Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the events that we are seeing in Gaza, and that we have witnessed in recent weeks, are truly harrowing. It is evident that dramatic change is needed from the current situation; the level of suffering ongoing in the region on all sides is intolerable. We are clear that the deaths and casualties near aid distribution centres should never have happened. I note that public threats were issued by Hamas towards any civilians trying to access those aid points. Will the Minister inform the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those events and the status of any investigations?

I am sure that the whole House is agreed that the Government should do all they can to try to stop and alleviate this humanitarian crisis, which is escalating in the region. Britain must leverage its influence to get more aid in, to see the hostages released, and to end the terminal situation with Hamas, to achieve a proper, sustainable end to the conflict. It is only after this work has been done that we can begin to progress towards a better long-term future for the Palestinian and Israeli people.

We must never forget those who remain in Hamas captivity. Some 58 hostages remain in the hands of this murderous terrorist organisation. They have now been in captivity for well over 600 days. We have always been clear that they must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States, and that these latest proposals have been rejected by Hamas. So I ask the Minister: what pressure are the Government exerting on Hamas, perhaps working through sympathetic Arab Governments, to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans? What steps do the Government intend to take next to secure the release of the hostages? As I am sure the Minister is well aware, this is the only true way that we will ever resolve this conflict.

Turning to the West Bank, I am aware that the Government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Can the Minister please provide an update on the Authority’s progress on reform and governance since that time? Strengthening credible governance will be essential to long-term peace. We need assurance from the Government that they are confident that these vital steps are being taken. It is, after all, essential, if we are ever to ensure that Hamas does not maintain a grip over the region, that the Palestinian Authority is strengthened and reformed. That is also the only way that we will ever reach a viable two-state solution.

I want to take a moment to speak about last week’s Gaza demonstration outside this House. Of course, I am proud that this is a free country. Everyone is entitled to protest and to make their point. However, there were numerous reports of Peers from all sides of this House being jostled, harassed, videoed and shouted at—including disabled Members of this House. A letter has been sent to the Lord Speaker regarding some of the security failings. That demonstration was attended and supported by about a dozen Labour Members of the other place. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on whether he considers that sort of behaviour to be acceptable.

The gravity of the situation escalating in Gaza means that the Government must leverage all the influence that they have in the region to try to end the suffering that we are seeing. The UK has both the diplomatic tools and the moral responsibility to press for meaningful change. That means doing all it can to ensure that aid reaches those in need, that hostages are returned to their families, and that Hamas is prevented from continuing its campaign of terror. It also means supporting the reform and stabilisation of Palestinian governance as an essential foundation for a viable two-state solution. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these points in his reply.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we are witnessing both the systematic collective punishment and brutalisation of a civilian population combined with the weaponisation of food and medicine. A Government have made a decision to annex land that is not theirs and to put women and children, whose only sin is seeking aid, in the position of being at risk of literally starving to death. These are war crimes. Civilians are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. Yesterday, the head of Save the Children US said it is reported that children who require surgery are waking up during that surgery because there is insufficient anaesthetic.

In the catalogue of horror in recent days, we know three incontrovertible facts. First, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s approach has not ended Hamas’s continued criminal and terrorist presence. The trauma of hostage families continues and now, for too many, it has turned into despair. Secondly, we see unabated the approach of extremist Ministers to forcibly and illegally occupy new territory. Thirdly, the sincerely meant and genuine concern of Ministers in the UK and elsewhere is having next to no effect in preventing it.

The time for timid behaviour is therefore over. These Benches have consistently called for the Government to take firm action, and they must do so now. We called for the sanctioning of extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 18 months ago because we knew we needed clear preventative action. Given that the legal text of what we called for is on Ministers’ desks, why are the Government not implementing those sanctions, demonstrating that the UK will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian dispossession?

We must cease all trade in the areas affected by these because Netanyahu’s Ministers claim that illegal outposts and settlements are Israeli land, which they are not. Why has the UK not expanded action to those Ministers and Members of the Knesset who support a continuation of the blockade of aid and call for annexation? Why has the UK not ceased all arms trading with the Netanyahu Government until they adhere to international humanitarian law?

The Minister in the House of Commons was asked last week our Government’s view of the ICJ advisory opinion on the Netanyahu Government that their

“policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under … Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

He replied:

“We continue to consider the ICJ’s advisory opinion with the seriousness that it deserves”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/25; col. 342.]


I remind the House that the opinion was in July last year. Surely the Government cannot any longer simply consider the opinion but should act on it. When Ministers tell me the Government act on the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Chagos Islands but not on Gaza, I say to the Government that we must not have double standards.

As I said at the start of these questions to the Minister, we are a witness to history—one where we look with daily horror at the continuing unconscionable cruelty to children. But we are a Parliament, not just a witness. We must now, with urgency and clarity, provide action that is not too late to seek to prevent the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, with the UK leading others in recognising the state of Palestine, showing beyond doubt the UK’s commitment to Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a two-state solution. With that and the other actions that these Benches have outlined, we might at least try to restore a process that a ceasefire could start and which could then be established and honoured, and there could be some respite for those being so terribly brutalised.

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

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I say to the noble Lord opposite that the United Kingdom has been a close and long-standing friend of Israel. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, Israel suffered a heinous attack on 7 October and the Government have always backed Israel’s right to defend itself. We have condemned Hamas and its abhorrent treatment of the hostages, and we have stood with the families and demanded that their loved ones are released.

However, we also have a duty to condemn Israel’s latest action in Gaza. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Israeli Government are

“isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world, undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging … the state of Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/25; col. 924.]

We have been very clear in condemning the outrageous language in the comments of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich but, as the noble Lord knows, I will not be tempted into foreseeing or predicting future sanctions. We do not do that, and I am not going to do that today.

We have been absolutely clear that we will not speculate, but we have made it clear in our joint statement with France and Canada that if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions. We have been very strong with our partners in opposing the expansion of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, and we have reaffirmed our calls for the Israeli Government to stop their military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid in. The Foreign Secretary announced sanctions on 20 May to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, following extremely concerning surges in this type of violence.

We have announced the formal pause of free trade agreement negotiations with Israel, effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deepening trading relationships with the Netanyahu Government, who are pursuing policies that are damaging to the UK, the wider region and their own citizens. The Minister for the Middle East also summoned the Israeli ambassador to discuss our severe concerns at the situation. We are clear that if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also raised the ICJ. We are fully committed to international law and respect the independence of the ICJ. Despite what the noble Lord says, we continue to consider the court’s advisory opinion carefully with the seriousness and rigour it deserves. UK commitment to a two-state solution is, of course, unwavering—and I will come back to that point.

I say to both noble Lords—who I know share my concern—that we are absolutely appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed while trying to access aid sites in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury simply to feed themselves and their families. We have called for an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for the perpetrators to be held to account, including during a meeting of the UN Security Council on 4 June. We do not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or puts vulnerable civilians at risk. We call on Israel to urgently engage with the UN to ensure a return to the delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.

Israel’s proposals to deliver aid to Gaza via private companies is dangerous for civilians and aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. We endorse the plan for the delivery of aid put forward by the UN on 16 May, which is based on humanitarian principles, has built-in mitigations against aid diversion and uses established mechanisms to deliver aid at scale, which is required. Hamas must allow humanitarian assistance to be distributed without interference. I think all noble Lords understand and appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Working with our allies, we are very focused on trying to see what leverage we can bring to ensure that a solution is found as soon as possible.

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the demonstration. We can be proud of our country, which allows the right to association and the freedom to demonstrate. I think that all of us in this House respect opinions that do not necessarily agree with our own, particularly on this subject, but I accept that it is wrong for people to interfere with others who are going about their business. Certainly, I join the noble Lord in condemning such action, which is not acceptable at all.

Alaa Abd el-Fattah

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but our absolute priority remains securing Mr el-Fattah’s urgent release and engaging the highest levels of the Egyptian Government. The Government judge that the best way to achieve this is engagement with the Egyptian Government at a bilateral level. We approach this case based on its individual merits and specific political context, but I reassure the noble Lord that we take this urgent matter seriously. We are in constant touch to seek his release in the very near future.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with what the noble Lord said about Mr el-Fattah’s family, his mother and, of course, his own safety. This is an illegal detention, as defined by the United Nations, and we consider the refusal of consular access to be a breach of international humanitarian law. I appreciate the diplomatic representations that have been made at the highest levels, including by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, but does the Minister agree that the situation is now so urgent that it requires concrete action? That could be done in two areas. First, travel advice for British citizens going to Egypt could be updated urgently to say that it is not safe to travel to Cairo, given that British citizens could be treated in such a way. Secondly, just a year ago, the UK-Egypt development partnership was agreed by the previous Administration. Surely the Government should signal that that partnership agreement must be paused to enable a swift response and the release of Mr el-Fattah?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

All these matters are a judgment call, and it is certainly the Government’s judgment at this stage that the best approach to secure the urgent release of Mr el-Fattah is that bilateral contact at the highest possible levels. We have been consistent in our support for Mr el-Fattah and his family. Of course, the Egyptian authorities do not recognise his British nationality and see him only as an Egyptian national, and our consular staff have therefore been unable to visit him in prison, but they are in regular contact with him through his lawyer and his family. I repeat that, at this stage, we are absolutely committed to that bilateral contact in order to see the urgent release of Mr el-Fattah.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by joining others in acknowledging the scale of the humanitarian crisis that we are seeing in Gaza. Lives are being lost and people are suffering immensely. We on these Benches join with all noble Lords across the House, I am sure, in our hope that the conflict is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I appreciate that the UK’s position and influence in this matter is somewhat limited, and probably even more so now, but we must never forget that this conflict started when Hamas—a repulsive terrorist organisation—undertook a murderous and viscerally antisemitic attack on innocent people. That attack was not just limited to a single day; the attack on 7 October continues every single day that hostages remain in Hamas’s captivity. Israel has the right to defend itself against this ongoing attack, and returning the hostages to their families is a righteous objective. We must support it in this effort and use our diplomatic efforts to help to facilitate that.

I therefore ask the Minister what engagement the Government have had with key stakeholders in the region to help to secure the release of those people who remain in Hamas’s hands. Has the UK helped to develop an overall strategy for getting these sons, daughters, brothers and sisters returned to their families? The only way that we can resolve this conflict is by getting these hostages home, and the Government must be able to demonstrate that they are taking practical steps to facilitate this.

While the conflict is ongoing, getting aid to those who need it most is a key practical priority, I hope, for the Government. Noble Lords may recall our debate last week on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The Government refused to consider this as an alternative measure to UNRWA, which is itself connected to the attacks on 7 October—the event that started this conflict in the first place. The Israeli Government are rightly extremely suspicious of UNRWA, given its record of working with Hamas and turning a blind eye to its facilities being abused for tunnel construction. The Government seemingly remain committed to supporting the current failing model. Can the Minister please update the House on what the Government are doing to help to get aid into Gaza? What discussions have they had with representatives from other countries to make sure that aid gets to those who need it and is not stolen by Hamas? Can he tell the House what steps the Government have taken to ensure that no UK aid gets into the hands of Hamas?

Finally, we are clear—and I know the Minister has said this a number of times—that Hamas will never be part of any future Government in Gaza. In the Prime Minister’s statement the other day, he threatened the Israeli Government with further “concrete” steps if they do not comply with his demands. Can the Minister give us an example of what these concrete steps will be, or will it be like King Lear to his daughters:

“I will do such things—


What they are yet I know not, but they shall be

The terrors of the Earth!”?

Finally, following on from the memorandum of understanding that was reached between the UK and the Palestinian Authority last month, can the Minister say what progress has been made in holding the Palestinian Authority to undertaking serious, measurable and tangible reforms on corruption, education, welfare policy and democracy to help to strengthen resilience against the threat of Hamas in the future? Will the Minister update the House on what work the Government are doing with the Palestinian Authority to advance progress in these areas? Can he assure us that these are discussed in talks with partners in the authority?

We all support a swift end to this conflict, which has cost far too many lives on all sides and has led to an incredible amount of suffering across the region. We need to recognise the practical steps that we in the UK can take to support this resolution and help those who are in need in the region. To that end, I hope that the Minister will be able to cover the questions that I have raised, showing what steps we are taking today to return the hostages, get aid in and, crucially, make sure that Hamas is finally eradicated.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it would be utterly inconceivable for us to even imagine walking out of this Parliament building and witnessing every child in London being forcibly walked with their mother to Slough and back again three times, on foot, and offered no shelter or medicine, or sanitary products, if they are a girl, and now, with no food, literally facing dying of starvation. This apocalyptic view would be utterly inconceivable to us, but it is the reality in Gaza.

Now we see, as a result of choices being made at a political level by the political Administration in Israel, a secretive foundation set up as a Swiss Stiftung to finance profiteering mercenaries to weaponise food and medicine to children in an illegally occupied land, which plumbs new depths of moral bankruptcy in the provision of that assistance. Can the Minister first of all guarantee that not a penny of British money will be channelled through this route?

Among this utter horror, hostage families are still going through torture. Indeed, for those families I have seen and spoken to, speaking out against the Netanyahu Administration is extremely moving, because they are still in a situation where their loved ones are not home and they do not even know if many are alive.

I welcome the Government’s Statement and their intent, but I wish to press the Minister that it is time for the Government to go even further. Since the Statement in the Commons earlier this week, now even a British official, carrying out their diplomatic role in a territory that they have an absolute right under international law to access, has been under fire as a result of a so-called warning shot—which is euphemistic—in streets that I have literally walked and where British officials carry out their business. What action have the UK Government taken as a result of this shocking incident?

Since the Statement, Benjamin Netanyahu has confirmed what other extremist Ministers have said, which is that his Government’s policy is now to illegally annex territory, which they have no international legal right to do. Given that this is now his Government's clear policy, it needs to be the UK Government’s policy to move on the recognition of Palestine as a state with urgency. I therefore urge the Minister to take up my noble friend Lady Northover’s Bill in this House and move ahead with the clearest possible intent to prevent illegal annexation and subjugation.

These Benches have regretted that there has been a lack of action since last February, when we called for the wider and expanded sanctioning of those Ministers in the Netanyahu Administration who had sought repression in the West Bank and had activated illegal outposts and settler violence. That, combined with what we now see—the collective punishment of civilians within Gaza—means that those responsible need to be sanctioned by the UK, and there should be no impunity for the tragedy that is being inflicted on civilians there. This means that our Government and our partners need to act.

On the security of the aid being provided, there is of course justification with regard to concerns that Hamas has sought to loot aid, to commercialise aid and to prevent it at the source. However, the time when we have seen the most effective delivery of aid has been when UNRWA has been provided with the ability to do so, with a Palestinian Authority police force, supported by British assistance, able to provide security and get the aid through. Will the Government offer urgent assistance to the Palestinian Authority police forces to ensure that aid, once over the border, can be provided securely?

I remind the House that there is over 100,000 tonnes of aid waiting to get into Gaza and it is being blocked unjustifiably. Will the Government make a clear statement that, until this is allowed through, Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Ministers are not welcome in the United Kingdom, as this would be not conducive to our public good?

Finally, can the Government press the International Court of Justice to accelerate its work to ensure that there is, as we all wish to see, an international standard that international humanitarian law is adhered to and those responsible for its breach are held to account?

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

I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that the United Kingdom has played an active role in co-ordination with our international partners since the beginning of the conflict. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Territories three times since taking office, and we have pressed for a resolution to secure a ceasefire and to see the return of all hostages. That is absolutely the first ask of this Government: ceasefire and the return of the hostages.

I want to reflect on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made. We are absolutely committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law. By the way, the independence of the ICJ is something that we value. We are not going to put pressure on the court; it knows its job and we will facilitate that, but it is independent and we respect its independence as an international court. We have been absolutely consistent in ensuring that we act in a manner consistent with our legal obligations under international law.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis said, humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool or military tactic. The UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives and puts vulnerable civilians at risk. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. That is why this Government and the previous Government have been committed to supporting the best possible means of getting aid into Gaza, which remains UNRWA. We are absolutely committed to that.

We should see that the blocking of aid and its disastrous consequences do not put Israel’s case. The people of Israel, who want and deserve security, particularly after the atrocities of 7 October, are absolutely not supporting the rhetoric of Netanyahu and some of his Cabinet members, or the means by which it is expressed. We are absolutely determined that we should be very clear about our position. My noble friend Lady Chapman, the Minister for International Development, has been in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories this week. We have made our position on our diplomatic workers very clear to the Israeli Government and will continue to do so. I have visited the Occupied Territories and seen some of the actions of what I would call independent settler outposts, which have behaved really appallingly. Now, with the IDF more focused in Gaza, those very people—the outpost settlers—are taking on the duties of the IDF. I think that that is the cause of some of the problems.

During her visit this week, the Minister announced £4 million in new support to organisations on the ground in Gaza, which we will continue to support. This will cover essential medicines and medical supplies for up to 32,000 people, safe drinking water for up to 60,000 people and food parcels for up to 14,000 people. That is what we are talking about: basic, fundamental issues that need to be addressed. So far, since 7 October, we have provided 405,000 patient consultations across Gaza, food aid to at least 647,000 people, and improved water, sanitation, and hygiene services. We know that the situation is absolutely desperate, which is why we took the action we did. We are, together with our partners, strongly opposed to the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. We have reaffirmed our calls for the Israeli Government to stop its military operations and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, following extremely concerning surges in this type of violence. Of course, we announced as part of the Statement the formal pause in free trade agreement negotiations with Israel, effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deeper trading relationships with a Netanyahu Government who are pursuing policies that are absolutely damaging to the UK, the wider region and, most importantly, Israeli citizens themselves. This is the really important thing: we are committed to a two-state solution and to a political solution. We are doing everything we possibly can to achieve that, and we are committed to supporting the Palestinian Authority and their reforms. I am not going to say how far they have reached, but it is essential we do that, because it will form part of the process for a longer-term solution. We are absolutely committed to ensuring not only that the people of Palestine, Gaza and the Occupied Territories can live in peace and security but that that applies to the State of Israel.

Jimmy Lai

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat: it is absolutely important. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, which the Chinese of course deny because he is a dual national. But we have absolutely remained committed to raising his case at every opportunity and we will continue to do so. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this case today, because it is up to us all of us to constantly raise it to ensure that we never forget Jimmy Lai’s situation.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, commend all the work of the right reverend Prelate, and also the family of Jimmy Lai, who have been stalwart defenders.

I am sure the Minister will agree that no matter how big a global economy is, it is our duty to defend our citizens when they are treated so badly. But it is also our duty to act when that state operates under transnational repression here in the United Kingdom, issuing bounties on those who are defending the rights of those being persecuted in Hong Kong. I have met them, and I know that other Members of this House have too. What actions, not just diplomatic representations, are being taken by the Government to ensure that the transnational repression in this country is halted and those responsible are held to account?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important subject. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments, whoever they are, to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas. The safety of Hong Kongers in the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance. Hong Kong Police issuing arrest warrants encourages reckless behaviour on UK soil and damages Hong Kong’s reputation. On Christmas Eve, the Foreign Secretary strongly condemned the Hong Kong Police’s targeting of individuals exercising their right to freedom of expression. Following reports of letters sent to UK residents, FCDO officials again raised the matter with the Chinese embassy. Counterterrorism police are dealing with the referral, and officers are in contact with the individuals concerned. As I say, we will not tolerate such interference in our democratic processes.

Sudan: Ceasefire Talks

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We should not underestimate the importance of the Sudan conference, which was to raise the profile. One really important thing was that the African Union co-chaired it and was part of the process and the dialogue. The current focus of the UK Government is on co-ordinating existing initiatives and increasing international focus and engagement. We will join the next meeting of the Sudan consultative group for the first time in Brussels at the end of June to discuss joint efforts for peace. We are absolutely focused on that. The important thing is to avoid a multiplicity of actions and contacts. You could then end up with the warring parties choosing which one to go for. We are absolutely focused on ensuring international co-ordination and on pathways to peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in supporting the civilians of Sudan. The Minister will be aware of the recent developments; the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces has appointed a puppet civilian Prime Minister. This has been welcomed by the African Union, and there are concerns that it will be endorsed by the United Nations. Will the Minister reassure the House that, as the UK is penholder and with all that the Minister and the Government are doing, we will not legitimise either the RSF or the Sudanese Armed Forces with proxy civilians until there is a legitimate peace process that can allow this terrible war, with the suffering of civilians, to come to an end and until there will be a genuine civilian authority at the end of it which is representative of the people of Sudan?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that has been my clear ambition from the contributions I have made in this House, and certainly from the contact we have made with all civilian groups in trying to bring them together to plan for a Sudanese country free from military rule and led by civilians. He also knows that both warring parties have announced or attempted to set up Governments. We are avoiding any efforts to do that. We want a unified Sudan under a legitimate Sudanese civilian Government. In the meantime, we need to focus on ensuring that we can establish a process for ceasefire, peace and, of course, humanitarian access.

Gaza Humanitarian Foundation

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, is it not plumbing the depths of immorality for the women and girls of Gaza, who have had such brutality inflicted on them, now to submit to the indignity of having to queue up to profiteering mercenaries hired by a shadowy organisation established in Switzerland, which will operate under no humanitarian standards or international mandate and with no accountability mechanisms whatever, to receive sanitation, food, water and medicine? What are the Government doing to stop this terrible idea?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

At the moment, it is an idea. We have seen no evidence that it will go forward. However, the noble Lord is right that humanitarian principles of delivering aid must be consistent across every area in which that aid is being delivered. Today, we are convening the UN Security Council in New York—it is probably meeting now—to look at what can be done to deal with the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Kashmir: Increasing Tension

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I start by sharing the noble Lord’s comments in relation to this despicable act. We express our condolences to all those affected, loved ones and the people of India. The Prime Minister certainly expressed that when he called Prime Minister Modi on 24 April.

The noble Lord asked specific questions about what steps we are taking to ensure that the heightened tensions do not lead to the risk of escalation. We encourage all to commit to effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region. Alongside international partners, the United Kingdom continues to engage in dialogue in pursuit of long-term regional stability. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary spoke to both the Indian Foreign Minister and the Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister. We encourage all parties to take a measured approach. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio of the United States and will speak to the French Foreign Minister shortly to discuss the situation. The United Kingdom, of course, supported the UN Security Council press statement at the weekend, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable.

On all actions that create or escalate the unsettling of communities in this country, we are working with all British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities to ensure that we stand with them at this difficult time on de-escalation and on building strong community cohesion. We condemn any instance of vandalism and call for any protesters to protest in a peaceful and law-abiding way. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is a time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the words of the Minister with regards to the condolences for those who were murdered. We believe there should be no impunity for those who carried out these crimes and there should be a transparent process of investigation to ensure there is justice.

On the news this afternoon, with concerns that there could well be wider escalation, I agree with the Minister and thank the Government for what Ministers have done in seeking a return to dialogue. India, Pakistan and the UK are all Commonwealth members and we have very integrated diaspora communities. Are there elements of the Commonwealth family that can be used to allow for dialogue?

The Minister will be fully aware of concerns that the potential closure of airspace and the Indus Water Treaty coming to an end could have wider humanitarian consequences, including impacts on the UK diaspora community. What efforts are we making within the Commonwealth with specific regard to the prevention of those wider humanitarian concerns?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will answer the last question first. We are urging all international organisations to urge de-escalation and proper engagement to de-escalate the situation. As Minister Falconer said yesterday, we take this situation incredibly seriously, which is why the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio. We are working, through the UN and all international bodies, to try to ensure that the means for dialogue are open and that we focus on de-escalation.

We are aware that India and Pakistan have said they will hold certain diplomatic treaties in abeyance. We continue to monitor the impact of that on the ground in both states. It is critical for all actors and international partners to work to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system, and we will continue to urge that.

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.