G7 Summit
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 23 Jun 2026 · 48 speeches · Official Report
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 22 June.
“I am making this Statement on behalf of the Prime Minister. I spoke earlier today on the Prime Minister’s record across the country-stabilising the economy, driving down waiting lists in the National Health Service, and lifting half a million children out of poverty-but I want to start this Statement by paying tribute to his record on foreign policy, which is second to none.
As Foreign Secretary when we entered government, I saw at first hand the Prime Minister rebuild our relationships across the world. The EU reset that we led put Britain at the heart of Europe once again. Embracing President Zelensky on the steps of Downing Street, on one of Ukraine’s darkest days, was symptomatic of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown across Europe and in relation to the threats from Vladimir Putin-principled, courageous and on the right side of history. He drove investment for working people, with five trade deals in two years.
When it came to the most sober decision that a Prime Minister has to make-on a matter of life, death and war-and others were pushing for the UK to jump head first into another war in the Middle East, Keir Starmer stood strong, stood firm and said, ‘No, this is not our war’, putting British soldiers and the national interest first. He made Britain safer, rebuilt Britain’s reputation around the world, and drove investment and growth that will support working families in Britain for decades to come. Regardless of their politics, everyone in this House owes a debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs.
I turn now to the specifics of the G7 summit, and let me start with Ukraine. Once again, Russia chose to launch a huge attack on Ukraine on the eve of an international summit. In a show of its disdain for diplomacy, Russia killed innocent civilians in Kyiv and Kharkiv, and hit the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, a sacred site at the very heart of Ukrainian culture. The G7 has a shared sense of outrage at Russia’s conduct, but we also have a shared sense that the situation is changing. Ukraine has a new-found momentum. It is increasingly able to push Russia back on the battlefield, and the mood in Moscow is turning against the war. Almost half a million Russians have now lost their lives. Each month Russia mobilises around 30,000 people, and each month it loses the same number on the battlefield, with no progress to show for it.
At the same time, the Russian economy is struggling and may already be in recession, so we will seize this moment by continuing our military support. We are providing more air defence missiles and our biggest package of drones to date, financed with the profits of seized Russian assets. We are providing vital export finance to help rebuild Ukraine’s energy system, and we are going further to increase the pressure on Russia’s economy, because we know the impact that this is having.
At the summit my right honourable and learned friend the Prime Minister announced 70 new sanctions, bringing the UK up to around 500 sanctions on Russia this year alone, aimed at breaking up its military procurement supply chains and the illicit finance networks it uses to circumvent sanctions and, of course, targeting the Russian shadow fleet. I am sure the whole House will pay tribute to the Royal Marines who interdicted a shadow fleet vessel in the channel last weekend alongside officers from the National Crime Agency.
This is the moment to ramp up the pressure, and President Zelensky is clear that he is ready to talk, but this must recognise the reality on the ground and Ukraine’s new-found momentum. Any negotiations would need to be on the basis of the current line of control, not on Putin’s unrealistic demand for territory that he has failed to win on the battlefield. Russia should note the level of unity shown on this point and the G7’s pledge of unwavering support for Ukraine that will continue until we reach a just and lasting peace.
Let me turn to the Middle East. Getting to the deal between the United States and Iran has been bumpy, but it creates a moment of opportunity to bring down the cost of living for the British people and put the Middle East on a better path, which is vital for global stability. We are now working to help implement this deal to ensure that the region does not go back to war and that the 60-day negotiation period ends in a longer-term settlement.
Negotiations are the best way to secure our aims: first, that Iran is never allowed to have a nuclear weapon; secondly, that it stops its attacks across the region; and, thirdly, that the Strait of Hormuz is reopened to shipping, with no restrictions and no tolls. That is why, with President Macron, we have brought together an international coalition ready to help reassure shipping. We are in talks now about how to deploy this multilateral military mission in support of the deal and to explore immediate support for demining in the strait.
We should also place this in the broadest possible context, recognising the need to make progress across the region. The extremely fragile ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon must be implemented in full, and I call on the Israeli Government to show restraint to that end, including in their use of inflammatory language. The G7 agreed to work together in support of their process and to strengthen the Lebanese Government, so that they can regain the monopoly on the use of force in the country.
On Palestine, I want to speak very frankly. Israel must stop blocking aid into Gaza, stop settlement expansion in the E1 area of east Jerusalem, which threatens the viability of the two-state solution, and stop settler violence across the West Bank. We have a precious opportunity now to move on from the violence of the last three years in the interests of innocent people across the region. This should be our aim, bringing all our partners together in that effort.
Significant progress was also made last week on migration, with a strong G7 statement outlining practical common steps on returns and sanctioning the criminal gangs. With President Macron, my right honourable and learned friend the Prime Minister took a big step in our bilateral co-operation by agreeing to extend the ground-breaking Sandhurst agreement, which has already prevented more than 40,000 migrant crossings into the UK. Under this deal, new police units and riot squads will be deployed to French beaches to stop migrant boats before they take to the water. This is vital and important work. It is because of steps like that and the approach of this Government that we have removed 67,000 people with no right to be in our country. We have removed 9,000 foreign national offenders, and we are closing asylum hotels. We are turning the tide on these issues after years of failure. Under the last Government, net migration reached almost 1 million. We have reduced it by 82% in two years. UK immigration figures are the lowest today since 2012. Where the last Government failed, we are delivering.
The same is true on growth and investment. On the eve of the summit, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister welcomed the Prime Minister of Japan to Downing Street, to deepen our strategic partnership after they met in Tokyo in January. They agreed more than £18 billion-worth of investment in this country, creating tens of thousands of new jobs in infrastructure, offshore wind and financial services. That shows the value of building such bonds. This was followed, at the summit, with deals for a further £1.3 billion of investment from France and India in clean energy and artificial intelligence, creating more than 1,300 new jobs in Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister agreed with India’s Prime Minister Modi the entry into force of the UK-India free trade agreement. This is the UK’s quickest ever turnaround from signing to entry into force, and it is one of the biggest deals either country has ever done. It will boost British GDP by £4.8 billion and boost real wages for British workers by £2.2 billion.
Finally, the House will note that tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum. We know the world has changed fundamentally since 2016. We know that Brexit has damaged the economy, so there is no doubt in our mind where the national interest lies today-in closer co-operation with Europe. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister agreed to intensify work to deepen our economic ties. We look forward to a forthcoming second UK-EU summit at the earliest opportunity.
Unity on Ukraine to protect our collective security; unity on the Middle East to bring down the cost of living and bring back stability; progress on tackling illegal migration, driving down the numbers day after day; and huge new investments in the UK, creating new opportunities and changing people’s lives-real results for the British people. At the same time, the Government have brought down mortgage rates and inflation to help with the cost of living, and have held them flat to fight what is happening globally.
We are supporting families with the summer savings package, so that they can spend time together this August. We are banning social media for children to keep them safe, lifting half a million people out of poverty, boosting workers’ rights and renters’ rights, and bringing down NHS waiting lists at the highest rate for 17 years. This Government are focused on what really matters: serving the national interest and delivering for the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for being here to answer questions on this Statement. In these uncertain times, I wish her well for continuation in office-and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, who has run away but I hope will be back.
Noble Lords
Oh!
The Statement was made by someone who did not attend the summit and in the absence of the Prime Minister-a decent man forced from office by self-interested colleagues who owed their place in Parliament to him. As someone else once said at that same podium in Downing Street, “them’s the breaks”. Many unkind things were said back then about my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, not least in this House. It was “a good day”, one allegedly impartial former official deplorably gloated. I will not follow the road of rejoicing in another’s downfall. I place on record my thanks to Sir Keir Starmer for his service to our country, even if the results were not always quite as perfect as this Statement claimed. Indeed, can the Minister tell us why on earth he is going if everything is as amazing as the Statement says? At the summit, Sir Keir maintained the unflinching support that he has given to Ukraine, so vigorously begun by the reviled Mr Johnson. We support that stand and will uphold the unity of this House on it. Conduct of foreign policy will now fall to the first Prime Minister since Lord Home to assume office without facing the electorate at the preceding general election. If we do not have a clue what he thinks, heaven help our allies. If he fails to make a dispassionate assessment of the poor choices that led to Sir Keir’s resignation, he risks repeating those mistakes and leaving us in a doom loop of lost opportunity. The same old Labour, with tax and spend policies that...
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for allowing this Statement to be repeated in your Lordships’ House. Self-evidently, I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and it is a great-and unusual-pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. It is, in fact, somewhat appropriate that a stand-in should be making this speech, as the original speech was also made by a stand-in in the other place. As a result, this Statement is unusually suffused with praise for Sir Keir. With respect, I will avoid those sections and try to pick the bones out of the bits that actually refer to the G7 meeting. Starting with Ukraine, all of us join in the condemnation of the hit on the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, but the greater cost is the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries sustained by the Ukrainian people since the full invasion started. What this hit on the church underlines, however, is the very poor guidance of many Russian ballistic missiles. Hundreds of missiles are being projected in the direction of Ukraine, with no sense of limiting civilian casualties. The Statement is, however, right to characterise the battlefield as one where the fortunes seem to be turning. The Ukrainian mastery of drone warfare has established a 25 kilometre-plus wide kill zone, through which the Russians are finding progress has been halted in a very deadly way. But when I met the Ukrainian parliamentarians last month, they were at pains to spell out the danger they face from ballistic missiles...
My Lords, I looked with some wry amusement at my notes, which start: “Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the generous and constructive suggestions?” Perhaps I should not always believe the notes I am given. I want to start-which I am sorry the noble Lord did not do-by congratulating the Conservative Party on winning the seat of Aberdeen South. I had half expected him to congratulate the Labour Party on a fantastic victory in Makerfield, and the SNP, who held their seat in Arbroath. All of us who put ourselves forward for election know that it is never an easy time, and consequences follow from winning and losing. I think we should be generous in this House to those who put themselves forward. I also thank the noble Lord for his comments about me and the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms-the Chief Whip. I am grateful for such support. He has not always shown such strong support for us, so I certainly welcome it at this moment. Both noble Lords spoke passionately and rightly about Ukraine. I think all of us feel very strongly about this. You just have to think of how the Ukrainian people have for so long endured what Putin thought would be an easy fight and an easy defeat. Others may have seen President Zelensky’s statement on the Prime Minister’s resignation yesterday, in which he said: “Here in Ukraine, we deeply value Britain, and every meeting and every conversation we”- that is President Zelensky and the Prime Minister- “have had has always...
Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, let me respectfully say that they are Back-Bench questions, so we want questions and not statements. Bearing that in mind, I would ask the Conservatives to go first.
My Lords, this morning, a Russian ballistic missile struck a civilian target in President Zelensky’s hometown of Kryvyi Rih, killing three people and wounding many others. It was a quite appalling incident, at 11 am Ukrainian time. In the G7 communiqué, there was a statement committing to an increased delivery to Ukraine of “additional systems and … long-range capabilities”. Can the Minister elaborate on what is meant by “long-range capabilities”?
I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord further information beyond what I have already said-I will look at whether there is any more information I can send to him that can be in the public domain-but I think that shows our commitment to doing all that we can to help Ukraine because of the constant pressure that it is under. The example that the noble Lord cites is one of many that happen regularly. I repeat that I have such admiration for the resilience of the people of Ukraine in withstanding this.
My Lords, the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe is in Sudan. Can the noble Baroness say what more was said at the G7 summit about the atrocities in Sudan, given that it is a major root cause of displaced people, of whom there are now 120 million in the world? Will she look at the statements issued yesterday by the African Union and by the US State Department about the dangers now emerging in North Kordofan, and the danger that the genocidal attack that was made in El Fasher in Darfur quite recently will be replicated? Given our duties under the genocide convention to look for emerging signs of genocide, will she take this away as a matter of great urgency?
Of course. I think the noble Lord has raised these issues already with my noble friend Lady Chapman, who is well aware of them, and I will pass his comments on to her. Yes, it is a matter of urgency. It is something of a shock, when we think of what is going on in the world, that Sudan gets so few column inches and so little attention in our newspapers in this country. It seems sometimes that they move on to another issue and then another, but it is still happening and is still important. I will discuss this with my noble friend Lady Chapman and see what more we can say to the noble Lord.
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the Government should act with our allies in the G7 to try to stop the illegal expansion, particularly in the areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, known as E1? Does she agree that it is important that we should create the momentum that is needed to tackle and create a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine?
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and I am proud that we have taken the historic step of recognising the Palestinian state. Settlements that are damaging and oppose the two-state solution just make that harder to reach and undermine it. They are illegal under international law, and we urge Israel to take action against such settlements. My noble friend is right: the only way forward for a safe and secure Israel and a safe and viable Palestine is through a two-state solution.
My Lords, can the Minister update us on the coalition of the willing in terms of the final settlement that there will be on any peace agreement in Ukraine? Does she accept that the coalition of the willing will form the basis of European defence in the future if we have to defend ourselves against Russian aggression without help from the United States?
The noble Lord raises a useful point. The coalition of the willing that the Prime Minister brought together, and which he led, has shown itself to have real value. I mentioned that co-operation between countries in my first answer on the Statement; they came together largely because of Ukraine, but its resonance goes far beyond that. The coalition of the willing is something that we want to see continue, also beyond Ukraine. At the moment, though, we just want to do what we can to secure peace for Ukraine and give it confidence that we are with it. Whatever the Ukrainians need, we are here for them.
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has quite properly referred to the esteem in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is held by most foreign leaders-possibly with one major exception. I think we all share with her the desire that, whatever comes next, whoever is the next Prime Minister continues to build on that legacy. The Statement refers clearly to the increased number of sanctioned people under the sanctions against Russia in response to the situation in Ukraine, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. That response is of course extremely welcome, but there is a potential consequence. We are already suffering as a nation grey-zone attacks, cyber attacks and arson, including on the Prime Minister’s property, which is quite extraordinary. Surely, in those circumstances, we should make sure that the public at large are aware of these threats and of the consequences of disruption and are prepared for them-not only those sorts of threats but indeed all the other risks on the national risk register. Can my noble friend tell us what plans there are-I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission-in the next few months to ensure that the public are better informed and prepared for the sorts of disruption that might arise?
My noble friend is right to raise a number of issues around resilience. He said he hoped that whoever takes over from the Prime Minister will continue that work. The Prime Minister has pledged to ensure that there is a smooth transition, and he will give his support in that regard as well to ensure that the work he has been undertaking and has prioritised continues. We have seen an increase in sanctions, and that will continue. We have some plans in the making on how we increase public awareness, but I think that is incumbent not just on the Government but on all of us. We have talked in this House before about a national conversation, and I know my noble friend Lord Coaker is looking at this and doing some work on it. I do not think the public really understand the scale and type of threats the country faces today. Of course, weather resilience is another issue, but I do not think people are aware that a single cyber attack could have a major impact on all kinds of infrastructure, including banking or transport. So a lot of work is being undertaken to try to get the public to engage on that. But it is not just the responsibility of government: the whole House, civil society, local authorities and public agencies, and companies important to national security need to understand what they need to do to keep their companies safe and banking safe because of the impact that has on all of us as well.
As the Government have decommissioned the last minesweeper and the last frigate we had in the Gulf, what assistance can we practically offer in the very important task of clearing the mines and safeguarding shipping, assuming the ceasefire holds?
The noble Lord is probably aware that clearing mines is something we are working on as part of a broad coalition, particularly with the French. We are engaged in that and working with them at present.
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for her comments this afternoon and to the Prime Minister for his work on Britain’s interests abroad. I particularly appreciated my noble friend’s comments on settler violence in answer to a previous question. I want to raise a second question about the Israeli Government’s policy. They collect tax for the Palestinian Authority every month, and for a year that tax has not been paid over to the Palestinian Authority. The result is that the public sector workforce and the civil servants are on small fractions of their pay, often working just for commitment to their country rather than pay. This is creating massive problems and a potential crisis. I urge my noble friend to put it to the Government that we need to put urgent pressure on the Israeli Government to pay over the tax that they have collected from Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority so the authority can get it on with doing its job. I say this as the Government’s envoy to the Palestinian Authority on governance. Finally, I will say that I really liked the answer earlier on a Palestinian state being created and a two-state solution. A state with the rule of law, living in peace with its neighbours, has to be the outcome we all seek.
I am grateful to my noble friend. The House will know from his detailed question that he has considerable experience in this area. He is right that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. If you look at hotspots around the world where there is conflict, you see that, at the end of the day, negotiation is the way forward to end these problems. Meanwhile, millions are suffering and dying, and having their lives forever changed. On tax collection, my noble friend may not be surprised to know that I do not know the details. His experience, knowledge and engagement are clearly evident, so will he allow me to take that away and come back to him? We have regular and constructive engagement with the Israeli Government; I cannot tell him whether that has been raised in recent meetings, but I will look into it.
My Lords, now that we have recognised the Palestinian Authority, what discussions have the Government had with it, following worries expressed by the United States and the EU about the continued practice of paying a stipend to people convicted of killing Jews: “pay for slay” money? We have been promised that this would end. What discussions has she had with Palestinian authorities to ensure it finally does end?
My Lords, I have not personally had those discussions, but the Government have ongoing discussions. The noble Lord will know from his experience that you do not get everything that has to be done at first, but you have to start that engagement to make a difference. I cannot personally say what engagement or discussion there has been on that issue, but I will take it back. A point the noble Lord has made many times about a two-state solution as well is that you need to have trust and engagement on all sides and, as we move forward, we need to try to do what we can to engender that trust. That means change and understanding on both sides.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House on the presentation and content of the Statement. I also thank the Prime Minister for his work on deepening European co-operation, and his work with an Taoiseach in Dublin on deepening British-Irish relations. But, as we mark 10 years since the Brexit referendum, does my noble friend agree that the people of the UK do not want the old arguments reopened or renegotiated? They want practical leadership that deepens co-operation with the EU, where it is in the interests of the wider population, including in a forthcoming UK-EU summit, whenever that takes place, and with the needed work my noble friend referred to that is required on the SPS agreement, particularly in securing our agri-food industry.
My noble friend makes a very valid point. For many of us, the Brexit referendum is deep in our minds and we will struggle to forget it, but, for others, it is something that happened when they were very young. A lot of young people are not engaged in the same way. I say to her that there have to be new arguments; we have to deal with where we are now and act always in the interests of the UK. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the SPS agreement. When the original Brexit deal was done, this really should have been seriously understood and decisions should have been taken, but they were not. We are paying a price, or the agricultural industry is, for this not being addressed then. She is right that if we have the EU referendum-sorry, the EU summit, not referendum; I am not a great fan of referendums, as noble Lords might imagine-it should be as soon as possible, and this has to be addressed. I can give the assurance that every sinew will be addressed to ensure that we can get to that point as soon as possible.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement and her answers. Having listened to such important strategic questions in this debate, I would like to pose a more personal one. My partner is Lebanese-Ukrainian, with family in both countries impacted by the terrible conflicts that continue to rage there. While I welcome the Statement, can my noble friend please explain what more could perhaps be done by this Government to support the people of both countries in their hopes for peace and, when it comes, eventual reconstruction?
The noble Lord is right that sometimes, in looking at strategic and wider issues, we forget the personal. I have no doubt that his wife has found that having family in Lebanon and Ukraine is quite a harrowing experience at times, when you do not know where they are and what is happening. So I imagine there have been some difficult days in his household. In terms of more support, we just have to keep this at the front and foremost of people’s minds: we have to continue being the best friends that we can to Ukraine, as President Zelensky said. My noble friend Lady Chapman, whom I mentioned earlier, recently announced a further £13 million-worth of support for Lebanon, because, unless we actually engage with these countries, in both their fightback and their reconstruction, we will not be able to see them have a viable future. Everything we do should be geared to that aim: not just support now, but looking to the longer-term future of those who live there.
I welcome the words of the Lord Privy Seal about the need to engage all of civil society in the issue of what a dangerous world we live in. How does she reconcile that with the fact that, time after time, the heads of our armed services are saying that our Armed Forces have been cut to the bone and that they simply do not have the resources to deal with the threat against them? Is it not the case that we need to spend more on all types of defence-not just the defence of yesterday, but to fight the battles of today and tomorrow-and, thus far, have this Government not failed in that attempt?
I have to say to the noble Lord that I think he has a short memory. When we look at what happened on defence under the Government whom he supported, the record is very poor. When the last Labour Government left office, we were spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence; that was then cut during the time the Conservatives were in office. We have now got it back up to 2.5%; we said that we would do that by the end of this Parliament, but we have done it sooner. Under the noble Lord’s Government, the Army was cut from 100,000 troops to just 72,000. His Government missed their Army recruitment targets every year for 14 years. We lost a quarter of our frigates and destroyers, we cut the minehunters and we failed to decommission decades-old kit and equipment; nor did his Government do anything to address the conditions that our military families were living in. We have made huge progress on a lot of those issues, particularly on accommodation and on procurement-which, I have to say, was a real mess. So it is a bit rich for the noble Lord to give lectures. However, that does not mean that we do not have to do more. There are two things, as I said. One is how we provide the money, but the other is how we work with other countries to ensure that we can work together on our procurement and have interoperability between the systems that we use. We need to take this extremely seriously. When the noble Lord says, “You have failed”, he is not recognising the work that we have done to clear up...
My Lords, my concern is about the relevance of the G7. It was held together by the economic might of various countries, but now India and China are challenging, and they are not part of the G7. It was held together by the advancement of the rules-based international order, which has been undermined by President Trump. G7 countries have been unable to find solutions to things such as poverty eradication, climate change, and even the taxation of corporations. Given that issues of common interest can be discussed at the UN and with the G20, the BRICS countries and the EU, and in many other bilateral and multilateral settings, what proposal do the Government have for making the G7 relevant?
My Lords, when I look at the communiqués and outcomes, and particularly at the engagement of the US on Ukraine at this G7, the message I have received from people who were there is that this was one of the most constructive G7s for many years. I say to the noble Lord that any opportunity for countries to come together, discuss issues and engage is beneficial. Sometimes they will make progress, sometimes they will not, but the fact that they are there together and willing to have these discussions is beneficial. I suggest that the noble Lord reads the communiqués and sees how productive this particular G7 was.