Journalists and Media Workers: Safety and Security

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we all thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, for allowing us to have this short but very powerful debate in the House. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his work in the previous Government.

Restricting, demeaning and defunding the free press and media is a well-understood approach of autocrats and is on the increase, as we have heard. Free media are often the first victim of war, as we also heard, and journalists have too many times been personal victims and paid with their lives in order to spread truth, as my noble friend Lord Oates said in his powerful contribution. The refusal of Israel to allow free media to operate in Gaza, the refusals in Sudan, and the persecution of the press by Russia across the Ukraine conflict prove that if we believe in the rule of law, transparency and democracy, we must do more.

As my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter said, we used to have a partner in the United States for this, but we can no longer rely on that to be the case. Therefore, it is necessary for our Government to step up, but with even a cursory glance at DevTracker online we see that UK global partnership for free media is being cut, not increased. Therefore, the alarming news that there could even be reductions in funding for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and concerns over future funding for the World Service mean that we need to plan more. We need to do more and we need to do it ourselves.

Some 25 years ago, the charity BBC Media Action was founded because the BBC saw a need to defend democracy, and to protect human rights, freedom of speech and media freedom, because they are the very core of national security. The need is even greater now 25 years on and it is up to the Government to increase, not to cut. It is a major strategic error to cut all those areas of development partnership when so much is at stake.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rule of Law

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we remain absolutely united with our Quint colleagues, with whom both officials and Ministers have maintained regular engagement on Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Foreign Secretary, Dame Karen and Minister Doughty continue to raise our concerns about the situation there in their engagement with regional partners, including Croatia and Serbia.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the western Balkans is critical to the future of the United Kingdom’s interests for national security, especially in the context of Russian interference, organised crime and migration. The UK has supported the efforts against Russian interference through the £30-million western Balkans freedom and resilience programme, which is coming to an end next year. It involves 20 local civil society organisations and is on the front line of all this work. It is funded through official development assistance, so I make this appeal to the Minister. When decisions are being made to reduce ODA, which we on these Benches think is regrettable, can there be a specific carve-out for areas linked to the future interests of British national security?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: our review will be absolutely focused on the UK’s national interest, and the decision was made on the basis of the first duty of any Government to protect their population.

We have been engaged across a wide range of areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans—and Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically. Our development efforts have never been solely about aid. We mobilise a range of resources to achieve our development objectives in the western Balkans and we will continue to do that, influencing policy.

One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the committee. I have said previously, when we have debated reports from the International Agreements Committee, that I believe it is the most significant of all the committees of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said, no other committee in either House would have studied such an agreement and come up with a constructive report. That fact gives testimony to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, his colleagues on the committee and the committee staff, who managed to communicate in very clear language and to report on what can well be very detailed treaties. This is not one of them when it comes to detail but, nevertheless, the consequences are considerable.

I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was to speak before me and knew that he would have looked back, with his diplomatic experience, at previous times when we have signed treaties of friendship or perpetual amity. I found ones with regard to our treaty of friendship with Tonga in the 1950s and a treaty of peace, friendship and commerce with Costa Rica in the 1850s; there have been others. Most of our treaties of friendship or perpetual relationship have the common characteristics of being one-sided friendships—in the interests of Britain—and of not having a duration of perpetuity. One of note is the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between England and Scotland of 1502; it fell short of perpetuity because 11 years later, in 1513, there was the bloodiest battle between England and Scotland not far from where I live in the Borders.

So, on one look at it, 100 years is a relatively modest period given what has been signed with regards to aims for perpetual relationships between countries, but, as my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out, the committee noted that

“the value of this Agreement appears to lie primarily in its signalling function”,

with little detail of substance. Given that, as my noble friend said, it can be ended with six months’ notice by each party, the century-long lasting partnership may be somewhat illusory. However, the question we have to face is whether the signalling is of importance in its own merit, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said; I will close with my own remarks about that.

The committee asked us to move on from the perhaps “meaningless” title and not to be distracted from the substance. We have had a good debate on the substance of it so far. It is also worth noting that, although this is a bilateral treaty, Ministers have been at pains to say to me at the Dispatch Box that we are working hand in glove with the United States on our Ukraine policy. It is worth considering that, as we debate a UK agreement for 100 years, our main and apparent ally, the United States, barely has a Ukraine policy that lasts 100 hours. Therefore, our ability to see through the unpredictable nature of the Trump Administration—to put it at its kindest—presents us with challenges. As members of the committee have noted, the political landscape has changed even from the time when it was agreed and when the committee took evidence on it. All that said, there is merit in the substance of what is included in the pillars and the articles of co-operation on defence, industrial capabilities, joint production, procurement and transferring technologies.

I will now ask the Minister my first question on transferring technologies. In principle, the UK-Ukrainian relationship could well be developed in a deep way where we have no qualms about the transfer of technologies from Ukraine to the UK and from the UK to Ukraine. However, given the fluidity of the situation—we are still in a conflict and we do not know, if there is a ceasefire, what the terms of peace may be—there is a degree of uncertainty when it comes to protecting UK intellectual property in some regards.

Just 10 years ago, I was in the Maidan in Kyiv, where the buildings were still charred after the peaceful Maidan revolution—the orange revolution. The previous Ukrainian president had fled to Russia with a lot of his people’s money and with the oligarchs who own much of the industrial complex of Ukraine around him. So, if we are to have a deep commercial relationship with much of the private sector in Ukraine, are there any guard-rails when it comes to how we monitor how that will be taken forward?

I am very pleased that we are committed to supporting the liberal democratic leadership of President Zelensky; he leads one of our sister parties in Kyiv. I hope that our defence industrial strategy will have more detail on how the operation and transparency of the relationship will go forward. We can only hope that there will be a sustainability of liberal democratic leadership in the country. That is why they are fighting, and they are sacrificing their lives for it. But given that this is a 100-year timeframe, more detail on how we can see this operating would be beneficial. I hope that, as we are anticipating the Government’s defence industrial strategy, we will have more details in that.

That said, I am in awe of the resilience of the members of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, a democratic parliament that is still functioning in incredibly difficult circumstances. They are still carrying out parliamentary functions long after they were due to be either assassinated or held hostage by Putin’s regime in the first 48 hours of the Russian attack. They are a testimony to every country in the world when it comes to how a parliamentary system should operate in incredibly difficult circumstances.

Therefore, I was repulsed by President Trump declaring that Ukraine started this conflict and repelled by JD Vance when he ignored the UK personnel, who have paid with many of their lives, alongside US allies in conflicts over the last 30 years. I will say to the Minister that I wish our Government had condemned the US envoy for Ukraine; he demeaned the work of our Prime Minister, who is working with a coalition of the willing and allies in support for Ukraine. Given the suspension and re-establishment of US military intelligence support—the kind of support that was used so deftly by President Biden and Secretary Blinken and which, probably more than anything else, thwarted the success of the Russian attack in the first few days—how reliable is the United States as a partner when we embark on our first elements of this 100-year partnership?

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated regarding the irreversible nature of NATO membership, in this agreement we are committed to the interoperability of capabilities with Ukraine. How valid will that be if the United States is a reluctant partner—not just a reluctant one, but potentially a blocking one? Will it be problematic for the defence co-operation partnership if the United States becomes an obstructive element to it? In this context, paragraphs 34 and 43 of the report have great significance; they ask for an update to be provided to Parliament if there is either a ceasefire or some form of agreement for peace. A full parliamentary debate on when we receive this would be welcome.

The committee was right to call for more practical information on the type of the economic and commercial relationship, which has also been raised in this debate. If the sum of the agreement is simply going to be the promotion of economic co-operation, we should see more information about what joint delivery vehicles there will be for that. Is it the Government’s intention that there will be shared capital investment? Will there be UK-Ukrainian entities to deliver some of the infrastructure, which the Government have said is one of their priorities? How do the Government anticipate these operating in practice?

Is it the Government’s intent that we will move from the continuity agreement that we already have with Ukraine, from 2020—which this Parliament approved as part of the legacy of the European Union relationship —towards a comprehensive deep and free trade agreement with Ukraine? One reason why I ask that is that, having looked again at the continuity agreement of 2020, I notice that there are some suspicious areas where the language is the same. If the purpose of this agreement was to build on the continuity agreement, take it to the next stage and develop it, then cutting and pasting is not the way to do it. I simply refer to Article 10, with regard to migration co-operation and support, which uses the same language as Article 15 of the continuity agreement of 2020. What does it mean if we are moving ahead in a more comprehensive way, if we are simply restating the continuity agreement that we had previously with the European Union?

This leads on to the second question on working with our European allies. Are there any parts of the agreement that are exclusive? I do not think that the UK alone will seek agreements for the reconstruction of Ukraine—for infrastructure, technology and research and development. The European Union and European partners are well developed in those relationships. Are any of these elements in any of these pillars anticipated to be uniquely UK-Ukrainian elements, or will they all be part of working with our allies? Unless there is a degree of exclusivity, I am not certain why this particular agreement for 100 years is any different from a commercial relationship where the UK could be part of consortia with other European partners.

Little is said about the situation that we may well face: the growing of trade that starts from an incredibly low base. With the greatest respect, if I had to choose between the perspectives of the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Kerr, with regards to the investment opportunity, on balance I would settle with that of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. But, in 2019, when building on trade in a peaceful situation, total UK exports were just £0.7 billion, or 0.1% of all exports; Ukraine was 71st in the list of our export partners. If we are to see rapid growth of UK economic partnership in reconstruction, rather than out of peace, there needs to be more detail about how it will be driven forward, rather than it being simply aspirational.

I wish to ask one further question and make an appeal to the Minister. The question relates to what the committee considered on the impunity and aggression of Russia. I commend the Government on continuing support for seeking justice for the crimes committed by the Putin regime, and I commend them on moving ahead on seeking penalties under the crime of aggression—but these are two areas where the United States is now a block. The United States believes that there was no aggression and has halted evidence-gathering for the very type of justice that we want to see. Is the UK committed to continuing to do this alone, if the United States is seeking to be a block?

Finally, we will most likely be in a situation where there will be an ongoing debate about whether Russia or Ukraine has lost or won. Indeed, there will be lots of academic debate about the definitions of not losing compared to not winning. We may well be in a situation of both sides not losing and not winning. However, what does a type of victory look like, when there is security but also sustainable reconstruction? Ukraine has reliable allies and many of the developing economies in the wider region, and the Middle East and Africa, see Ukraine as a success story for reconstruction to partner with—but they are also not drawn within the sphere of influence of the Putin regime.

My final appeal before I close is that it is not too late for the Government to reverse their decision to slash overseas development partnership dramatically. If there is any lesson from the war in Ukraine, it is that the consequences have been far wider than simply the territorial border of that country. Given the impact on developing economies in the wider region, including neighbouring countries such as Moldova, which continue to see Russian interference attempts, cutting back on UK technical assistance for resilience against Russia and development partnership unfortunately sets us in a narrative that makes us more like the Trump and Putin regimes rather than the Zelensky and Verkhovna Rada regime. Ultimately, I hope that this proposal will be a success, but more detail and more development partnership will be required.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It is very difficult to give a direct answer; what I can say is that we are currently working through all programmes. We want to avoid a cliff-edge like that which, as the noble Baroness knows, happened in the past: programmes were stopped midway through, and damage was done to our credibility and confidence. We are not going to do that. We are looking at all programmes and making plans to reduce spending over time. Let me reassure her that we will come forward with details when the spending review is completed. We are going to avoid some of the mistakes of the past, and we will work with partners, multilaterally and bilaterally, to ensure there is not the sort of damage we saw in the past.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, next, and then from my noble friend Lord McConnell.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday the Government failed to implement the global tax avoidance scheme for businesses earning profits of more than €20 billion, and which would raise over half a billion pounds this year, because they are waiting for President Trump’s approval. Also yesterday, the Government announced in the Statement an immediate £0.5 billion cut to official development assistance, contradicting what the Minister has just said. What is the morality of allowing large companies like Elon Musk’s X to avoid paying tax in the UK, while implementing programme cuts that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable women and girls around the world? What morality is to be found there?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I come back to the point I made at the beginning, because I am absolutely passionate about this. When I visited African countries, they were concerned about ensuring that they have a proper tax base in their own country. That is why the HMRC—[Interruption.] The noble Lord does not need to shout at me. We have embedded people in a number of African countries to help them widen their tax base, and we are working collaboratively with partners to ensure that that happens. We want to see economic growth as the driver of change around the globe, and I am absolutely committed to that. I do not accept the hypocrisy argument that the noble Lord is making.

Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord absolutely. We need to maintain pressure on Russia to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a secure and lasting peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware that these Benches are part of the consensus in Parliament in support of the Government’s aims in this, but with Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Ukraine envoy, calling our Prime Minister posturing and posing in his work, with Mike Waltz, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, calling the previous efforts of the RAF in Yemen “feckless”, and with the chat on Signal that we saw over the last couple of days, which in effect is extorting European allies for their practice, there comes a time when good friends and allies have to say that language such as that is not acceptable. I invite the Minister to do so now.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to accept the noble Lord’s invitation. The simple fact is that the UK shares President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Russia could do this tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and we will work with all our allies to secure that.

Cuba: Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says. The embargo does negatively affect the living standards of the Cuban people but, more importantly, it impedes the economic and political development of the country. That is why this country, including the previous Government, supports this move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, unfortunately, I have not a chat with a Cuban taxi driver, but 18 months seems a little long for internal government consultation on an agreement signed by a Minister of the Crown. Part of the agreement, as Minister Rutley said when he signed it, was about the US embargo—and now we have seen the most recent restrictions by the Trump Administration. So, given that our Government want to be closer to both Beijing and Washington, will they actually bring into force the Cuban agreement that we have signed?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I have already answered the noble Lord: we will put ratification of this agreement before Parliament, but it is a matter of parliamentary time. Since the election, we have started the cross-Whitehall consultation to ensure that we can properly implement it. But I repeat that positive collaboration with Cuba is possible without partial implementation of the PDCA, and that is really important to understand. Climate change is just one aspect, but other aspects of collaboration can happen without the full implementation.

Conflict in Gaza

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that Members across both Houses mourn the many innocent lives lost to date in this appalling conflict. I know that colleagues on all sides of your Lordships’ House will join me in sending our sympathies and thoughts to all those who have been affected, including the British national injured in last week’s air strikes.

In his Statement in the other place last week, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he was in the process of making representations to the Israeli Government to find out more about the investigations they were undertaking into the recent air strikes that were undertaken against targets in Gaza. Could the Minister provide an update to the House on the outcome of those talks and any information the Foreign Secretary has received from his Israeli counterparts?

This conflict has seen death, destruction and human suffering across a large area of the Middle East. Many lives have been irrevocably changed, and futures are uncertain for many thousands of people. We must never forget that the fault for this tragic situation lies squarely with Hamas—a murderous, viscerally antisemitic terrorist organisation. It kidnapped children, raped and mutilated women and girls, and massacred young people who were simply enjoying a music festival. According to Israeli news reports, Hamas has now fired over 4,300 rockets at civilian targets and inflicted the single deadliest anti-Jewish pogrom since the Holocaust. Hamas has deliberately entrenched itself in civilian communities to bring innocent people into the line of fire in the war that it has itself created, and it has acted in a way designed and intended to bring about the maximum amount of suffering for civilians across the region.

The power to end this conflict lies with Hamas. It could agree to release the people it has imprisoned as hostages now and avert any further escalation in this conflict. I therefore ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to support efforts to secure the release of the hostages? Do the Government believe that phase 2 of the ceasefire remains within reach or are alternative solutions being considered? What are the Government doing to make sure that Hamas will never have a role in Gaza’s future?

The UK’s relationship with Israel is vital to ensure that we can support those affected by this terrible conflict and the only way that we can play a role in bringing it to an end. Israel must continue to see the UK as a trusted partner if we are to continue to play a role not only in bringing about an end to this war but in supporting peace and stability across the entire Middle East. I therefore ask the Minister what the Government are doing to strengthen this relationship. Have the comments made by the Foreign Secretary last week, which I am pleased to say he has now withdrawn, affected the trust between our two nations?

Finally, ensuring that aid gets to those communities affected by this conflict is one of the most important roles we can play amid the suffering that is taking place. Thousands of innocent people are suffering and we must do all we can to make sure that food and medicine get to those who need it. I close by asking the Minister what discussions the Government have held with the Israeli Government on the question of getting aid routes unblocked. What has happened to British aid that is already present in the region or en route? Furthermore, what assessment have the Government made of how we can better support the affected communities? What more could we be doing to support the vital work of the International Committee of the Red Cross?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the ferocity of the return to war has shocked many. Even in the days since the Statement was made in the House of Commons, we have seen strikes within Lebanese territory as well. Can the Minister update us on the contact His Majesty’s Government have had with the Lebanese Government regarding to the situation in Lebanon? I have twice asked the Development Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, whether she would be open to meeting with me and female Lebanese MPs who are at the heart of trying to design reconstruction that does not entrench the confessional system but offers new hope.

But, alas, with the strikes in Lebanon, that hope, as well as that with regard to the hostage families, must now be teetering. Indeed, reading, as I did—I quoted it in the Chamber—the statement from the hostage families of their shock and anger at the Netanyahu Government’s resumption of war was really depressing, because it dashes what many have had: finally, the prospect of hope. So can the Minister update us on the Government’s assessment of the process that was brokered by Qatar? Is it a process that the Government consider can still be retrieved or do the actions we are seeing within Gaza and Lebanon now require a separate process? What discussions have the Government had with our Qatari and Egyptian colleagues?

It should be noted that the restart of the war has seen an even higher proportion of victims being women and children than before the ceasefire. The availability of food and medicine is even less than it was then. Yet again, civilians are being treated disproportionately and are also being forcibly moved to new areas where there is no food, shelter, water or medicine. That qualifies as a war crime. I asked the Minister last week whether it was the Government’s view that there is a prima facie case of international human humanitarian law being breached. What actions are we taking beyond those taken last July with the limited suspension of certain export licences?

I turn to the Arab peace plan and the Government’s assessment of the overall prospects for reconstruction if there is some form of peace—even though not many people will be optimistic about that. What faith can we put in the judgment of the United States envoy, Steve Witkoff, who the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement we were speaking to but who in recent days has ridiculed our Prime Minister as a poseur and posturer over Ukraine, regards the war criminal Putin not as a war criminal or a bad guy but as a gracious and good guy, and has said that Ukraine is “a false country”? If that is the envoy’s judgment on Ukraine, what faith can we have in his judgment on the reconstruction of Gaza? What is our position on the Arab plan? Is it one that the United Kingdom is supporting directly or are we sympathetic to what the Trump Administration have been saying?

We have also, regrettably, seen certain extremist elements of Israeli politics rejoin the Netanyahu Administration. This is of concern not just to people in this Parliament but to civil society in Israel itself. We have seen the attacks on the judiciary, the statements for annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the unprecedented sacking of the internal intelligence chief and the active encouragement of settler violence. Most surely, we cannot have a relationship with the Netanyahu Administration in the normal manner. So, what actions are the UK taking to prevent settler violence and annexation? What are our red lines for our diplomatic relations with the Netanyahu Administration?

Finally, one of the issues that must now be an imperative is recognition, because, even at a time of great humanitarian danger, there is one element we can provide: hope for statehood. We had a very good debate—and all Members were able to express their views, in favour and against—on the recognition Bill brought by my noble friend Lady Northover. I understand that it is the Government’s position that now is not the time for recognition and that they will make a judgment on when it is the appropriate time for recognition. What factors would need to be in place that are not in place now for us to consider that the time would be right? At the end of the day, with the danger that the civilians are seeing, one of the elements that can provide hope is recognition. These Benches believe in this, and I hope the Government can at least move and give more hope to the Palestinian people.

[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. We all share deep concern about the resumption of Israeli military action in Gaza, and the United Kingdom does not support a return to fighting. It is absolutely not in anybody’s interests and, certainly, the reported civilian casualties resulting from the renewed outbreak of hostilities are appalling. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that aid must immediately be allowed back into Gaza. We have urged all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full, release the hostages and work towards a permanent peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians. That is absolutely the key.

Picking up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about when the right time for recognition is, the right time is when we see a clear pathway to a negotiated settlement. That is what the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. It is what we have repeatedly said. It should be an aid towards securing a proper process for achieving a longer-term settlement that sees security for Israel and nationhood for the Palestinians, and them working peacefully together.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the Foreign Secretary has been absolutely embraced in terms of communicating our concerns and how we could reach, in particular, access for aid into Gaza. The Foreign Secretary has recently spoken to Secretary Rubio, EU High Representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. On 21 March, he also spoke to his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Sa’ar, and he plans to speak to Palestinian PM Mustafa shortly. The UK made statements in the UN Security Council on Tuesday 18 March and Friday 21 March. We joined the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement the week before. An E3 Foreign Ministers’ statement issued on Friday 21 March called on all parties to re-engage with negotiations to ensure that the ceasefire is implemented in full and becomes permanent.

In his Statement last Thursday, the Foreign Secretary said that the block on supplies of basic goods and electricity was appalling and unacceptable. He went on to say that, while ultimately this is a matter for the courts, not Governments, to determine, it was difficult to see how denying humanitarian assistance to a civilian population could be compatible with international humanitarian law. The Government have been clear that we are not an international court and that we cannot make a judgment on whether Israel has breached IHL.

Our export licensing criteria, as the Foreign Secretary set out in the House of Commons back in September, require him to assess the risk that our exports could commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. Our reviews concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching IHL and we took decisive action on 2 September by suspending the relevant licences to the IDF for use in Gaza.

We have been absolutely clear that humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool and that Israel must restart the flow of aid immediately. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that they are appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than ever before. At the UN Security Council meeting on 18 March, we called for a rapid and unhindered resurgence of the flow of aid into Gaza and for the ceasefire to be re-established as soon as possible. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Tom Fletcher on 14 March regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza and Hamish Falconer spoke to him on 17 March, so we have been in constant contact.

In relation to the UNOPS compound in Gaza, which was hit last week, our thoughts are very much with the victims and their families, including, as noble Lords have said, a British national. On 21 March, together with France and Germany, we called for an investigation into this incident. UN personnel and premises should be protected and never be a target. We are, of course, aware of the statement and we echo the UN Secretary-General’s call for an urgent ceasefire. As the Foreign Secretary said on Thursday, this was a shocking incident, with a British national being wounded. We share the outrage of Secretary-General Guterres at this incident. The Government call for a transparent investigation and for those responsible to be held to account.

As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, reflected, the hostages have endured unimaginable suffering and the situation in Gaza has worsened. This ceasefire is the only way for the region to move forward. Securing an immediate ceasefire and the safe release of all hostages has been a priority for this Government since the start of the conflict and we will not stop until they are all home. Time is running out and we renew the call of all parties to return to dialogue.

I stress that there is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation. We have been clear that there is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza.

In relation to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we welcome the Arab initiative on the recovery and reconstruction plan for Gaza. In a statement on 8 March, we, with France, Germany and Italy, encouraged ongoing efforts on the initiative and encouraged all parties to build on the plan’s merits.

In relation to the hostages, on 20 March, the UK-linked former hostage Eli Sharabi addressed an open session of the Security Council, which was called for by the UK, along with the US and France. Following Eli’s harrowing testimony, the UK said that Hamas must be held accountable for its despicable actions. We have repeated our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, which has also been set out in all four of the UN Security Council’s resolutions on Gaza adopted since 7 October.

The important thing is how we can ensure that the focus continues to be on the ceasefire and the agreed process. As regards the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we are committed to that. We do believe that it is our only hope for sustainable peace and we will work at all levels to ensure that it can be delivered.

In relation to Lebanon, escalation across the Israel-Lebanon blue line is deeply concerning. It is imperative that all sides return to a cessation of hostilities and work towards a secure and lasting peace. That is the only way to restore security and stability for people living on either side of the border.

Gaza: Ceasefire

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I believe the international community is united. I thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their support in bringing those individuals who have been released back to their families. Our thoughts are very much with those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, including the family of the UK-linked hostage, Avinatan Or. The simple fact is that release of the hostages is a vital component of the ceasefire deal, and it is the ceasefire deal that we have to be focused on to ensure that the hostages are released, that there is peace back in Gaza and that we get humanitarian aid in there, which is essential.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, given the unacceptable civilian casualties, the withholding of life-sustaining aid and the comments by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, representing the Israeli hostages’ families, who said that they were “shocked” by the strikes and

“the deliberate disruption of the process to return our loved ones”,

it looks as if there is little chance that there will be the next stage of the ceasefire. Given that the Government believe that there is a very strong possibility of IHL being breached, is this not now the time to enact the precautionary principle and for there to be targeted actions against the extremist members of the Israeli Government who have rejoined the cabinet and must have been given an element of impunity by the United States? We must act unilaterally in this country and use the precautionary principle.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows my position very clearly. All our diplomatic efforts are engaged with neighbouring countries, the US and all others to ensure that the parties to the ceasefire return to the table and implement the commitments they made. That is essential. That is how we will see the release of the hostages and see aid get back into Gaza. That is our priority. The noble Lord is fully aware that I am not going to comment on any possible future sanctions or actions; we do not do that. It is important that we focus diplomatically on ensuring a return to the ceasefire agreement and then at least we can get the aid into Gaza.

Media Freedom Coalition

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Media freedom is absolutely part of this Government’s missions, particularly economic growth, because transparency is needed for that, as well as for climate and security. Media freedom plays an important part.

We are aware that the American Government have made significant changes to the US Agency for Global Media and related agencies such as Voice of America. I come back to how much we value the BBC World Service as it continues to provide impartial and accurate news to global audiences. I stress why it is so vital: it is a trusted voice. It is not the voice of the UK Government. I hesitate to use the term “soft power”. It is an independent voice, trusted globally, and we value that very much. We will monitor developments in relation to the USAGM and review carefully with the BBC any impacts on the World Service.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, further to that, the Minister and the House know that countering mis- and disinformation, especially in hostile environments, is a key part of our national security and defence. Over the last five years, the UK has committed over £500 million in this regard, all scored as official development assistance. On 7 March, the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Development, gave an instruction that all new funding programming is now paused in advance of the spending review. Can the Minister say, at the very least, when it comes to this key part of our national security—countering mis- and disinformation—whether this funding will be protected?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has announced a strategic vision for spending on defence and security. This has the impact on ODA that the noble Lord has mentioned, but the Government are absolutely committed to a significant development role. We will make detailed decisions on how the ODA budget will be used. We will work through this, as part of the ongoing spending review, on the basis of various factors, including impact assessments. I will not predict or predetermine what that review will undertake, but I have been very clear in my responses about the importance of media freedom to our security.

Gaza

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On the next stages of the process, we welcome the efforts by Arab leaders to put forward a plan for the next phase and the recovery and reconstruction in Gaza. The UK stands ready to work with partners to develop these ideas and to support all parties to get behind a single, viable plan for Gaza that meets the needs and aspirations of the civilian population and ensures a peaceful political framework for a negotiated two-state solution. As I have said to the House before, we are very clear that Hamas cannot govern Gaza and that any plan must ensure Israeli security and should support the unity of the West Bank and Gaza under the PA’s mandate.

On humanitarian aid, I reassure the noble Lord that we have committed a further £17 million, as the previous Minister for Development announced. We have also announced £129 million for the OPTs so far for this financial year, including £41 million for UNRWA. As the Prime Minister said in his Statement, we are absolutely committed to ensuring continued support for the Palestinian authorities.

The halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza is a serious matter, and Israel risks breaching its obligations under international humanitarian law. Today, we have issued with France and Germany a statement in which we express deep concern at Israel’s halt on aid to Gaza and urge it to lift all restrictions. It is vital that the ceasefire is sustained, all hostages are released, and aid is resumed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have read the E3 statement, and I agree with every word of it. These Benches support the Government’s statement, including the fact that the withholding of aid access to the people who need it most is contrary to international humanitarian law, and I am grateful that the Government have been clear on that. Given that the United States and the Israeli Governments have rejected the Arab plan, which was agreed yesterday, the UK Government may be in a position where they will have to choose whether to support the Trump proposals or the Arab proposals. In that regard, perhaps I may ask a specific question.

The UK has been the lead country in supporting the training, professionalisation and funding for the Palestinian Authority police force. Any police force in the new arrangements for Gaza will be of fundamental importance. Can the Minister reassure me that our support will continue for the professionalisation and training of a civilian police force? It would probably be one of the strongest ways to prevent gangsterism and Hamas regaining footage in that area.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority, not only with the training that he mentioned but in other ways, to enable it to take part positively in that plan. We have insisted that any dialogue should include Palestinians, and we will certainly continue with that. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have obviously been in dialogue with all partners on this, and we will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build a consensus on the governance of post-conflict Gaza and the security framework that supports the conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace.