservatives made a major policy choice to cede sovereignty and to do it under the context of the International Court of Justice decisions.

This was also a major legal decision, as, up to the change of policy in 2022 to cede sovereignty, the Government relied on their previous argument that the 1965 agreement to separate the archipelago was held to be legally binding by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea arbitral tribunal in 2015. This was therefore reversed, and the relevant legal proceedings referred to was the process of the ICJ, which had responded to the request by the United Nations General Assembly for a determination on the lawfulness of decolonisation and had reported its advisory opinion in 2019. We know that it was found in the opinion that decolonisation was not completed lawfully, and the General Assembly responded to the advisory opinion by adopting resolution 73/295 on 22 May 2019.

In this debate, some noble Lords may well delve deeper into previous history, and may challenge the ICJ opinion—which am sure all noble Lords have read fully. It gives a clear factual history, and some of it, I have to be frank, makes very uncomfortable reading. Others may opine on the ICJ mechanisms and the significance of the opinion and the associated General Assembly resolutions—it is their right to do so. But none of that will change the fact of the November 2022 decision of the Conservative Government.

So, we have established that the previous Government decided to recognise in principle the case for the exercise of sovereignty by Mauritius over the archipelago, and they pursued this over many rounds of discussions on the terms of bilateral relations going forward on how our defence and security interests would be maintained. We may hear in the debate that, after 11 attempts, there was no agreement. But that was not changing the view of the principle of ceding sovereignty; it was no agreement on the actual terms. There is a difference.

As we have settled that, we can now turn to the terms before considering the position we should take on them. The question is: does a deal with deficiencies negate the principle of Mauritian sovereignty? The answer is no, as James Cleverly’s Statement is recognised in principle internationally. The issues are the implications of it, its application and the protection of Chagossian rights under it.

One implication presented is whether this treaty raises questions on other overseas territories. The IAC addressed this in paragraph 26, saying that

“the Agreement would not have any direct read-across”.

Another implication is the question of whether this limits our security or defence. Questions have been raised so far in the debate. The committee concluded that none of the witnesses it heard contested the Government’s view that the treaty will not, for so long as it remains in force, materially change the ability of the UK and US to operate the base at Diego Garcia. We now know that the United States agrees.

Maintaining protection of marine biodiversity has also been raised. In 2010, the UK declared 640,000 square kilometres of marine protected area around the territory. It has some of the most biodiverse waters on the planet and I noted that the committee welcomed the Government’s assurance that they will work closely with the Mauritian Government to establish a well-resourced and patrolled marine protected area. The committee added:

“We consider it vital that an appropriate portion of the annual development grant funding is allocated towards projects to support the new MPA”.


I hope that the Government agree with that. The committee makes the case for more financial scrutiny, and I agree. It is worth, for colleagues on my right, putting on record, because the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, forgot to, that when he was a Minister, his department was the largest disburser of UK overseas aid to Mauritius—we thank him for his work. It is also the case that these financial provisions are of a larger scale, and it is necessary to have further clarity and details on this commitment.

The Government should have been, and should now be, more transparent, including on the basis for establishing the funds in Article 11, but a critical part now is the recognition and restoration of rights to the diverse Chagossian community. I note the 11 June call from the Human Rights Council for the agreement to be renegotiated because it does not respect the rights of the Chagossians. I also note that the committee’s conclusion was that the UK should not be bound by this, but feels that we should all acknowledge the years—in fact, the generations—during which the community has been denied rights, from forced removal in the 1970s to the denial of resettlement in the 2000s. We owe that community both an apology and restoration of rights.

As both communities noted in a round-table event held by the IRDC in December 2024, representatives from members of the community based in the UK and Mauritius expressed unanimous dissatisfaction with the consultation on the part of both the UK and the Mauritian Governments, and were frustrated by their exclusion from the negotiations. Paragraph 46 of the report concluded with a regrettable perception that, it said, had some basis in reality: that, over many years, the interests of the Chagossians had been subordinated to the national security interests of the UK and its allies. It went on to say that it agreed with some witnesses that more could have been done, including in relation to employment at the base, and that the agreement does not provide a clear route to the resettlement of Chagossians in the Chagos Archipelago. It called on the Government to engage with Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement of the islands, including for members of the community currently based in the UK. Paragraph 49 called on the Government to clarify what oversight and accountability mechanisms would be put in place to ensure transparency and the equitable and effective allocation of funds. In particular, it sought clarification of how Chagossians would be consulted in the administration of the trust fund and whether those based in the UK will benefit. I agree with all of those points; indeed, I agree with the committee’s letter to the Foreign Secretary:

“More meaningful engagement would have helped rebuild trust and lend greater legitimacy to the final arrangements”.


My Motion, therefore, would require the Government to fulfil recommendations of the IRC and also the requests in points 4, 5, and 6 in the IRDC letter to the Foreign Secretary to enhance Chagossian engagement by establishing a formal consultation mechanism and meaningful inclusion in decision-making: and how resettlement “will” be provided for, not just “may” be provided for. It would address the request for transparency and accountability. I hope that both the Government and, indeed, the Conservative Opposition will support this Motion. If this is our last opportunity in this House to speak on this treaty, I hope that we can at least agree for further protections of the community to be outlined before the Government ratify.

We have therefore established that the previous Government agreed in principle to cede the exercise of sovereignty in a manner consistent with international law. We have also seen that there are areas where, under this Government, more information and scrutiny are needed on their terms for the conclusion of that ceding. The question now is how we proceed.

We heard plenty of fire and brimstone from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who seemed rather incensed. He sought to give the impression that all routes for the Conservatives to secure a debate in the House of Commons under CRaG had been exhausted, blaming the failure of the usual channels and the Government’s intransigence. That is not entirely true, because the Conservatives had two opportunities during this scrutiny period to secure time in the House of Commons; we know through the Library Note guidance on CRaG that if the Government do not provide time, it can be done in opposition time. Yes, there were coat-tails to hide behind when it came to the Government not providing time, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, must have had a meeting with his Commons colleagues when they said that this was not important enough to use their time during the scrutiny period in the House of Commons.

I think that we must all have sympathy with the noble Lord. I can imagine that he was not too happy when they said that it would be for the unelected House to take this up. Students of political history will know that this would have been an impossible course of action. The Conservatives would never use the unelected House to limit the prerogative power to make treaties and to refuse ratification. Do not take my word for it; take theirs. In the debate on the Rwanda treaty, we debated the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for conditions on ratification. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, whose contribution we look forward to later on, sought to give me and everybody else very respectful and lengthy legal advice as to why we definitely should not have a Motion to delay ratification of a treaty. I look forward to his altered legal advice later.

Winding that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, called the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, constitutionally “unnecessary and misguided”. Presumably, this far wider Motion by his colleague is necessary and well informed. Setting aside the amnesia epidemic sweeping the Benches on my right, and in all seriousness, I thank them for the announcement made on 3 June in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that a fatal Motion had been laid and that they would press it to a vote. I can only commend him and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on being brave. They have reversed generations of Conservative policy never to have fatal Motions in this House. They have reversed generations of policy not to seek to interfere with the prerogative powers, and this major constitutional moment today has not gone unnoticed.

We have an opportunity to restore some of the rights that have been denied a community, which we should all be ashamed of. We have the ability to honour a commitment given by James Cleverly in November 2022 that we would abide by international law and would cede sovereignty. We also have an opportunity to ensure that, at this stage, we do it right. We should therefore honour our commitments, ensure rights and provide clarity, and we hope that the Government can do this before ratification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, first, I join everybody else in congratulating both the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, and her kinsman—or father, whichever term she would rather have—on their speeches, because I think it is a great occasion. We shall miss the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for whom I have even spoken, and he still spoke to me after I had spoken for him at his constituency.

I should say that I find this issue very depressing. We are seeing our country and our country’s interests being undermined by human rights lawyers. Obviously, we have the Prime Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and Philippe Sands. I think—somebody will correct me if I am wrong—they all served in the same Chambers at the Bar. I must say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for whom I have a very high regard—he was a very good chairman of the committee when I was on it—that to use Philippe Sands as an interviewee is slightly strange, since he was a paid counsel of the Mauritian Government. I think that is right—noble Lords can correct me if I am wrong—so it seems to me that he is slightly party pris.

We heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, about lawfare, and I think that this really is lawfare. I will quote Sir Christopher Greenwood, who I do not know at all. He said, according to the International Agreements Committee report, that the consequence of not ratifying the agreement is that

“it completely undermines our position that we are a state that wishes to promote the rule of law in international affairs”.

I am sure that Christopher Greenwood is a quite excellent lawyer, but he had, of course, been with the court for a dozen years or so, which does sometimes make you slightly think in a particular way. Any court—the International Court of Justice is one—is actually the servant of the members of the court. I think I am right in saying that, of the 15 members, one was Somali, one was Russian and one was Chinese. Somebody can correct me if that is wrong.

I shall also share a quote, because I think it is rather important, about the security of the UK, which we heard about from my noble friend Lord Howell at some stage. Last week, we had the delayed report of the national security strategy issued by this Government. I think it was the Foreign Secretary who said that we want to make the UK

“a harder target for our enemies.”

He also said that we have to have

“clear-eyed view of how we engage with major powers such as China in order to protect our national security and promote our economic interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/25; col. 975.]

If anybody is under any illusions about this, the report states:

“Instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy and the undermining of our economic security have increased in recent years. Our national security response will therefore continue to be threat-driven”.


I do not consider China an enemy, but it is certainly not an ally. We have to be open-eyed about this. For instance, we might consider the treaty that we had with China over Hong Kong and how well it has stuck to the details of that.

We heard the most extraordinary attack on the Conservative Government by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. I was sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, not a moment ago; I quoted to him what the spokesman said, and he said that that was absolutely not the case. Let us not just tick through the details; let us talk to people such as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who were there.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I refer the noble Lord back to Hansard for the Statement from James Cleverly, and I am afraid that he should withdraw his comment that I was incorrect. I quoted the Written Ministerial Statement from the Foreign Secretary.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I heard the noble Lord; earlier, we heard the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Cameron, say entirely different things.

On the marine protected area, environmental matters are extremely important to the whole world. Can the Minister tell us in summing up how Mauritius will protect the reefs? We do not have enough boats to do it, and what boats does it have?

Finally, on the treaty, I have mentioned the treaty on Hong Kong. How about international law in the case of the Budapest memorandum, where Russia agreed to respect the treaties with Ukraine? Treaties are marvellous, but not always held to by the people who sign them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Mancroft. The issue of the need for and legal underpinning of the Chagos treaty has been the subject of numerous excellent monographs written by a team of authors led by Professor Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford, and published by Policy Exchange. My noble friend Lord Robathan referred to the country as having been undermined by human rights lawyers; I can say to my noble friend, “Not all of them”—including, of course, both Professor Ekins and me.

It is clear to my mind that the risk of an adverse judgment and the real risk to the operation of the UK-US airfield at Diego Garcia are overplayed by those who favour this treaty. Mauritius cannot as a matter of international law secure a binding judgment before an international tribunal establishing that it is sovereign over the Chagos Islands, because the United Kingdom is not required to consent to this dispute being adjudicated by the International Court of Justice.

Accordingly, the Government explain their position by saying that they anticipate that another tribunal, specifically the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which has no jurisdiction over questions of sovereignty over territory, will “presuppose” that the ICJ’s 2019 advisory opinion has settled that Mauritius is sovereign and will thus proceed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to disputes about the law of the sea on the premise that Mauritius, rather than the UK, is sovereign. But there is not a word about sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in that advisory opinion of the ICJ. Moreover, the elements of the opinion that are adverse to the UK’s administration of the islands are, as advisory, not capable of binding the UK to change its position that it had uninterrupted sovereignty over the archipelago for more than 200 years. Hence, any such presupposition by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea will be erroneous in fact and law.

So, the fabled rules-based international order, lauded by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, does not in fact require this treaty in the form that it is put before Parliament. I can greatly shorten my remarks by otherwise adopting the remarks we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I share his concerns regarding the obligations that he has set out. I also share the concerns in respect of the Treaty of Pelindaba, in relation to the positioning of nuclear weapons on African soil, raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. The Government have thus far flippantly dismissed that concern without explaining why. Can the Minister set out in detail why Mauritius will not be in breach of its obligations under that treaty if there are nuclear weapons positioned in the Diego Garcia base?

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, became very excited and suggested that my noble friend Lord Callanan had tabled a fatal Motion. If only that were so—unfortunately, even if the House is minded to pass my noble friend’s Motion this evening, it would, pursuant to Section 20 of the CRAG Act 2010, merely require the Minister or another Minister of the Crown to make

“a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why”.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord is a stickler for accuracy. I quoted Hansard from 3 June when the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that the Conservatives had tabled a fatal Motion.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is an interesting point as to whether my noble friend Lord Minto was correct—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, although he will appreciate that I take a very different position in responding to this interesting and important debate.

Before I turn to the more controversial points, let me start with a point on which there is unanimity. I welcome my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis of Banbury, who gave a truly magnificent maiden speech. As an Attorney-General, she was respected across the whole of the other place, and I am sure that her contributions here will be similarly listened to with great care across the whole of your Lordships’ House.

In my tradition, when we finish the annual reading of the Pentateuch with the end of Deuteronomy, we immediately start again with the first chapter of Genesis. In that spirit of linking a beginning and an ending, I also take this opportunity to mark the valedictory speech of her father, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. I am sure that, as the noble Lord leaves this House, it must be an especial pleasure to see his noble kinswoman—as I believe she is known—make the first of what I hope will be many contributions to our work.

This debate is required by statute before a treaty is ratified. Normally, with a treaty under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, we just have a debate. This is a different case. A treaty that cedes British sovereign territory to a foreign power cannot be ratified without an Act of Parliament. Professor Richard Ekins, in a Policy Exchange paper, has set out how every concession of British territory since 1890 has been enabled by primary legislation, the most recent example being the surrender of Hong Kong to China. In addition, since 1945, whenever a colony has achieved independence, either within or without the Commonwealth, primary legislation has been passed to renounce UK sovereignty under those territories. Indeed, FA Mann, a leading authority on foreign relations and the legally applicable principles, regarded this not just as a constitutional convention but as a legal principle.

In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government appear to confirm that this is the position. Can the Minister inform us when this primary legislation will be brought before Parliament? Can we have a clear assurance that the treaty will not be ratified unless and until that legislation has received Royal Assent?

That is a problem with the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and why, in preference, I will support my noble friend Lord Callanan’s Motion. The former Motion states that the Government should not ratify the treaty until various matters have taken place, but the noble Lord has not included passing an Act to permit the cessation of British territory. I do not know whether it is now Liberal Democrat policy that a Government can give away sovereign territory without an Act of Parliament. It is a little odd. Those Benches are always so keen for Parliament to have a say before we even act in our own self-defence or support militarily our allies, but, apparently, they are keen now for Parliament to have no say before we cede sovereign territory.

In that respect, I regret the terms of Article 1 of the treaty, which states:

“Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago in its entirety, including Diego Garcia”.


That purports to accept that Mauritius is already the sovereign power. That is not the case in international law, as the UK has said repeatedly and consistently until this Government took office. It is also not the case in domestic law. Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 includes the British Indian Ocean Territory as one of the British Overseas Territories—and that is also reflected elsewhere in the Act. All of that can be amended only by domestic legislation and an Act of Parliament. If the Act is not passed and the treaty is therefore not ratified, the effect in international law of the Government even agreeing a treaty in these terms will be to weaken our legal position over the Chagos Islands, even before the Bill has been laid before Parliament, which is to be regretted.

Why are we here at all? We are here because Mauritius has claimed sovereignty since 1981, despite decades of Mauritian Governments saying that they did not make any such claim. As we have heard, an ICJ advisory opinion in 2019 opined against the UK’s administration of the islands. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, referred to that as a “ruling” in a rare, but perhaps Freudian, slip. I suggest that it is not a ruling at all; it did not, in terms, talk about the sovereignty of the islands at all. An advisory opinion is not a ruling, a judgment or a binding decision of any sort. The clue is in the name: it is an advisory opinion.

The United Kingdom would have to agree for the International Court of Justice to deliver a binding opinion or judgment. We would have to agree to submit the question of jurisdiction to the ICJ. We have not. I would hope that, even under this Government, we would not. Without that, there would be no binding ruling from the ICJ. While I recognise the political force of advisory opinions, we need to be clear-eyed about them: they are not binding.

We as a country have never accepted that we would always act in accordance with advisory opinions. Indeed, in 1996, an advisory opinion came within one vote of holding that the use of nuclear weapons would nearly always be illegal. Would we, if that vote had gone the other way, have unilaterally disarmed ourselves of all or most of our nuclear arsenal? Perhaps we would have done if this Government, with this Attorney-General advising them, were in charge; I just do not know.

The Government appear to accept that the advisory opinion is not binding, but they say, “Oh, ITLOS—the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea—may assume that the advisory opinion is binding and that Mauritius is sovereign and exercise its own jurisdiction on that false premise”. But there are two problems with that: ITLOS has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a territorial dispute, nor can it properly take it that the question of sovereignty has been decided by an advisory opinion.

To respond to a point from the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, the advisory opinion is not binding—to use the noble Lord’s words—on ITLOS. An advisory opinion, as is made clear on the website of the ICJ itself, is not even binding on the particular agency which has asked for the advisory opinion, so it is certainly not binding on ITLOS. Secondly and relatedly, the United Kingdom should not accept that its sovereign rights can be taken away from it by one tribunal, ITLOS, misreading and misunderstanding the advisory opinion from the ICJ.

To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, ITLOS has no jurisdiction in relation to this dispute and we should not accept any ruling that takes for granted that the ICJ has established authoritatively that Mauritius is sovereign, first, because it has not and, secondly, because we would not give our consent to any such judicial determination. We should not, I suggest, give up our sovereign territory because of a fear that ITLOS might wrongly issue some order for some vague protective or provisional measures against us at some future, indeterminate date.

Of course I recognise that an advisory opinion gives the risk that future legal proceedings could be brought against us, but it is a terrible precedent, I suggest, for us to give up territory because we are worried that an international tribunal might in the future reach a conclusion which we regard as legally flawed. I have to say that, if British foreign policy is henceforth to be at the mercy of the vote of the United Nations General Assembly, then it really is game over.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to the—excellent, if I may say so—report from his committee, which I enjoyed reading. In that report, there is a reference to the fact that if we were to stand in the face of an advisory opinion by the ICJ, we would somehow be in the same position as Russia is in relation to the invasion of Ukraine. I hasten to add that that is not the view of the committee, but it was the view ascribed in its report to evidence it took from Professor Sands. The notion that standing on our legal rights in the face of a non-binding advisory opinion makes us like Russia invading Ukraine is less a piece of considered legal analysis and more a piece of advocacy. My late father used to say about one partisan newspaper that it was difficult to see where the news ended and the comment began. When reading Professor Sands’ evidence to the committee, it was very difficult to see where the analysis ended and the advocacy began.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am listening attentively to what the noble Lord is saying. If he has time, could he outline a little more of the background to the decision James Cleverly made in November 2022 to open negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am going to deal with the legal issues affecting this because the Government are saying to us, “We have no choice: we have to sign this because we have legal risk”. There is no point the noble Lord muttering from a sedentary position.

National Security Strategy

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It was important that the Prime Minister should, in advance of the NATO summit, signal the priority the Government attach to defence and national security. On these Benches we support that approach, as we do the analysis by the Government of the perceived major threats confronting the United Kingdom. There is much in the strategy with which these Benches can agree. I am aware of the continuity of advice to successive Prime Ministers on defence and security from No. 10 sources. I think that is very helpful, and I pay tribute to that expertise.

Protecting our country and our people from threat is the primary responsibility of the Government, and that was explicitly recognised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the other place. But that analysis and that primary obligation of government bring onerous and challenging responsibilities. First, I join my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary in the other place in thanking our security and intelligence services, and all our defence personnel, for the extraordinary work they do to keep us all safe.

Secondly, I say to the Leader of the House that over the last few months a pattern has emerged from the Government of a series of important announcements concerning defence and security intentions but with two glaring omissions: no specific detail and no specific funding. These omissions seriously damage credibility, and I shall touch further on these aspects in my questions.

Let me deal first with security and intelligence. The Statement and the strategy refer to the three pillars: security at home, strength abroad and increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities. These Benches welcome actions that build on the measures that my party put in place when in government, including the National Security Act 2023, which gives us increased oversight of adversarial action. It also introduced the foreign influence registration scheme. At home, protecting critical national infrastructure is paramount and there has to be a lead body for that. Is that the Home Office or the MoD, or is it a tandem operation? Are strategic discussions taking place as to who is taking the lead? It may be that there is to be a new joint task force, but any further information the Leader of the House can provide on that would be very helpful.

Within the United Kingdom, our citizens and businesses face cyber threats on an unprecedented scale. Given the recent identification by the Government of threats posed by China, may I ask three questions? First, are the Government confident that they have appropriate vetting mechanisms in place to understand whether imported Chinese goods pose security threats, and by whom and how are these mechanisms applied? Secondly, specifically in relation to energy infrastructure, how do the Government monitor whether potential malign activity is taking place, and are they satisfied with the robustness of the monitoring process? Thirdly, I have a very simple question. Will China be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

On strength abroad, these Benches welcome the strategic defence review but express profound concern about the lack of detail on timing for many of the proposals and the vagueness surrounding money. In relation to the NATO summit, while the commitment to increase what the Government describe as national security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% of that to be spent on core defence, is in principle welcome, there is no funding plan. We have been unable to elicit how the Government will fund even 3%. That omission—that lack of material detail—undermines the credibility of the Government’s intention.

To their credit, the Government understand the urgency of the threat—but not, apparently, the urgency of the money. For example, while the strategy document is in many respects admirable, I had to get to page 27 before I found reference to any specific sum of money, which is £1 billion to establish

“a new network of National Biosecurity Centres”.

On the next page, there is reference to £520 million to be invested

“in UK-based Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Vaccine manufacturing facilities”.

That is what I mean when I say there is a threadbare character about the Government’s funding specification. Can the Leader of the House shed light on when the 3% is to come through, when the extra 0.5% is expected to materialise and what the remaining 1.5% is to cover? If she cannot answer these fundamental questions, the Government are proceeding on a wing and a prayer.

On Monday this House will have a welcome opportunity to debate the Chagos deal. In relation to the defence budget, we understand that the cost of the deal will come out of the defence funding pot, which makes answers on increased defence spending all the more pressing. Promising more on the one hand, while whisking money away with the other, is adding to the opaqueness. That is what is damaging the credibility of what I am sure are the Government’s good intentions on our defence and security.

On these Benches, we shall support the Government’s efforts to strengthen our defence capability, to improve our security and intelligence services and to make our critical national infrastructure more resilient. I commend the Prime Minister on demonstrating maturity and responsibility when dealing with acutely challenging and fast-moving global situations, but these Benches will ask questions and seek clarity when that is what our national security interests demand.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Most people in our country take for granted the liberties and freedoms we enjoy. In a way, that is a good thing, as they do not need to concern themselves with the need for vigilance against the threats we face. We enjoy our way of life as a result of the tireless work of those who have dedicated their careers to making us safe, and I pay tribute to them. Many distinguished servants of commitment are represented in this House, and I thank them too.

We therefore support a great deal in this strategy—its judgment on the threats we face and the changing security landscape, both in potential conflicts and in the emerging dangers through technological change, and the need to address them across all of government, the economy and society as a whole. There should be, of course, a high level of cross-party support. I hope the Government will bring regular updates with clear action plans of the many workstreams that fed into this strategy so that we can monitor and appraise for progress.

In many ways, the UK has a unique security need. But in many others, we can act as a global, open and interconnected country only if we secure the support and partnership of others. As an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. We were the first country to lay subsea communication cables, 175 years ago. Today we are almost exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution, and today our consumers are reliant on shipped imports and key sectors on shipped exports.

This is why, for example, I was very happy to see Taiwan mentioned in paragraph 21. Taiwanese security and the openness of the South China Sea are critical to our technology industry and wider trade. I welcome the aircraft carrier task group currently in the region. It is a key shipping route, essential for our economy. I will refer to China a little later, but the Leader of the House may not agree with me on those aspects.

We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the Government on increased defence expenditure, as the Leader knows. It would be helpful if she could indicate the breakdown of the sources of the 5%. What is the assumed level of growth of the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure we expect to be necessary?

We do not depart from the level of funding, but we do say, with respect to the Government, that it should not have been transferred from the official development assistance budget. With respect, this is a strategic mistake, and we are seeing considerable reductions in programmes that have been part of the UK national security platform, and successfully so, for many years. It is no surprise to me that, in recent weeks, we have seen public statements from former defence and military leaders and chiefs, diplomats, and heads of the intelligence community of the UK, appealing to the Prime Minister not to cut the very programmes that have been national security focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution, and in supporting allies to build resilient civil society and institutions against malign interference.

The western Balkans is rightly raised in the strategy. Twice in the Chamber I have asked for clarity on the continuation of the western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, funded by ODA. I hope that it is not under threat. If the Leader can provide reassurance on our posture within the western Balkans, that would be appreciated.

The FCDO network and our excellent diplomats were raised, and rightly so. I welcome what was said, but we have to recall that, in the spending review, there are year-on-year cuts to the operational budget of the FCDO going forward.

On other threats, such as biosecurity, I agree that we are less of an island than many might hope. Last night, I looked back at the UK’s first biological security strategy in 2018. DfID and ODA were mentioned on almost every single page—a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in countries where we have a large diaspora community or travel relationship. There was a reason why, 10 years ago, Ebola did not become Covid: it was because of the UK, through DfID and ODA. But this document makes no mention of it at all. In fact, with regards to official development assistance, there is only the most passing reference in paragraph 30.

We welcome the elements on research and development and the reconnection with Europe to regain the ground that we lost considerably under the previous Government. Page 11 says that we will go

“further than the agreements we have already struck”

with the EU. That is good news. In what areas will new agreements be sought?

We will consider the China audit next week, but the Leader may know that we on these Benches are concerned about the Government’s approach. In January, the Chancellor hailed £600 million of growth to our economy from extra trade with China over the next five years. In June, the Government announced £600 million for security agencies to tackle the threat from China. This is literally a zero-sum relationship this year. We would like to see legislative action on transnational repression suffered by people living here in the UK. The director-general of MI5 has made public warnings that China exploits education agreements and sovereign funds for espionage on an industrial scale. Although we welcome the first scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has heard me say that we regret both that China is not on the enhanced tier and that education and sovereign funds are exempted.

Finally, I want to look further to the future. The convulsive violence in the Middle East, Sudan and elsewhere will have a lingering effect here in the UK. Community cohesion and reducing tensions will now have to be a critical part of our national security strategy, because we know from previous conflicts that there is a lag, whereby young people affected by it now may well be radicalised in the years to come. Activities such as the Chamberlain Highbury Trust that bring communities together are examples of good work that we are doing in the UK, but, regrettably, as a result of the heightened conflicts that this strategy rightly seeks to address, we may well see further radicalisation within our shores in the future. Investment now is necessary so that we do not pay the price later.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I will do my best to respond to as many as possible in the time available.

Both were right to recognise the work of our security services but also of those in our embassies and diplomats overseas. The noble Lord rightly raised soft power. The soft power embedded in our embassies and the work that they do can never be underestimated; it is an absolutely vital part of keeping the country safe and improving relations across the world.

The noble Baroness was uncharacteristically a little uncharitable to describe this as “a wing and a prayer”. This is a serious strategy document, and it brings together numerous other documents that the Government have been working on—some of which have already been presented to this House. The industrial strategy is part of that, but there are a number of them. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is a serious commitment. Both noble Lords talked about the 5%. The noble Lord’s point at the end of his comments was important. In looking at our national security, what happens here at home—community cohesion but also the resilience of our infrastructure—is equally as important as what we do overseas. This is not a wing and a prayer; it is an absolute commitment to these figures.

The NATO pledge commits to hitting a headline ambition of 5%, and we are talking about the Parliament after next, in 2035-36. Some 1.5% of that is around security and resilience spending and homeland security and resilience, which is an important part of national security, and 3.5% is core defence spending. We estimate that we will get to over 4%—about 4.1%—the year after next, and that information will become clearer. What is important in all this is that it is a collective national enterprise, as I have said, across industry, business, our embassies and the work here. This is an overarching strategy, at home and abroad.

The noble Baroness asked whether the Government are confident and a number of questions about the China audit. That is the reason why we are having the China audit: those are questions that must be addressed. Whether we are talking about energy infrastructure or anything else—I am sure we will have further questions on this—our relationship with China is one of the most complex bilateral relationships we have in the entire world. There have been various ways of looking at this in the past. There was the golden era, where we said, “Yes, we’re going to work very closely with China”, and then, moving back from that, there was a lack of engagement. Neither of those approaches serves the national interest in the way that we wish. That is why we have the China audit. We have to manage the security implications and our concerns about that but also the economic relationship that we have.

I thank the noble Lord for referring to Taiwan. That relationship is a commitment in the document. I admire his ingenuity—each time he speaks about ODA, he picks a different region that he wants a commitment on. He will understand that, as we travel around the world, if he adds all those up he will get to a point where we are committed to completely the same level of ODA. I know that would be his objective, but I cannot satisfy him on that point and I cannot give him some of the details, as they are still being worked out. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is engaged on work on the global health fund as we speak.

I say to the noble Lord that how we work with other countries, improve their resilience and support them is not just about ODA. My noble friend Lord Collins has spoken about this before; he was telling me earlier about meetings that he has with African leaders. What do they want from us? They want our support for economic diversification. They want our support for levering in private funding for business, so that they can grow their economies. They want us to facilitate and enable. All that work continues, and it is vital that it does. Our relationship with the City of London and supporting them on that also makes a real difference. I assure the noble Lord that those things will continue.

The issue of the Middle East was raised. This has been of enormous concern to Members across the House, and we have had a number of debates on the issue. It is clear that Iran cannot be producing nuclear weapons that put the world at risk, and we are absolutely committed to that. But the noble Lord is right that this plays out in what happens in this country: we see conflict abroad playing out on the streets of London and major cities and towns across the UK. That brings a responsibility to government and the whole nation as well, which is why that 1.5% of the 5% funding is so important. I do not think the noble Baroness touched on this point, but resilience happens in a number of ways: it is our food resilience, energy resilience, telecoms resilience and business resilience. Marks & Spencer had a cyberattack—I am sure there are more noble Lords than me who have not been able to use their Sparks card. The most important thing is the damage that that has done to the economy and to that business. The damage to people’s confidence in dealing with the business is considerable. In all these areas, resilience is crucial.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, emphasised that we need to know exactly where the money is coming from—what is happening on this pound and that pound. More of this will become available as the spending review information is fed out, but this is a commitment and she should not doubt it in any way. I hope that all noble Lords will recognise that if we want to keep the country safe and secure, the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, at home and abroad. I am sorry that she thinks this is, to use her words, on a wing and a prayer; I fail to accept that.

The noble Baroness mentioned the money to be spent on Chagos. Governments do not spend this kind of money lightly. They will do so only if they are absolutely confident that it is in the national interest to do so. We have taken the view, and the evidence supports this, that it is absolutely in our security interests as a nation that we have this deal around the Diego Garcia base. That is why we have done the deal. Some of the figures given out are wildly inaccurate. We will have a longer debate on this on Monday, but we are committed to this for absolutely the right reasons, which are national security and national safety.

Middle East

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, events in the Middle East over the past week have brought into sharp focus a truth that we ignore at our peril: that the Islamic Republic of Iran remains one of the most dangerous and destabilising forces in the world today. The United States’ targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure were a necessary and vital act in the face of a regime that continues to enrich uranium beyond civilian thresholds, arms proxies across the region and openly calls for the destruction of its neighbour, and our ally, Israel. Yet, amid this defining moment, the response from His Majesty’s Government has been almost non-existent. Over the weekend, in the media and in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement made in the other place yesterday, not once has the Government even had the courage to come out in support of this vital action.

It seems bizarre to us on these Benches that decisive action to neutralise the nuclear threat posed by one of the world’s most dangerous and volatile states is not openly welcomed by the Government. I want to ask the noble Lord for some clarity. Will he now take this opportunity to come out in support of the strikes undertaken by the US on Iran’s nuclear facilities? If not, can he explain why? Could it possibly be a result of the legal advice reportedly issued by the Attorney-General that it could be illegal for Britain to play any role in the Iran campaign except for defending our allies? Does the Minister no longer consider Israel an ally?

My noble friend Lord Wolfson has made clear that the UK has a strong legal ground for supporting this action. There is at least, I am sure the Minister will concede, a legal debate to be had on this question. Why did the Government choose to come down on the side which went against our allies in the US and Israel? I wonder what quite was going through the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, when he issued this supposed advice. I cannot imagine why anyone witnessing a showdown between democracy and tyranny, between our ally Israel and an unhinged murderous caliphate, would conclude that we better not get involved because we might break the rules.

One shudders to think what might have happened had such advice been followed in 1939 or 1950 or 1990—or in 2022 when our friends in Ukraine were barbarically attacked. Fortunately, in those instances, our willingness to support our allies was not governed by academic hesitation. We must be clear that history will not smile on us for this, however much the Government swaddle themselves in grand talk about international law. For the noble and learned Lord to encourage the UK to stand idly by while Israel faces the real risk of genocidal nuclear attack seems to be a serious misjudgment.

It is deeply regrettable that Ministers have failed to issue a clear and immediate statement of support for our closest ally. The US acted to uphold international security and defend the global non-proliferation regime. That it did and continues to do so without our support is something we should be ashamed of. Let us be clear: Iran is not just a regional threat; it is a global threat. It bankrolls terrorism from Gaza to Beirut, from Baghdad to Sanaa. It plots assassinations on European soil, it disrupts shipping lanes in international waters and it is actively pursuing the technological means to blackmail the world with nuclear force. For the Government to equivocate in the face of such aggressive and dangerous action from Iran is both morally questionable and, in my view, strategically short-sighted. We should have stood shoulder to shoulder with our allies, and the Government failed to do so.

Let me also address this morning’s announcement of a temporary ceasefire. If it holds, it will be welcome because any cessation of violence offers a chance to de-escalate and protect civilian lives. But let us not be naive. Already this morning, Israeli officials have reported that Iran violated the ceasefire. That is a reminder of the challenges we face when dealing with bad actors who have no interest in peace and further underscores the fundamental threat that Iran poses to peace and lives in the region and wider world.

We must also support our allies in ensuring that de-escalation does not mean appeasement. I therefore ask the Minister to explain to the House what steps the Government will take from today to ensure that any remaining nuclear capability that Iran has is dismantled. If the Government remain so intent on pursuing a purely diplomatic solution, how will they change their approach to make sure that any agreement reached with Iran holds firm?

Let us not forget that diplomacy failed to prevent Iran acquiring uranium enriched to 60%. Let us not forget that, already, it appears that Iran has violated the terms of a diplomatic settlement to broker a ceasefire with Israel. The approach the Government have adopted has not been very successful. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to set out what the Government will do differently in future. It is not enough to say that we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, because that has been unsuccessful.

Finally, I have some questions about our country’s relationship with the US and our allies. As noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister is in The Hague today at the NATO summit. I am sure that, in the light of this, the Minister and his colleagues will have asked themselves this question: how did they get it so wrong on the US and Iran? The Government’s fundamental assumption, that there was time for negotiation, was clearly just wrong. It is a fact that the Government were blindsided on a matter of huge geopolitical importance and completely failed to understand what the Americans were thinking. The Prime Minister has been adamant that the President would not intervene in Iran. He went so far as to say he was in “no doubt” about the matter, despite very public indications to the contrary.

We are supposed to have a special relationship with the United States. This seems to be in doubt given how the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have acted in this case. In the light of this, does the Minister still believe that the US and the UK have a special relationship? Does he think that failing to come out in support of the US has damaged this relationship?

The events of recent days have exposed not only the growing threat posed by Iran but the shortcomings in the Government’s response. At a time when clarity and strategic resolve are required, Ministers have offered neither. They have failed to support our closest ally, misjudged the geopolitical landscape and clung to a diplomatic approach that has proved ineffective. The regime in Tehran thrives on hesitation; it exploits weakness, distrusts peace and seeks power through terror and provocation. If we are serious about international security, non-proliferation and our relationships with our allies, our response must be firm, united and credible. The US and Israel acted decisively and justifiably; the question is whether this Government will finally find the courage to stand with them.

[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.

Israel and Iran

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Israel: Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli Communities

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble lord. He is right that we should support all efforts for community cohesion. We are obviously committed to a two-state solution, where the rights of Palestinians and the State of Israel are well protected. Through that, as I said on previous occasions, we are supporting the Palestinian Authority in the reforms it needs to take to ensure that they can properly represent the people of Palestine. We are absolutely committed to that.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reference to Search for Common Ground and declare that I am the voluntary chair of its UK board. On a profound visit that I made to the region through the commendable organisation Yachad, I met a family in a kibbutz whose parents had been brutally murdered by Hamas, and they spoke to me very movingly about their desire to carry on their parents’ work to cross a political and geographical divide for peace. I welcome the Statement that humanitarian support from the UK Government will be protected at this difficult time, but will the Minister confirm that development support for organisations such as Yachad and for community and civil society initiatives will be protected?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that Gaza remains the focus and priority of our activity. We are working with a range of groups, and, to repeat what the noble Lord opposite said, we have to recognise that a lot of them are financing themselves. We remain committed to the sort of organisations that the noble Lord referred to because underneath all the tragedy we now see is a genuine desire for peace and progress. That means that we need to see economic development in all parts of Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Conflict in the Middle East

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We have seen Israel and Iran launch fresh attacks against one another yesterday and, sadly, again today, although it is worth noting that Israel is targeting predominantly nuclear and military sites, whereas Iran seems to be just launching missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas. This is a grave situation and we face the very real possibility that it could yet get a lot worse.

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that our first priority must be to ensure that British citizens in Israel are supported to get out of the region as quickly as possible. It is reported that approximately 40,000 tourists are currently stranded in Israel. As the Minister said, flight routes and land borders have been closed. I appreciate that this is a highly changeable situation, but I hope the Minister can set out the Government’s plans for making sure that British citizens are brought out of harm’s way as quickly as possible.

I totally understand that the Foreign Office is faced with a serious challenge, but we must remember that for British citizens on the ground this is a terrifying and desperately stressful situation. James Eden, a 72 year-old grandfather from my home city of Newcastle, is hoping to take a four-hour bus ride through the Negev and then cross to Egypt before flying home. Despite being a British citizen in a country that the FCDO has now put on its red list, Mr Eden has said of the Foreign Office that all it does is send alerts. On the support that the Foreign Office is providing to help him escape, Mr Eden said, “They are not going to stop me, but they are not going to help me get out of Egypt either”. It is deeply concerning that British citizens are being left in the lurch over their evacuation from what the FCDO has recognised as a high-risk area. I understand the limitations that the Foreign Office has with regard to the closure of airspace, et cetera, but we need to remember that normal people are now in a war zone, and they need all the support, reassurance and help they can get from the Foreign Office in getting out of harm’s way and back home to their families in the UK.

Further to this point, I take the opportunity to ask the Minister what steps the Government are going to take to protect civilians in Israel from falling victim to Iranian rocket attacks. As I said, Iran has deliberately targeted civilian communities in places such as Tel Aviv and Haifa, and the UK has a capacity to support Israel in anti-air operations which will help to protect civilians from further harm. I hope the Minister can update the House on what plans the Government have to use UK assets to defend against Iranian attacks on civilian targets. If this is no longer the ambition of the Government, what has changed since the last time, when the UK military helped to bring down missiles and drones?

Throughout this time of crisis we need to be clear in our resolve that Iran should never have nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly defied international conventions, undermined regional peace, and supported extremist groups across the Middle East. It continues to arm and finance proxies responsible for violence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and, of course, Israel. Iranian leaders have been brutally clear in their stated desire to completely eradicate the State of Israel, and we should listen to what they have said on this. A nuclear-armed Iran would not be a stabilising force—far from it. It would be a threat multiplier, emboldening aggression, enabling coercion, and potentially triggering a regional arms race from which it may not be possible to return. We must never allow the bankrollers of Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to gain access to that sort of weaponry.

As the Minister said, the IAEA has said that as of 17 May Iran has amassed 408 kilograms of uranium, enriched up to 60%. That material is a short technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. The agency has said that Iran is now

“the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material”,

which is of “serious concern”. That is enough uranium to make several nuclear bombs. The Iranian Government have always claimed that they want to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but this, as the IAEA has made clear, is palpable nonsense. We should be working with and fully supporting our allies, including Israel, to ensure that Iran never has access to this sort of weaponry. The warning signs are flashing and I hope the Minister can tell us what steps the Government are taking now to make sure that this fear is not realised. Israel is engaged in an existential fight for its own survival as a nation, but it is also fighting dangerous religious extremism on behalf of the rest of the liberal free world. It should have our full support in that fight.

With regard to the announcement about sanctions last week, it is now more important than ever that we maintain a constructive, effective and open dialogue with Israel. We must be clear that we support it and its civilians when they are targeted by Iran, which has killed numerous civilians in its attacks over the weekend. Can the Minister assure the House that the relationship and leverage so often referred to by the Government have not been negatively affected by the decision to sanction the Israeli Finance and National Security Ministers? I would also appreciate further clarification from the Minister about why this decision was reached. The sanctions imposed on Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich —who have said, I completely agree, many outrageous things—ban them from entering the UK and freeze any assets that they have in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister explain why these specific sanctions were chosen? Was there a high chance that Messrs Ben-Gvir and Smotrich would travel to the UK to

“incite violence against the Palestinian people”?

Do these men have substantial assets in the UK which would enable them to do this?

We must ensure that we approach matters of this importance and delicacy with a clear strategy and an eye to the future. We cannot make decisions which seriously change our international relations merely to appease political support from certain sections of society, some of them in this country. In the face of this deeply volatile and dangerous moment in the Middle East, the Government must demonstrate clarity, consistency and compassion. British citizens stranded in a conflict zone must be our immediate priority, as the Minister has said. At the same time, we must stand firm with our allies against attacks on civilians, ensuring that the UK does all it can to uphold international security. That means using our diplomatic leverage wisely, not undermining it through ill-considered sanctions that risk damaging vital relationships. Above all, we must maintain our unwavering resolve to prevent Iran, a state that arms violent proxies and threatens regional peace, from ever acquiring nuclear weapons. The challenges are immense, but so, too, is our responsibility, so I urge the Minister to set out today how the Government will meet this moment with the seriousness and the strategic foresight that it demands.

[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.

Cluster Munitions Convention: Article 21

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister regarding the Halo Trust and the very long legacy that exists because of the use of these munitions. The UK was the world leader in demining and in the stabilisation programmes in communities affected by them. Unfortunately, the scale of the ODA cuts is biting very hard, especially on initiatives such as humanitarian mine action and the stabilisation programmes. In the last Question, the Minister suggested that I was incorrect on the reductions. Can he prove his case by saying that these programmes will now be protected?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did not say the noble Lord was incorrect—I think Hansard would prove that; I said that he may have more information than I have. We are in the middle of a very detailed spending review. While the outlying figures are out, the department has to go through a programme-by-programme process to determine how we meet the commitment of ODA. I did not say that he was misleading. One thing I am determined to do is to ensure that we use all levers available to us. It is not limited to ODA, and it is not limited to our diplomatic efforts and working with allies. We should be more innovative in how we develop and deliver these programmes, including with the private sector.

United Nations International Day of Peace

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have a tendency to agree with the noble Lord on many occasions, and he is absolutely right. When he was Minister responsible for the UN, he took time to ensure that its peacebuilding efforts were fully recognised. We are absolutely focused on how we can improve support. I have been involved in meetings with Under-Secretary-General Lacroix during UNGA week, talking about how we can support that peacekeeping effort. More importantly, in April, I then met Under-Secretary Guy Ryder and Under-Secretary Nakamitsu to discuss not only how the UN reform programme can work but how it can be focused heavily on that peacebuilding effort. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to do more to promote such activity and to engage, but the convening role of the UN is absolutely vital. That is why, although we can feel frustrated with the role of the UN Security Council, it is really important that everyone is around the table.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the best way to mark peace day will be to invest in conflict prevention. It is regrettable that the Government are cutting to almost zero all conflict prevention work, especially—in the light of our issues here at home around migration—as there are an increased number of conflicts around the world that will lead to increased levels of migration. The Government continue to pay the profits of those hosting asylum seekers in the UK and to score out official development assistance. At the conference on 21 September, would it not be better to invest in peacekeeping and conflict prevention and not to allow profiteering as a result of conflict?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Maybe the noble Lord has more information than me, but I reassure him that we are absolutely focused on using all the tools in our toolkit to promote peacebuilding, and that is certainly not limited to ODA. To reassure him, we are using this year’s peacebuilding architecture review to champion the women, peace and security agenda, ensuring that gender inequality and women’s participation is embedded at all levels of the United Nations. We continue to support the UN Peacebuilding Fund and have committed over £175 million since its inception in 2006. We continue to support the UN’s Complex Risk Analytics Fund, with £1.4 million last year and this year, which plays an important role in financing data and analysis to strengthen global risk foresight capabilities. I do not accept what the noble Lord is suggesting. There are more ways that we can focus on peacebuilding, and certainly we will continue to do so.