Middle East

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

This conflict in the Middle East is affecting countries across the region and the world. These global events are impacting our security and economy here at home. This Government are resolute in our determination to protect the safety, security and prosperity of British people and our partners. We are pursuing the swiftest possible resolution to the conflict, and security and stability, in the national interest of the United Kingdom. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. Before I say anything else, I thank the men and women of our Armed Forces who are serving in the region and who stand ready to support operations there, as well as all the officials and diplomatic and consular staff who are working under great strain. I also thank our Gulf Cooperation Council allies for all they have done to support British nationals in the region.

Can the Minister provide the House with an update on the support being provided to British nationals in the region? The case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman has been raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House. The impact of the ongoing Middle East conflict is clearly extremely worrying for them and their family. Can the Minister please provide a further update on the work Ministers and officials are doing to support them, and redouble our efforts to secure their release?

Turning to the conflict itself, Iran has attacked our military bases, currently holds British nationals captive, has indiscriminately attacked states across the Middle East and is blocking the Strait of Hormuz. In that context, we cannot be silenced. Iran’s actions have implications all over the world, and they will, in particular, affect every British household through higher energy prices. Earlier this week, it was reported in the Times that the Prime Minister was weighing up the legality of whether Britain can join the US military operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

On the issue of international law, can the Minister confirm whether it is the view of His Majesty’s Government that Iran has violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which includes the right to transit? While we are on this subject, can he say whether Iran’s indiscriminate strikes across the Gulf region are lawful? Finally, if international law serves to protect rogue states, does he accept that international law will have failed?

Iran is seeking to hijack the global economy. My noble friend Lord Effingham asked the Energy Minister earlier today about the steps to protect British households from rapidly rising energy costs as a result of Iran’s actions. Can the Minister update the House on the work Ministers are doing with our international counterparts to ensure the smooth transit of vessels through the Persian Gulf?

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz must be the priority, but we must develop and secure our domestic supply of fuel. Will His Majesty’s Government approve the Jackdaw gas field development?

Finally, we must not forget the appalling conduct of the Iranian regime. It has murdered its own citizens in droves simply for calling out for democracy, it has refused to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it has been responsible for unacceptable, illegal state-sponsored activity on our shores. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Earl in commending the commitment to our country of our service men and women. It is a deep regret that they are in a position where they are having to risk their lives on an unlawful and unwarranted conflict. On 2 March in this House, the Leader of the Opposition said that when President Trump called the UK should have answered and that the UK should have been fully involved in all the offensive actions in this unlawful conflict unleashed by President Trump with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Government. If we had heeded that, the UK would currently be bombing civilian areas in Tehran and targeting energy installations. Because of the impact on the Strait of Hormuz, we would be seeing the consequences for the UK as a result.

Seeking to tie us directly with President Trump’s decisions was a major strategic error on the part of the Conservative and Reform opposition, especially in the context that more than two weeks into this war we still do not know what the justification was and see no clarity on any endgame and a lack of strategy about what will be next. The Opposition asked us to be fully part of the measures for regime change two weeks ago. They are now silent on this issue. It is appropriate for them to state their position. However, this is the Government’s Statement, the Minister will answer for the Government and I will have a number of questions in a moment.

One of the consequences today is that we are seeing concerns about energy prices in the United Kingdom. This was a wholly predictable outcome. Earlier, we heard questions about seeking greater UK domestic production to try to mitigate this. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the global energy market works and how the United Kingdom is part of it. There is no direct correlation between greater North Sea production and greater domestic consumption. Even if there were, North Sea product is traded on the global market. Therefore, the impact on the global oil and gas market has a direct consequence on the United Kingdom. We export almost as much oil as we produce from the North Sea because of the complexities of the UK energy market.

Given all this, what action will the Government take to prevent some of the extremes if the trajectory of energy prices is up? What package of support can there be, particularly for the most vulnerable who need fuel and those living in rural areas? What is the latest with regard to our Government speaking with other like-minded countries that are seeking to mitigate what could potentially be even worse consequences? Can the Minister state whether any British Ministers have visited the region since the start of this conflict? If so, who have they met and what are our priorities for that diplomatic dialogue?

Turning to something of great concern in Lebanon, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, on behalf of the Government spoke very clearly this morning at the Dispatch Box. I agreed with everything he said with regard to the Government’s position on the concerns for Lebanon. It is extremely worrying to hear senior political figures within Israel talk about cleansing part of Lebanon and creating buffer areas. It is becoming apparent that the tactics that have been used in Gaza may well become the tactics used in Lebanon. The consequences of that, given the UK’s support for sovereign territorial integrity for Lebanon, should be significant.

What consequences would there be for the Netanyahu Administration if indeed there were territorial incursions into Lebanese territory? What are the UK Government doing to ensure that civilians are protected? This should not be discretionary in conflict. The protection of civilians is mandated under the United Nations in international humanitarian law. We are seeing far too many civilian areas targeted. What is now becoming apparent is the potential for collective punishment of certain parts of the Lebanese population, which we have seen elsewhere.

If I had asked the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, a question earlier, it might have been, just to follow through what he accurately said, on the fact that the UK has been a very major supporter through official development assistance for Lebanon over many years—£850 million, I recall him saying. The next sentence, however, is that our current level of capacity is an 88% cut in what the UK is providing to Lebanon for a humanitarian crisis, which is now almost on a par with what it was in 2014. The £30 million of humanitarian support, which has been uplifted with a further amount, is less than a quarter of what the UK provided in 2014. So, the UK is simply, in many respects, not at the table when it comes to humanitarian support.

There is also the very considerable concern that there is likely to be an ongoing cycle of violence and trauma of civilians. That includes the Israeli population, which is having to withstand unjustified attacks from Iran, but we are also seeing continuing violence within the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. What is the latest from the Minister with regards to our representations to the Netanyahu Administration on the West Bank? Have we warned them that there will be repercussions if attempts are made for full annexation? Former Prime Minister Olmert has warned of this, and we should equally be warning of the consequences of it.

Finally, the Minister will probably not be surprised to hear me make an appeal to the Government on the associated issue of Sudan. Much of what is happening in the Middle East and Iran has consequences for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Sudan. What are the latest actions taken by the UK, as the penholder, to seek an end to that war and sustainable civilian government for the country?

Before I sit down, I want to close by saying that whatever our differences—and perhaps on this conflict, compared to previous ones, there are differences across this House—these Benches are resolute in believing that the Jewish population in this country should not be held to account for an external, foreign Government, and there should be no excuse for antisemitism on our streets in the United Kingdom. Some of the incidents that we have seen recently are deeply troubling. Likewise, the growth in Islamophobia, especially against young Muslim children in this country, is utterly unacceptable. I wonder whether the Minister would seek to convene cross-party talks, because even worse incidents are likely. We need to be united across this House to ensure that both those are considered to be completely unacceptable and are stopped.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

We want people across Britain to want this system, we want them to be part of it, and we want them to have the opportunity to shape it. This consultation is that opportunity. I look forward to the involvement of Members from across the House and of our constituents. I thank my honourable friend the Member for Makerfield, Josh Simons, for his work on this issue to date, and the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, my honourable friend the Member for Bury North, Mr Frith, for all the work that he will now do to make this a reality—for which I will take the credit if it goes well, and he the blame if it goes wrong. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, this Statement was delivered just one week ago and has already run into some serious difficulty. Reports in the press suggest that both the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary have made it clear that their departments will not provide some of the data required for the scheme. If that is correct, it raises a fundamental question: can this policy get off the ground?

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister announced that the Government sought to introduce a digital ID system that would allow individuals to log into the GOV.UK app to verify their identity. He said that

“unlike an ordinary login, digital ID will work across different departments … so you can access all of the services you need in one place”.

Yet it now appears that health and education—two of the areas where one might reasonably expect such assistance to be most useful—may not be included at all. The Chief Secretary stated that

“digital ID will, over time, bring all other public services into one app”

on your mobile phone. If that is the ambition, these reports raise serious questions about whether the Government’s own departments are prepared to make that vision a reality.

This proposal raises serious questions about accessibility. Noble Lords will know that when government services move online and on to apps, they do not always become simpler or easier to use. Often, the opposite is true. These systems can take years to refine. The user experience can be poor and tasks that were once straightforward become frustratingly complex. Take, for example, the process of verifying an identity with Companies House through the GOV.UK website. What would once have been completed in minutes can now take much longer, as users work their way through help pages, chatbots, online forms and endless CAPTCHA boxes. The current state of the Government’s digital infrastructure does not inspire great confidence that this scheme will deliver the outcomes Ministers promise.

If the ambition is to move large parts of the state on to a single digital platform, the issue of digital exclusion cannot be ignored. We can already see this in practice. Many now struggle to use the NHS app. Increasingly, patients must complete online forms or digital triage systems before they can book a GP appointment, resulting in delays in access to care.

We on these Benches also harbour concerns as to whether the system will truly remain voluntary. The Chief Secretary said:

“For those who really do not wish to, traditional routes will … still be made available”.


This assurance ignores that some people will genuinely struggle to use the new system rather than just being refuseniks. It is also unclear what this means in practice. The Chief Secretary did not guarantee that traditional routes will remain available to the same extent that they are today. People will naturally worry that, over time, this could lead to a real-term reduction in those routes, with fewer alternatives for those who cannot or do not wish to use the digital system.

I ask the Minister for clarity. Can he confirm that this policy will not result in any reduction in access to public services for those who either cannot or do not wish to use the digital ID system? Can he also confirm that the introduction of this scheme will not lead to any reduction in the availability of existing processes in departments or services that adopt this digital ID route?

I turn to the GOV.UK One Login system. How many public services now require systems to use GOV.UK One Login as a mandatory gateway rather than an option? How many of the National Cyber Security Centre’s 39 cyber assessment framework outcomes does One Login currently meet, and which does it not?

Can the Minister also say what whistleblowing concerns have been raised since 2022 about security clearances, administrator access, overseas development and undetected red team intrusions? What security incidents have occurred? Has any personal data been compromised?

These questions were asked in a UQ in January. I am concerned by the lack of detail in the Minister’s response. I hope the Minister can reply more fully this time. If not, I hope he will write to clarify these points.

I appreciate that the Government have opened a public consultation, but these questions are immediately obvious to us—and, I hope, to the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to respond to last week’s Statement and, indeed, for his personal engagement with us at that time.

The Chief Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that he was continuing the proud Labour tradition of building public services for the many. He invoked the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start. It was a stirring lineage. But there is history he omitted: Verify, which wasted over £220 million; GOV.UK One Login, for which the Cabinet Office sought up to £400 million; and now this national digital ID, which the OBR estimates will cost £1.8 billion over three years. This, indeed, is Verify 4.0.

The Government have confirmed that possession of a digital identity will not be compulsory. We on these Benches opposed mandatory digital ID at every turn, and I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. My honourable friend Lisa Smart MP pressed the Chief Secretary directly in the Commons last week and received his wholehearted assurance. He continued to claim that using digital ID will be entirely optional. So, I ask the Minister in this House, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in the Bill the Government intend to bring forward later this year? How can we trust any Government on how personal data, once surrendered to the state, will actually be used?

Earlier this month, this House considered an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by my noble friend Lady Doocey, which sought to prohibit police from using DVLA driving licence images for facial recognition searches. The DVLA holds over 55 million records. Every driver provided their photograph for one purpose only: to hold a driving licence. They did not consent to their image becoming part of what Liberty has rightly described as the largest biometric database for police access ever created in the United Kingdom. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, the Home Office Minister, did not accept the amendment and confirmed at all stages that the express purpose of Clause 138 of the Bill is precisely to permit facial recognition searches of DVLA records. So, within a single parliamentary week, we have a Government launching a national digital identity consultation on the basis of assurances about data use, while declining to place in statute the very protections that would make such assurances meaningful. The question is not whether the Government intend that digital ID will become an instrument of surveillance, but whether a future Government could.

The Chief Secretary said that he wants security at least as strong as online banking. That is the right aspiration, but, as mentioned by the noble Earl, GOV.UK One Login, the umbrella infrastructure for this system, reportedly satisfied only 21 out of 39 security outcomes required by the National Cyber Security Centre. Whistleblowers have described vulnerabilities that allow unauthorised access to sensitive functions without triggering any alert. How can the Government justify launching a national identity solution on a platform that fails to meet nearly half the NCSC’s mandatory security outcomes?

In part two of the Fisher review, published in January, Jonathan Fisher KC warned that AI-driven impersonation at scale is now a defining crime of our age and that we must implement upstream measures—stopping fraud at the point of identity issuance, not reacting after a digital identity has been stolen. If our foundations currently satisfy barely half the required security outcomes, how do we deliver the upstream protection Mr Fisher demands?

Will the Government commission and publish a full NCSC security audit before a single citizen is enrolled? Will they introduce an offence of digital identity theft that they, along with the previous Conservative Government, have so far resisted? The consultation proposes a universal unique identifier to link citizens across every departmental silo. Without strict legal guardrails, that identifier is the functional infrastructure of the national identity register that Parliament voted to abolish in 2011, and it is precisely the centralised data honeypot that hostile state actors would most wish to compromise. We need not mere parliamentary approval for services added to the app, but a statutory prohibition on bulk data matching across departments.

In summary, I put four questions to the Minister. First, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in primary legislation, with an explicit prohibition on any future mandatory requirement without a further Act of Parliament? In that context, and as the noble Earl has mentioned, how mindful are the Government of the possible consequences for digital inclusion? Secondly, the Home Office’s assurances on DVLA facial recognition mirrored word for word those given by the previous Government. Before the Minister can confirm the opposite, what statutory purpose limitation on digital identity data will be placed beyond the reach of secondary legislation? Thirdly, will the Government provide a statutory guarantee that the universal unique identifier cannot be used for bulk data matching across departments without primary legislation? Finally, will the Government publish an independently verified cost-benefit analysis before the Bill is introduced, and explain why £1.8 billion would not deliver greater public benefit directed to the NHS and front-line policing, for instance?

The Chief Secretary asked what it is that critics fear from a public consultation. We do not fear the consultation; what we fear is a fourth cycle of the same expensive failure, grand ambitions and insecure foundations—a creeping identifier that becomes the digital spine of state surveillance. But what we fear above all is a system whose data acquires uses never publicly intended by its creators. We have just watched that happen in this very Chamber with the DVLA database of images. We on these Benches will support voluntary, secure, properly costed modernisation of public services, but we will not accept warm ministerial words as a substitute for hard legislative limits. We need a state that is not merely digital by choice today but constitutionally prohibited from becoming compulsory tomorrow. On the evidence of this and last week’s proceedings, we are very far from that guarantee.

Iranian Regime: British Citizens

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for bringing forward this important and timely debate, and I join with other noble Lords in congratulating her on her speech, which was informative and personal in so many different ways.

First and foremost, let us remember that it is our duty as a nation and a society to safeguard the freedoms, safety and well-being of our citizens wherever they may be in the world. In recent years, Iran has arrested dozens of Iranians with dual nationality or foreign permanent residency, mostly on spying and national security charges. At least 15 have had links to the United Kingdom. However, the most recent detentions are particularly concerning.

The Iranian regime has, as we are all too aware, a long-standing history of violating human rights. The imprisonment of innocent British citizens is a blatant example of such behaviour. These individuals are often detained on politically motivated charges, subjected to appalling conditions and denied their basic rights. Such actions must not be tolerated, and we must act with urgency to secure their release.

Although we cannot ignore the broader geopolitical context—the challenges posed, for example, by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its role in destabilising the Middle East and its continued support of militant groups across the region—we must be resolute in our commitment to ensuring the safety and security of our citizens. We must also recognise that this issue is not just about diplomacy; it is about standing firm in our values. As a nation, we believe in the principles of justice, freedom and human dignity. When British citizens are wrongfully detained by a foreign Government, especially one that continue to undermine basic human rights, it is our duty to do everything we can to secure their release.

We must also ask ourselves whether stronger or more assertive actions are needed to send a clear message to Tehran that the arbitrary detention of British citizens will not be tolerated. If we are to ensure that those detained are returned to their families, we must consider all avenues. The Government must continue to press for the release of these citizens, and we as a Parliament must stand united in this call for justice. The United Kingdom has long been a champion of the rule of law and the rights of individuals across the world. It is incumbent on us to ensure that those principles are upheld at every opportunity.

Can the Minister provide an update on the specific diplomatic steps the Government are taking to secure the release of British citizens detained by the Iranian regime? Also, given that the right reverend Prelate mentioned human rights in the area, what additional measures are the Government considering to strengthen international pressure on Iran to adhere to basic human rights standards and release those held unjustly?

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned, as did other noble Lords, consular access. I look forward to hearing an update from the Minister on that issue.

In addition, how are His Majesty’s Government working with international partners to prevent the detention of British citizens by hostile regimes? Are there opportunities for greater co-operation to address the issue in the future? This has been an interesting debate, and I am really glad to have taken part in it. I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to this issue and, in particular, to the release of further hostages, can the Minister tell the House what actions the Government are utilising for humanitarian access to those still being held hostage? In addition, does the Minister have any plans to further investigate UNRWA, after Emily Damari’s testimony as to where she was being held hostage? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look again into funding for UNRWA after those disturbing allegations?

Syria

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the United Kingdom engaging with the interim authorities in our efforts to help secure a political settlement. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, the Government do not routinely comment on whether a group is being considered for proscription or de-proscription. We are absolutely focusing on how we can consistently advocate for an inclusive political transition, underlying the importance of protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. The US decision to pause foreign aid and funding for three months pending review is, of course, a matter for the US. The first duty of any Government is to keep the UK safe, working with allies to ensure stability in Syria and to ensure that Daesh’s territorial defeat continues and that it can never resurge. That is our absolute priority.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, it is great to see all the work being carried out and continued with civil society in Syria, but how are His Majesty’s Government working with regional partners to counter the influence of hostile state actors, such as Iran and Russia, in Syria?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Earl is absolutely right. We are concerned about increased tensions, particularly in northern Syria, and the impact those may have on civilians and stability in the region. So we are in regular contact with Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Our priority is constantly to focus on de-escalation.

Middle East

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the announcement of the ceasefire, as I am sure noble Lords do. This is an extremely important moment for the Middle East. However, we must not overlook—I paraphrase the Minister from the earlier Question—the fragility of the current situation or the long and challenging road ahead. Can the Minister tell the House what actions His Majesty’s Government are taking to encourage the ceasefire to hold?

This pivotal juncture was tragically precipitated by the horrific Hamas terror attack of 7 October: the worst terror attack in Israel’s history and the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. The atrocities committed on that day stand as a chilling reminder of the dangers of allowing such groups to operate unchecked. We are heartened to witness the return of the first hostages under this agreement, including British national Emily Damari. These brave individuals, who have endured unimaginable trauma, will now face the long journey of rebuilding their lives. I hope all noble Lords will join me in praying for their continued health and well-being.

As we reflect, we must also remember the victims of those appalling attacks: those who lost their lives, those murdered in captivity and those whose lives have been irrevocably altered. The cruelty of Hamas over the past 15 months underscores the necessity of holding such groups accountable. Every single hostage must be safely returned to their loved ones and the international community must continue pressing for their unconditional release. Can the Minister tell me what actions His Majesty’s Government are taking to support the safe return of all hostages?

I echo the Foreign Secretary’s acknowledgement of the essential roles played by Qatar, Egypt and the United States in facilitating this agreement. These efforts underscore the importance of diplomatic engagement, and the UK must continue to be an active partner in supporting the next steps to ensure that the ceasefire holds.

In other debates in your Lordships’ House, we have looked at humanitarian assistance. Could the Minister say what additional humanitarian assistance the Government are planning to provide to alleviate the suffering of civilians affected by the ongoing conflict, particular in Gaza? How will the logistics work? From what I have heard in this House before, part of the problem is the logistics of getting the aid to those who need it. I look forward to the Government’s response and their continued commitment to playing a constructive role in this critical moment for the Middle East.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that this is an incredibly fragile situation, and I acknowledge the caution in the Foreign Secretary’s remarks and tone in the House of Commons last week. It is fundamentally a cessation of hostilities rather than a peace agreement, and there is still a very high level of uncertainty in many areas for the days and weeks ahead.

I also wish to put on record the work of the intelligence services of Qatar, the USA, Egypt and Israel. It was noted that, until fairly recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu refused diplomatic negotiations; it was all led by the intelligence services. However the agreement was made, we all hope that it will be sustainable.

I also share the noble Earl’s welcome for the fact that many families are now being reunited with the hostages. It is a tragedy that many families are waiting for the bodies of hostages, rather than live hostages. Hamas should never be forgiven for their actions.

There will be many in Israeli society who were shocked at the armed al-Qassam Brigades being very visible on the streets. Many had assumed that, as a result of the IDF’s actions, Hamas was removed, but it still looks as though it is very present. Does the Minister agree with the previous US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, in his assessment, which he made public, that Hamas has recruited the same number of fighters today as it has lost? What is the Government’s assessment of the current standing of Hamas, and how will that have an impact on any relationship with Fatah and the PLO in the Palestinian Authority?

On reconstruction, the needs are enormous. I will not repeat the question I asked the Minister in Oral Questions some minutes ago; I will just put on record that I agree with everything he said in response. I hope that the Government will find a way of ensuring that education for children in the region is at the top of our priorities. One of the consequences of conflict is that it is often the next generation that is more radicalised than the previous one. Given the scale of the conflict in Gaza, we all fully understand that, without interventions now in relation to child trauma, psychosocial support and education support, there will be potential threats and danger in the future.

On the situation in the West Bank, what is the Government’s assessment of the report of concessions that the Israeli Prime Minister gave to the remainder of the extreme right wing in his Cabinet? According to those reports, while there could be support for the agreement on Gaza, there are now to be far more IDF and Israeli actions in the West Bank—leading to full annexation, as one continuing Minister in the Israeli Government said. Will the Minister state that that is unacceptable to the UK Government? Will he put on record that we will not follow the new Trump Administration in removing the sanctions that were put in place on the settlers for the violence that they had carried out against innocent communities in their own home areas? Will the Government also take the opportunity to reject the fact that the United States has reinstated supply of the Israeli Government with 2,000-pound bombs, which can bring about only mass destruction of community areas?

On the longer term, does the Minister recognise that my noble friend Lady Northover’s Private Member’s Bill, which we will now debate on 14 March, is an opportunity for us to consider the validity of a two-state solution and the need for the recognition of a state of Palestine? If there is to be diplomatic work on both reconstruction and some form of political way forward, the viability of a Palestinian state needs to be in place.

Finally, I acknowledge that the Government have increased support for the Palestinian Authority, as the Foreign Secretary has indicated. However, our support is still way below the level before the 2018 aid cuts. What is the Government’s intent in respect of replenishing the humanitarian reserve so that we can provide extra support and restore fully the level of governance support to the Palestinian Authority that we provided before the previous Government cut ODA from 0.7%?

Syria

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for producing the Statement for this House.

The previous Conservative Government had called for Assad to go over 10 years ago. There are moments in history when moral clarity is essential and, in refusing to re-engage with a dictator who has brought untold suffering to his own people, this Government made the right choice. We believe that Britain must stand firm against tyranny and in support of freedom, democracy, and the dignity and rights of the individual. The fall of Assad is a moment of profound change, not just for Syria but for the whole region. The announcement of additional funding for humanitarian aid, including support for the White Helmets, underscores this Government’s commitment to the Syrian people, and I welcome it.

I will follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in the other place. First, as we have seen, Assad has fled to Russia and claimed asylum. Can the Minister confirm that no asylum claims will be accepted in this country from former members of the Assad regime, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?

Secondly, there are concerns about the status of minority faith and ethnic groups under the new regime. Syria is a rich tapestry of faith groups and ethnic groups, and we must ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, Kurds and other minority groups must be protected. The Minister’s ministerial colleague the Member of Parliament for Lincoln had conversations with civil society representatives yesterday. Can the Minister update us on which parties these talks were with? Can he also tell the House what assurances the Government are making to these minority groups?

Finally, I am sure that many Syrians will be delighted to return to their country, now that Assad is no longer in charge. On the issue of Syrian resettlement, the Foreign Secretary said that the issue was “premature”. Can the Minister expand on what his right honourable friend meant by that?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I welcome the Minister coming to this House to repeat the Statement on Syria. In the past two weeks the changes in Syria have been momentous, and even in the three days since the Statement was given in the other place a lot has happened. As my honourable friend Calum Miller said in the other place, the fall of the Assad regime is momentous for millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty was a family of despots who used chemical weapons against their own people, so its fall is clearly welcome, but there is now potentially a period of great uncertainty and there are a lot of questions for Syria, for the Middle East as a region and for British foreign policy.

As the noble Earl pointed out, the previous Government and His Majesty’s current Government have not had diplomatic relations with Damascus for some time. What are His Majesty’s Government now thinking about beginning to at least have some conversations with Damascus, if not diplomatic relations? We are in a period of flux where it is entirely appropriate for the people of Syria to determine their own future, but there will be consequences for British foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement, both for the situation in the Middle East and the potential flow of people out of Syria. Are there proposals for some behind-the-scenes conversations with people on the ground in Syria?

Also, what conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with our partners in Turkey, or Türkiye? Because clearly there is significant involvement of the Government of Türkiye in Syria with their concern about the Kurds. That raises a lot of questions about relations between Syria and the wider region that it would be important to understand. There are clearly short-term concerns about instability and minority rights, which we obviously need to stand behind, because although the groups that have toppled the Assad regime have so far said that they are going to look after the minorities, do His Majesty’s Government think that is the case and what support are they hoping to give to minorities in Syria?

There is also an immediate question about aid. Clearly, the £11 million that has just been given to Syria, announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday, is welcome, but the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement that there are 17 million Syrians in humanitarian need. The quantum that has been given is £11 million; that is about 67 pence per person in need. It does not sound the most generous of offers. Given that we have seen cuts to ODA over recent years, could the Minister tell the House whether there is the opportunity for further funding to go to Syria? At the moment the aid seems to be de minimis.

In the medium to longer term the people of Syria will clearly want justice and it is vital that Assad and his closest allies face justice but, having claimed asylum in Russia, it is quite difficult to see how that can be brought about. Have His Majesty’s Government thought about ways in which those who have perpetrated the worst atrocities in Syria might be brought to justice? What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to offer to assist Syrians in rebuilding and revitalising their own institutions, ideally helping them pave the way to democracy? As I said earlier, this must obviously be done according to their own preferences, because what we clearly should not be doing at this time is saying that we have a blueprint for what people in Syria should be doing. It needs to be led by the Syrians but, as supporters of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, presumably His Majesty’s Government wish to support those in Syria who want to rebuild relations in an appropriate way.

Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Women, Peace and Security Bill, and join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. As Conservatives, we recognise that national security and prosperity hinge not only on a robust defence but on the empowerment and protection of those who bear the heaviest burdens in conflict: women and girls.

The aim of the Bill, as so ably explained by my noble friend, is to secure and promote the essential role of women in peace processes, humanitarian efforts and post-conflict reconstruction. That is a noble aim and, as we have heard, noble Lords on all sides of the House support its objectives.

While it is an open question whether primary legislation in UK law is the best way to pursue these goals—a question that we look forward to addressing and supporting during the passage of the Bill—we are wholeheartedly behind my noble friend’s Bill and the principles at its core. Indeed, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure the role of women in these processes.

Today, the global stage presents us with challenges, as mentioned by many noble Lords, in various conflicts around the world that seem to grow in complexity. We witness persistent conflict, mass displacement and threats to fundamental freedoms. Many of the regions where these conflicts occur are precisely those where women are most oppressed and excluded. For this reason, I understand my noble friend’s reasons for bringing this Bill forward to the House. In an increasingly dangerous world, it is important to empower and protect those who suffer most in conflict scenarios. I support my noble friend’s Bill and look forward to the response of the Minister, particularly to my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Ahmad.

Volunteering Abroad

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Just to reassure my noble friend, I will do that. In my first three months in post, I have visited seven African countries to ensure that we develop a very strong partnership that delivers on the sorts of things he highlighted. I certainly agree about the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. Sadly, I reached only the bronze level; I failed on my orienteering skills. I suspect I would be more successful now.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

I thank the Minister for expanding on his orienteering skills. In all seriousness, this is an important area of soft power that can be used. Has the Minister considered the positive diplomatic impact of a volunteering scheme? Does he have any ideas on how this scheme might support good will towards the United Kingdom and maintain our strong international standing overseas?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for that question. The point I was trying to make to my noble friend Lord Boateng is that this is what our diplomatic engagement is about. I hesitate to use “soft power” because listening to other countries, developing a partnership model and understanding each other’s priorities are the most important message we can give. Certainly, I encourage volunteering and civil society action wherever I go, because the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is an active civil society.

Taiwan

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I think I understand the point of the noble and gallant Lord’s question. The fact is that Taiwan’s biggest trading partner is the People’s Republic. Trading across the globe with China is huge; it is its second biggest economy. It is also vital in terms of addressing those challenges that we face on climate. We therefore need to ensure that we have dialogue and co-operation. But we understand the other issues that the noble and gallant Lord has raised, which is why we committed to in opposition—and will deliver in government—a complete audit of our relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor to improve our ability to understand and respond to not only the opportunities but the challenges that China poses.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the importance of dialogue in this relationship. Does he also recognise that supporting Taiwan’s democratic self-governance is essential for peace and security in the region? Following on from the increased Chinese military war-games in the Taiwan Strait, can His Majesty’s Government confirm whether they have further plans for freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I have addressed these issues. The increased tensions are concerning and we are increasingly concerned about the consequences should peace and stability fail the in Taiwan Straits, including, as I mentioned, for global supply chains. It is incredibly important that we focus on ensuring that there is dialogue and not aggression, and these things need to be resolved by the two parties in proper dialogue and consultation. That has been the position of this Government and the Opposition as well as the previous Government, and we will maintain that position as we move forward.