(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford
That this House takes note of the United Kingdom’s global position.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful in advance to those who have kindly agreed to participate in this debate—at least, I hope I stay grateful when I hear them. I am especially looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, which will follow immediately. We will all listen with the greatest interest, in view of his wisdom and experience.
We are at an extremely dangerous moment in history, when the issue is the survival of world order of any kind. Some of the wisest minds, not just in America but on both sides of the Atlantic and around the world, tell us we are at the edge of an abyss. One of the best-selling books in America has been Robert Kaplan’s The Coming Anarchy. It was published more than two decades ago, but some would say this anarchy, in international affairs, has already arrived very promptly.
This is a new world in which we have to make our way, guard and protect ourselves more strongly than ever, contribute to others, set examples, define our purposes, and preserve our unity. We can forget about it all going on in faraway countries of which we know nothing; it is all very near, on our doorstep. Forget even the language of East and West, as though they were split into two halves of an orange, the idea so favoured by American academia, or the patronising concepts of North and South, developed and developing, all implicitly dividing the world between them and us—now an utterly flawed approach in this multipolar age.
How can that idea make any sense at all any longer when scores of countries, aspiring to liberal values in their own ways and not wanting to be beholden to either of the 20th-century hegemons, America or China, are not in the Atlantic West at all? They are in the East, the South and all around the world. They call themselves the neo-non-aligned, which in fact is most of the world’s 191 nations, large and small. The danger to Ukraine is the danger to them. What is happening is not just a European issue, as some seem to think. What they want in this digital age is not great power bullying, but independence and freedom from being put in ideological boxes or spheres of influence. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former UN Secretary-General—a man I much admired and who was much underestimated—once said, everyone needs a country to love. That is one message to guide us through the labyrinth in the digital age, in direct contrast to all the talk from a past era of the great powers fixing it, of blocs to align with, or of spheres of influence to conform to.
Forget too all the patronising talk about tilts to the Indo-Pacific, or pivots to Asia and the developing world, as though we are doing them a favour. That is the language of the past, when might was still seen as right and the West thought it was the master of the world. Forget about the historic confrontation between capitalism and socialism that much preoccupied the last century, when even Russia and China now have their own twisted forms of capitalism, even if they do not admit it. That debate is over too, and another one has begun on how to make liberal market capitalism—our sort—far more stable, far fairer and much more widely shared, and how to escape its massive unpopularity, especially among the young. Capitalism, for us, ought to be not a defeat but a matter of victory.
I believe we can compare this age with the printing press revolution of the 14th century, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution all rolled into one—although, of course, it is coming far faster and affects a far greater number of the world’s people on a far bigger scale than ever before. Among other things, it has changed the nature of international influence and pressure. We call it soft power, or some do, although, of course, it goes along with hard military power and smart power—the mix of the two. This House of Lords can claim a lot of credit for opening up this debate with our seminal report of March 2014, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World. It certainly seemed to have an impact on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which promptly set up a department to supervise soft power.
We are, as a consequence of our policy blindness, still suffering from a gross underestimate of the future importance to us of the Commonwealth network: the best and largest soft-power greenhouse of all, with some of the world’s fastest-growing economies among its members. This becomes the ultimate kind of association, both of peoples, professions, institutes and Governments, and of the comity of nations which a common language, with a common culture embedded within it, sustains and nourishes. No binding treaty is needed for the basic voluntary atmosphere of friendship and instruction that lies behind it.
Under past and present Governments, there has been some distinct and welcome progress in our repositioning journey—joining organisations such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, for example—although the cost of that has been getting policy with our European neighbours badly wrong. Relations with greater Europe are a neighbourhood, common-sense problem. It is plain sense that we must stay on the best possible relations with our continental neighbours—all of them. Of course we must co-operate in dozens of sensible and practical ways, as I know this Government are trying to do and we saw attempted by the previous Government—not with great success. The European Political Community, of which we are an active member—in fact one of the leading members—could prove the gateway to a thousand constructive outcomes of European co-operation without getting too bogged down again in outdated Brussels procedures.
The ingredients to make all these new relationships and alliances work are trust and mutual respect, with a strong and agreed set of rules and commitments, but that is just what has gone missing. It is as if the new strongmen of the globe—Trump is one, Putin another and Xi Jinping a third—all want different rules and methods, their own, and all with the least possible restraints on their actions. In fact, it now looks as though even America’s vaunted constitutional checks have gone on holiday, as the country is led into an outright trade war by one man’s say-so.
Can we protect ourselves, with all this lack of trust and respect swirling around and across the Atlantic, pulling the world we knew apart? Does America have all the cards in the Ukraine situation, as its President seems to think? Do we, for example, hold a better and friendlier set of world connection than the USA does—or shortly will, if the Trump hallmark is grabbing Greenland, kicking Mexico and trying to swallow Canada, a nation that happens to a powerful member of the Commonwealth with King Charles as its constitutional head? That is disrespect for you—that is the language we have to talk—not to say bad manners as well.
Anyway, in a networked, hyperconnected and technology-dominated world we do have some cards, and by common consent the Prime Minister has played some of them, so far, with great skill. Mr Zelensky—caught in the firing line between President Trump and Vice-President Vance—also has a card or two, although, alas, he never had the chance, in the Oval Office train crash, to play them.
The list of issues which should make America pause before pursuing a course of playing the big nation 20th-century battalion game is a long one. Many other items not listed here arise, not least that great nationhood arises from serving the world, rather than overriding or threatening it. We shall see how Mr Putin responds to President Trump’s latest threat about ruining Russia. Judging by his past performance, I do not think he will accept it very well, but we will see. Maybe he sees a gain for Russia in it; maybe he will go for it. To make America great again, it must be ready to serve freedom as it did in the past. At the moment, frankly, it is being led in the opposite direction.
We are not alone in facing this central challenge of the digital age with its contradictions and its transformative powers, which continue to unfold at a great rate, but we have a role emerging from the turbulence to replace the one we are alleged to have lost in the last century, with that famous put-down remark from Dean Acheson about having
“lost an empire but not yet found a role”.
We can pioneer popular social capitalist reform, which is the underpinning of stable democracy—neither works without the other. We can help rebuild the world institutions of the last century—as we helped to build them in the first place—with the UN very much included, to address climate change, the quandary of the world as super-mass immigration takes over and other 21st-century issues, such as worldwide energy transition.
We can construct and keep in daily or hourly use a dense world network, the densest ever in the hyperconnective age—with every old link, new tie and new nation on the face of the globe, especially our fellow Commonwealth members—always being ready to assist, guide and support. We can respond to populist pressure all over the world by clear democratic reforms here that keep all who wish in constant touch with a strong and trusted parliamentary democracy at work and in detail.
We can design our defences for employing the highest technology and safeguarding the civilian order and its supply chains as never before. We can boost enormously our reserves and the linkages between the military and civilian worlds. In the 1930s we kept our reserves at around 200,000 long before the war began; they are now at 37,000. The expansion must begin.
Crisis is opportunity We are in a very advantageous position to make the best of the present upheavals, with our global links, friends and experience, providing we build on the assets bequeathed to us. If we are smart and creative, there was never such a new dawn and clear horizon, for all the world’s uncertainties, and never such an open sea for a nation such as ours. I beg to move.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is with great humility and a profound sense of responsibility that I rise to address this House for the first time. I am deeply grateful for the privilege of joining your Lordships and extend my sincere thanks to those who have supported me on this journey. In particular, I thank the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, who was also one of my sponsors, for their warm welcome. I also thank my other sponsor, my noble kinswoman Lady Pitkeathley, who, in her wisdom, decided that the Lords was such a good idea that she sent for reinforcements. The kindness and patience of the doorkeepers, officials and staff have made these first steps so much less daunting.
The subject of today’s debate—the United Kingdom’s global position—challenges us not only to assess where we stand but to consider how we move forward. We do so at a time of great uncertainty—as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, set out for us—and our history shows that our ability to thrive depends on creativity, adaptability and leadership. To maintain our standing, we must embrace these strengths now more than ever.
Entrepreneurship has been a lifelong passion for me, though my path to it was unconventional. I started in music—writing, recording and playing in bands, including in Camden, chasing that elusive big break. Like many in the arts, I quickly learned that dreams alone are not enough. Resilience, reinvention and the willingness to take risks—and sometimes embarrass oneself—are just as important.
That spirit carried me through my career, from introducing universal banking services while at the British Bankers’ Association to sourcing helicopters for the Prime Minister during the 2001 and 2005 general elections and to manufacturing table tennis tables in China. In many ways, music and business share the same DNA—good ideas, hard work and not a little luck; and, always, a team.
That belief in collaboration led to one of my proudest achievements: Camden Collective. This initiative emerged from a simple but pressing problem: too many talented entrepreneurs, particularly those without post-university networks, could not afford the space to develop their ideas. Drawing on my own experience with dyslexia, we turned a challenge into an opportunity, transforming empty high street spaces into free workspaces.
More than just pop-up offices and shops, we created a thriving community of innovators, doers, and dreamers. Our first rule, “don’t be an arse”, is not just a joke; it sets a cultural tone where collaboration trumps ego. That ethos has helped hundreds of businesses take their first steps, and I believe it can help shape the future of entrepreneurship in the UK.
Another of our Camden projects is the Camden Highline—a proposed new park in the sky, running between Camden Town and King’s Cross along a disused railway viaduct. Inspired by New York’s High Line, and sharing its design team, it embodies the kind of bold, imaginative thinking that I think can redefine urban spaces and strengthen our international reputation as a hub of creativity.
Technology, particularly AI, is transforming innovation. The UK has world-class AI research and a thriving start-up ecosystem, but our productivity gap remains a challenge. While top firms advance, many businesses struggle to adopt new technologies, limiting our competitiveness. I see both sides of this divide—start-ups I work with already leverage AI, while many traditional businesses, such as those in the business improvement districts I run, face hurdles in adoption. AI’s benefits must be widely shared. The Government’s AI growth zones are a strong start, but hubs must also be placed in urban centres, near innovation clusters such as King’s Cross, where research institutions and tech firms can accelerate progress.
AI can transform public services, as we have heard alluded to today. Standardising AI-driven processes across government would boost efficiency and service delivery, positioning the UK as a leader in AI-supported governance. Smart AI regulation offers a chance to reinforce our global position and while some, particularly in the EU, take a more restrictive approach, the UK can lead with a pragmatic, pro-innovation path. As a songwriter, even at my modest level, I understand creative concerns—I really do—but, if handled well, this could be a rare Brexit silver lining.
As I take my place in this House, I hope to bring a spirit of creativity and adaptability to my work here. The UK’s global standing will be secured not by nostalgia for past glories but by shaping the future. By embracing innovation, supporting entrepreneurship and ensuring that opportunity is shared across society, we will not only strengthen our economy but reaffirm the values that have long made Britain a leader on the world stage. I look forward to playing my part in that effort.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great joy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on the occasion of his maiden speech and to have the privilege of formally welcoming him into the Chamber. He and I have known each other for some 30 years, and our paths crossed because of our shared passions for policy, the creative industries and the arts. He has had a much more successful career than I have, getting his hands dirty working in his community, genuinely shaping the lives of so many people in Camden and beyond, and coming up with creative thinking.
It is a testament to our friendship that he recalled to me the other day that I once bumped into him and lamented to him, “Why do I have so many lefty friends?”, which will not surprise my friends on these Benches. It is a joy to have him join us in the House of Lords. It would be churlish of me and against the spirit of welcoming him to point out that he is a nepo Peer and that his wonderful mother sits in the Chamber with us today. It would also be grotesquely hypocritical because I am also a nepo Peer, having followed my own late father, who was a life Peer, into the House of Lords. I make that point because I know what a wonderfully additional heart-warming moment it is to come into a Chamber that would have formed part of his life even before he formally joined us. I look forward to debating with him for many years to come about the importance of the creative industries. I also welcome his speech because of his focus on the future, on innovation and on the strengths that Britain has today, here and now in the 21st century, rather than looking back necessarily on past glories.
A friend of mine, the academic James Crabtree, who specialises in south-east Asia, sent me a diptel this week on WhatsApp from a recording of a meeting between Senator Barry Goldwater and the Prime Minister of Singapore in which it was remarked that the British might have lost their muscle, but they are able to think. It is an echo of the remark that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, made about having lost an empire but looking to find a role.
In opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave a brilliant speech—one always says a speech is brilliant when it entirely reflects one’s own worldview. Everything the noble Lord said about how Britain moves forward in what he quite rightly identified as one of the most dangerous periods, certainly in living memory for me, is absolutely right. We must play to our strengths and not look back on past glories.
We are a strange country. We have, in some ways, a surfeit of self-confidence and, in other ways, a chronic lack of confidence. I always say that what makes Britain great is not our past but what we have today, which is part of our heritage: the rule of law, the English common law, leadership in artificial intelligence—to which the noble Lord referred—our universities, our research base, our Armed Forces and the Premier League. These are the kind of things that people around the world look to Britain for. The remark from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that everyone needs someone to love should perhaps be framed and put in the Foreign Office, because that is Britain’s opportunity.
This week, as chairman of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I was lucky enough to preside over our annual business summit. We welcomed the Malaysian Minister for Investment, Trade and Industry, and a Malaysian delegation, because Malaysia is chair of ASEAN this year. It was very telling for me. Somebody came up with a statistic, which I am not sure necessarily bears scrutiny, that about half a million Malaysians have benefited in some shape or form from British education. Given that the population is about 32 million to 34 million, that may be excessive, but the point was made, and the Minister then asked: “So why are only 0.6% of our imports from Britain?”
The fact is—I hope I am not getting over my skis when I say this—that there are many countries that love Britain. When you are in the Middle East or south-east Asia, you will constantly meet people who say how highly they hold the United Kingdom in regard, and how much they almost regard it as a second home. That is our strength. We can, in this moment of crisis, wake up and realise that we are not the 51st state. We have influence across the globe, and we should maximise that influence.
In my final remarks, let me play to my strength in terms of my passion for culture and talk about Britain’s soft power. We can exaggerate soft power. I always tease Neil MacGregor, the former director of the British Museum, a man I hold in the highest regard, who talked a great deal about soft power. He once lent the Iranians the Cyrus cylinder, a very important cultural artefact in Persia. I always tease him that, shortly after he lent it to them, they arrested six Royal Navy sailors who they claimed had breached Iranian territorial waters. But the point was made; we lent it, and we got it back.
I have talked about the importance of the British Council in this Chamber in the last few weeks. I have talked as well, many times, about the importance of the BBC World Service. Soft power will not get us everything we want to achieve, but it is a wonderful front door to engage so many different countries in dialogue—countries that respect the United Kingdom, and dare I say it, some of which do love us.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue at a crucial time. I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and look forward to hearing a lot more from him in the future.
We have a long history and a clear footprint around the globe, even though our reach and capacity have diminished. Our global position has been defined by our interconnection with America, Europe and the Commonwealth. However, whatever was special about our relationship with the United States is now over; trust is broken. That does not mean that we should cease to have a relationship with America but, from now on, it will be on different terms and that is irreversible.
I have always taken the view that the UK’s most important ties, by force of geography, history and culture, are with our neighbours across a narrow stretch of water, as opposed to a vast ocean. During our 47-year membership of what is the EU, the UK carved out a unique, semi-detached position. We threw that away with Brexit and now run the risk of being isolated from both the USA and the EU. By leaving the EU, we weakened both ourselves and the EU.
I commend the Prime Minister for his efforts to co-ordinate with European partners and maintain good relations with the White House, and they have been rightly praised. I understand it when he says he is not seeking to choose between Europe and Washington. However, what he must avoid is allowing President Trump to dictate in any way how we reset our relationships with the EU and Europe, either on trade or defence and security.
Historically, the UK has reached around the globe, but we have sadly neglected that in recent decades. It is surely time to revitalise our relationship with the Commonwealth. The savage cut in aid compromises that, but we must look to commit more in promoting trade, investment, diplomacy and culture—soft power—to show that we value our membership. I recently spoke with a member of the Government of one of the smaller Commonwealth countries and asked what benefit they perceived in King and Commonwealth. I was told that it was a matter of complete indifference, as it made no impact. That is a travesty and should surely change.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, a legacy of goodwill towards the UK in many parts of the Commonwealth and around the world, which we fail to reciprocate adequately. I note that the King met Justin Trudeau in London recently and has been seen in public wearing Canadian uniform and insignia. King Charles is the King of Canada, and I have seen suggestions in the Canadian media that, as their king, he should publicly support Canadian sovereignty and independence. Is there any protocol to prevent him doing that? Surely Canadian Ministers can advise him to do so.
No relationship is perfect. The UK has friends that we have undervalued, and it now appears that we have others that we have overvalued. Our global position should be based on relationships we can trust, even when there are differences. As the world has changed, the UK cannot afford to be dogmatic about negotiating closer links with the EU. We need to build our own defence capacity and reset our relationship. The UK knows what it is like to have continental Europe occupied by dark powers. That was the case when I was born and for more than half my life. Our destiny requires the vision to create the means to prevent that happening again.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is customary to congratulate the holder of a debate such as this one, and I do so with all the more enthusiasm on this occasion, since that person is the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who was instrumental in setting up your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee and was its first chair. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his thought-provoking maiden speech.
As for the timing of our debate, that too is pretty good. With the publication of the global strategy review from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, only a few weeks away, that report and this debate are together linking Britain’s hard and soft power, which must always be considered together if we are to get a full picture.
The first thing to be said is that the word “global” in the title of today’s debate has nothing whatever to do with that silly slogan of “global Britain” dreamed up by Foreign Secretary Johnson to characterise post-Brexit Britain. Britain’s global role has existed since the 16th century and had nothing whatever to do with whether we were inside the EU or outside it, even though we had a lot of pretty tempestuous relationships with the other countries of Europe along the road. Nor does it have much to do with that other emanation of Johnsonian imagination—the Indo-Pacific tilt, which overlooked that, if you tilt towards something, you necessarily tilt away from something else, in this case Europe. President Putin’s aggression against Ukraine has upended that tilt comprehensively.
The decision at the end of last month to substantially increase defence spending deserves full support, but the decision to finance that exclusively by a massive cut in our overseas aid budget, which had already been plundered to pay for Ukrainian refugees in this country, is going to inflict great damage on our soft power and influence around the world. The least the Government should do now is to commit themselves to increasing the 0.3% of GNI as soon as growth picks up.
One of the biggest challenges we face around the world is the damage being inflicted by the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from multilateral organisations and programmes, from the World Health Organization to the Paris climate accords to the UN’s Human Rights Council—and there could be more to come. Together with the cuts in US aid, these are serious decisions which will weaken western influence, whether or not it is replaced by Chinese involvement, and they will impact some of the poorest people in the world. We will need to do what we can to sustain and strengthen these multilateral organisations, moving ahead, if necessary, without the US, in a plurilateral framework with other like-minded countries; for example, at the World Trade Organization for the proposed pandemic convention, and at the UN. Can the Minister say whether that is the Government’s policy?
In all this we will need to work in close co-operation with and keep in sharp focus our European partners, with the Prime Minister’s aim of a security and defence pact with them at its heart. What is the proposed timetable for moving ahead with that and how does it relate to the handling of the fighting in Ukraine?
To conclude, in all this we will need international partners. Britain is no longer a great power, as it thought it was, perhaps for a little bit too long. But we are a significant middle-ranking power, so we need representation around the world, and that will need to be taken into account in this summer’s spending review, avoiding such pretty useless substitutes as regional representation. We must nurture our main instruments of soft power, such as the BBC World Service, which should be financed by the taxpayer and not the licence holder, and the British Council.
In all this, we should show awareness of how others see us and not just of how we see ourselves.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on securing this debate, though I fear I cannot quite share his degree of optimism. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on a most accomplished maiden speech. We look forward to hearing many more. It is of course a privilege to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, who brings his considerable expertise to bear on our discussion of these issues.
The global position of the United Kingdom has changed beyond all recognition in the last few weeks. That is because the world has changed beyond all recognition in the last few weeks. We are at a turning point comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but this turning point is not, alas, for the better. It is making the world a more dangerous place than it has been since 1989, or perhaps even longer ago than that.
The great certainty that has dominated all global strategy since 1945 has been that the United States has been the leader of the free world. It has seen its role as the guarantor of a rules-based world order which it helped to devise. Of course, it has made mistakes—not all of its interventions have had beneficial results—but, on the whole, both it and the world have benefited enormously. Millions more people now live under freedom and many more millions no longer have to suffer the grinding misery of poverty. Of course, the United States has not been the sole author of these benefits, but without its leadership, it is very doubtful whether this progress could have occurred.
This great certainty has gone. It grieves me to say what I am about to say. I lived in America for a year as a young man. Both my children are married to Americans. All my grandchildren are dual citizens of the United Kingdom and the United States. But the last few weeks have made it clear that the United States is no longer a reliable ally of this country.
It is not the act of an ally to impose tariffs on friendly countries. It is not the act of an ally to threaten to take part of another country’s territory—Greenland—by force. It is not the act of an ally to vote with Russia, North Korea and Iran in the United Nations against a motion that recognises that Russia invaded Ukraine. It is not the act of a freedom-loving country to withdraw intelligence and military assistance from a democratic country that has been invaded by a tyrant.
It is foolish to pretend that we can rely on a country which is led by a man who rejoices in his unreliability, who revels in his unreliability, and who uses unreliability as a weapon of choice. The Prime Minister has spoken of himself as a bridge, and his efforts have been commendable, but a bridge needs firm foundations at both ends, and those firm foundations no longer exist on the other side of the Atlantic.
So what is to be done? It is clear that we, in common with other countries, not only European countries, must spend more on defence. It is true that we have been freeloading on the United States for far too long, but I am afraid that this new need for increased defence spending must have as its objective not merely the need to convince the United States that we are paying our fair share of the costs of NATO but the ability to defend ourselves and play our part in the defence of Europe without the United States.
The changed attitude of the United States is said to be in order that it can devote itself to the challenges it faces in the Pacific, in particular from China, but its democratic allies in the Pacific have hardly been reassured. South Korea is reportedly considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons since it no longer considers the United States a reliable ally, Japan’s nervousness is palpable, and what confidence can anyone now have for the future of Taiwan?
But we and the rest of the world will be poorer, too. That is an inevitable consequence of a damaging trade war, and the extra spending on defence which is now essential will have to be at the expense of other elements of government spending to which we have become accustomed.
The United Kingdom’s global position has changed in the last few weeks, and it has changed for the worse. We are weaker and we may become poorer. But we can—we must—also become more self-reliant. In doing so, we can yet provide a degree of leadership to like-minded countries which do not see international relations as a series of transactions but recognise that we share a system of values which is worth cherishing, sustaining and defending. That would be an honourable role to which we can and should aspire.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Howell. On this occasion, as on many others in his long career, he has shown himself to be one of Parliament’s thought leaders. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on this pleasant family occasion.
Disraeli warned us of those who fall into their anecdotage. I hope the House will forgive me if I offer one anecdote from my own experience as Minister of State in the Foreign Office. When I was the first British Minister to return to Aden in 1990 after our rather disgraceful scuttle from that place in 1967, leaving our local allies in the lurch, I was given in my briefing a saying from the area of that time of final British retreat. The saying was this:
“It is always better to be the enemy of the British than their friend. If you are their enemy, there is the possibility of being bought. If you are their friend, there is the certainty of being sold’’.
That is the way it goes with retreating empires. It is, one might say, something the friends of the United States are now learning, or have learned, from the end of the Vietnam War onwards, via Kabul and now to Ukraine. Once a nation, still immensely powerful though it may be, decides for better or worse that it has had enough of overseas adventures, its allies had better watch out: as Taiwan should now watch out, as Israel should now watch out, and as Europe, Japan and South Korea must watch out.
As Robert Tombs wrote eloquently in the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, there have been plenty of warning signs, which we in Europe have ignored. Trumpism expresses the turning point in a style that would have shocked previous Presidents, but however expressed, something irrevocable which was a long time in the making has now been done. America is going home. The structures it supported and which its friends took for granted can no longer be relied upon. Trust has been broken in a way that cannot be recreated.
Doubtless, it will not always be quite so difficult as now. Trump will not last for ever: he will not be exempt from Enoch Powell’s law that all political careers end in failure. But his successors will not be able to recreate the status quo, even if they wanted to, and it seems unlikely that they would want to. Now, we in Britain have to find those who most closely share the same real interests as ourselves and build alliances on this shared interest. First and foremost, those who share our interests are our neighbours in Europe, all under threat from Mr Putin.
After Suez, our last big adventure in imperialism, when an infinitely more powerful imperial US cracked the whip and told us to behave, we and France drew different conclusions. Broadly, we decided to stick to the US, albeit as a very junior partner, and France went with Europe. Now we will have no choice other than to become a little more Gaullist. Doing what we can, of course, to keep relations with the USA as good as we possibly can, we have to cast our defence and industrial lot back in with our neighbours. I do not mean by trying to rejoin the EU: that bus has departed. We must also make the best possible technological and defence-industrial alliances that we can elsewhere, notably with Japan, Turkey, South Korea and, if possible, India, as well as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. We also have to maximise our Commonwealth network, as my noble friend so eloquently put it.
My final point, however, is my most important. To make ourselves safe, we have to make ourselves richer. Our position ultimately depends on our wealth. We have a lamentable debt situation, including, as Roger Bootle has pointed out, in the decline of our net overseas assets. We have to strengthen and change the nature of our economy. I do not think we have yet begun to realise the scale of change required if we are to be able to defend ourselves. It is not 2.5% or 2.6%; it will be much more. It will mean profound changes in our society. We have a sort of consensus on defence at present among the Westminster parties, but do we have the social cohesion to accept the burdens that we are going to have to carry? Can we find the people to volunteer for the radically reformed and enlarged armed services we will need? Do we have the industrial muscle still to rebuild our defence industries?
We are going to need a new national unity if we are to succeed. Success cannot be taken for granted, but perhaps this ancient House, just a little distanced—as it should be—from the delights of short-term political infighting, might be one place where the building of a new national consensus might begin.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I follow in every sense what the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Waldegrave, have just said.
In this crisis we need to hope for the best, prepare for the worst and learn from the past. I hope that Putin buys the ceasefire compromise and comes to accept Ukraine as the legitimate sovereign state it is, but we need to prepare for a future in which his appetite for territorial gain has only been whetted. The analogy, I think, is Munich in 1938: Hitler settled for one-third and nine months later came back for the other two-thirds.
We need to contemplate a future in which America, perhaps in the hope of pulling apart the Beijing-Moscow relationship, finds itself closer to the autocrat in the Kremlin than to the democrats in western Europe. At Munich last month, Vance told us that the real threat to Europe was not Russia but the enemy within—our corrosive liberalism. Musk says that America should quit NATO and America has left planning for some NATO exercises. So far, Trump has said only that America will not defend NATO’s free riders, and for America to follow Musk’s advice would be remarkably quixotic. America is right to resent the free riders, but it is America that drives the bus.
The NATO supreme commanders have always been serving US officers reporting to their commander-in-chief, and Congress accepted the Washington treaty only when that was spelled out to it. The alliance has been, from the start, a very effective means of projecting US power—too effective for de Gaulle’s taste. The American military and the American arms industry would be horrified if Musk got his way, and we should work to see that he does not. We should work to strengthen Europe’s contribution to the alliance, as Peter Carrington and Helmut Schmidt did with their Eurogroup and European defence improvement programme when Congress first got stroppy about the free-rider problem. But we also need to prepare for the worst, as the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Waldegrave, have been saying.
European security is our security and we need a new structure that we should be defining now—but not in a way which might precipitate the very eventuality that concerns us, so not too much of the performative strategic autonomy talk that we hear from Paris. The best analogy may be 1948 and Ernest Bevin’s Western Union treaty. What would Bevin do now? I will make three guesses. First, obviously, we rearm. Obviously, 2.5% of GDP will not be nearly enough; in the 1970s, we were at 5.5%. Secondly, we demonstrate commitment. In the 1970s, we were still honouring Bevin’s WU commitment to keep 55,000 troops forward-based in continental Europe. The Baltic states must feel now rather as the West Germans did then—and they were very glad to have our forces on the ground. Thirdly, we need to strike a security deal with the EU in May. With the continuing cold wind from the east and new blustery winds from the west, we Europeans need to huddle together.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
May I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate and we have to finish it by 3.19 pm? I am gently reminding noble Lords that the advisory speaking time it is four minutes.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for tabling this important and timely debate, and for his wide-ranging and insightful introduction. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, to his place and look forward to his future contributions.
With events moving at the pace they are and the related dynamics of established alliances and partnerships being severely tested, the United Kingdom’s position in the world remains both crucial and pivotal. Therefore, I found myself really willing on the Prime Minister when he met President Trump. That was difficult for me—I am sure my noble friend Lord Howard will relate to this. Imagine a Liverpool fan cheering on an Arsenal one, particularly with current events, but it shows the importance of leadership.
To me, we see our place in the world through key pillars: in our positioning and the strength that it brings to the global stage; and in foreign, defence and development policy. It remains my absolute firm belief that, with vision, leadership, investment in relationships, the leveraging of experience and the conviction to exercise strength and independence when it matters, we have an extremely important role to play. We play it as an economic power within the G7 and the G20, and as a strategic dialogue partner. I agree with my noble friend Lord Vaizey on this. We have been a dialogue partner with ASEAN since 2021. Our trade stands at £46 billion and the CPTPP was agreed in 2023. These successful new partnerships provide opportunities in this changing world, and I look forward to the Minister’s update in this respect.
The second pillar is our role as a defence power within key multilateral organisations, our status as a P5 member of the UN Security Council and a central role in the Commonwealth of Nations. Yet, sadly, the role of the UN has become marginalised and diminished, at times watching from the sidelines. The recent General Assembly vote on Ukraine showed, for the first time, countries such as the US and Israel voting with Russia, not with the UK. It showed that post-Second World War norms no longer hold. I would welcome again the Government’s perspective on this.
Regarding our development power, may I welcome officially the noble Baroness to her new position as Development Minister? I feel this also strengthens the voice of the Lords around the Cabinet table. Over many years, the UK has led on a broad spectrum of relief and development initiatives. The current change in budgets, which I fully understand, poses the question: what does it mean for our initiatives? I would welcome the Minister’s perspectives, particularly in areas that I led on such as PSVI, where survivors benefited in areas such as DRC, Ukraine and Sudan.
Finally, on soft power, as others have said, we brought a focus in challenging misinformation, providing important news and empowerment through the English language. In the area of human rights, I was proud to serve as the first Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief. I say to other noble Lords that, yes, I worked with the first Trump Administration; it was then that we established the international alliance on freedom of religion, and I pay tribute to my dear friend Ambassador Sam Brownback in that respect.
We also established the human rights sanctions regime. I say to the Minister quite directly that there are individuals and groups responsible for egregious abuse of human rights. While I know that the Minister cannot speculate, can she reassure your Lordships’ House that those levers will continue to be used against such groups? They include, to give one example, the Tehreek-e-Taliban in Pakistan, which targets minority faith communities in vile, hatred-fuelled attacks.
To conclude, we must play our part in finding solutions and leading on convening parties, whether on Ukraine or the Middle East. It is a real strength of our country, and we are recognised and respected for this. The world is changing, and I pay tribute to our partners, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on recent initiatives. Such examples also show a shifting of power and a realignment of alliances. The UK must embrace new partnerships and continue to play our part as a leader among nations.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this most timely of debates. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, to this House.
There can be no doubt that the United Kingdom’s place in the world order has been in question for some time. In relative terms, we are a small country; however, it is equally true that we always punch well above our weight. Indeed, the world has been reminded of our unique status in recent weeks because of the lead role that our Prime Minister has played in standing up for Ukraine and bringing European allies together in defence. I pay warm tribute to Keir Starmer for the diplomacy and foresight he has displayed in his handling of the current occupant of the Oval Office. Equally, I commend him on his loyalty to the Ukrainian people and, of course, President Zelensky. I hope that the cross-party unity on display in this House and in the other place can be maintained as the Prime Minister’s efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine continue.
There can be no question but that all European nations now need to increase defence spending by a significant degree. This should have happened long ago under our previous Government, but at least the step change is now finally under way. Noble Lords will be aware that His Majesty’s Government recently awarded Thales Air Defence Ltd, a world-leading defence contractor based in Belfast, a £1.6 billion contract to supply 5,000 missiles to Ukraine. While this will undoubtedly bring great help to the Ukrainian war effort, it will bring significant benefits to the Northern Ireland economy. The announcement was warmly received back home by all Ulster parties other than Sinn Féin/IRA, somewhat ironically given its previous fondness for explosive devices. Northern Ireland has a proud history in the production of armaments and, of course, ships and aircraft to the Ministry of Defence. I sincerely hope that the Province will be at the front of the queue for future defence contracts as our military spending is redoubled in these serious and worrying times.
I wish to make one final point. It has come to greater public attention in recent weeks that the Republic of Ireland—alongside Austria and Switzerland, it must be said—is not contributing in any tangible way to the security of an increasingly threatened Europe. Indeed, the Republic of Ireland has the lowest defence spending in the European Union at around 0.2% of GDP. Yet the Republic of Ireland is receiving all the security benefits of the rest of the European continent, paid for by others, including hard-pressed United Kingdom taxpayers.
I recently tabled a Written Question, answered by the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, asking what discussions His Majesty’s Government has had with the Irish, Austrian and Swiss Governments about their financial contributions towards protecting the security of Europe. I will not hold her somewhat generalised reply against her. However, given the UK’s renewed and enhanced leadership position in recent weeks, surely it is time for our Prime Minister to take a leaf out of President Trump’s book and demand that our closest friends, particularly the Republic of Ireland, climb off the fence and pay their way for the security of their own citizens. Indeed, I was surprised that the President did not make this point directly to the Irish Taoiseach during his visit to the White House yesterday. I hope that Sir Keir will do so when Mr Martin next crosses the threshold of No. 10.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, over the past two months, our world has tilted on its axis. A lot of our assumptions were overthrown and a lot of our “isms” are suddenly “wasms”. We were perhaps ready for a new US Administration to withdraw from Ukraine—that had been flagged up in advance—but other things have come as a shock: to side with Russia while attacking NATO allies; to instruct the NSA to stop treating Russia as a threat and to downgrade it as a source of cyberattacks; to vote with North Korea, Belarus, Russia and the world’s delinquents in the United Nations on a motion that even China was not prepared to support; to make aggressive territorial demands on Denmark; and to wage actual economic war against Canada.
I take this opportunity to salute the Minister for the tone she took yesterday on the question of Canadian trade. I could see that she had all sides of the Chamber with her. It is not a question on which anyone in this country can be neutral. I also salute the Administration for the mature and responsible attitude they have taken during these very sudden changes, these very mercurial times. We have not lost sight of the prize that we have—a potential trade deal with the US and closer associations with what is still by far the world’s strongest country and our biggest market. But we have still stood up for the values that, as a country, we pride ourselves on having exported—as the heirs of a liberal and democratic tradition that stretches back through the Bill of Rights even before the Great Charter to the folkright of common law.
Where are we left as such a country in this world that has been so suddenly shaken up? The question assumes some urgency when you look at some of the defence procurement decisions that have very long lead times. We have always assumed until now that if there were a serious war, we would be part of a wider western coalition, a US-led coalition. So, yes, we could manage Aden emergencies or Falklands Wars or Sierra Leone conflicts. But if it got serious, when it came to things such as strategic lifts, satellites and, of course, nuclear spare parts, we always assumed we would have the US deterrent there. Can we assume that we will be able to rely on it 30 or 40 years from now when the current nuclear deterrent expires; in other words, what procurement decisions should we be making now? Can we be certain that we would be able to rely on our American friends? I would hope we could, but I am less certain of it now than I was two months ago.
I hope we would be able to rely on liberal and democratic countries in western Europe, but, again, can we be certain of that? You would think the EU would be bending over backwards to draw us into a defence and security arrangement, given its relative exposure to Russian threats and revanchism. But it is sticking to the line, as far as I can tell, that it will not talk to us at all until we agree to open our fishing grounds. Now, is that a mature and responsible attitude? Does it show signs of having adapted to this new world?
On whom can we rely? The only thing I can say with certainty is that 30 or 40 years from now, we will not be quarrelling with the countries that have always been our strongest supporters and closest allies; namely the other large Commonwealth realms of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Somebody was telling me that if we were to make our nuclear system autonomous on the model of the French one, it would roughly double the budget. Well, we could roughly double the budget by sharing our GDP responsibility with those three countries.
Here I should declare an interest as president of the Conservative Friends of CANZUK, which launched at the other end of this building last night. CANZUK stands for closer co-operation, military and strategic, among those four countries, as well as free movement of labour—the right to take a job in another country—and an enhanced free market.
I end with a suggestion to the two Ministers, who both know, I hope, in what high esteem I hold them. Next year is the centenary of the Westminster Conference, which began the transformation of the British Empire into a voluntary Commonwealth. Is that not a splendid opportunity for His Majesty to invite the Prime Ministers of his four largest realms and show that our song is not yet sung—that we are only just getting started?
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate and for his wise and characteristically thoughtful introduction. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, for his forward-looking maiden speech. One thing he and I have in common is that his mother was also my supporter when I was introduced to the House.
In this very short time, I want to emphasise three points. First, we have been witnessing significant changes in the global order for some time. The jolt to the world from the stance taken by the Trump Administration should be seen not in isolation but, to some extent, as symptomatic of the broader changes we have been witnessing for some time. Rebalancing of economic and political power over a number of decades, accelerated by globalisation, has created both prosperity and insecurity; conflicts, pandemics and climate change are aggravating factors. Technological advances have enhanced connectivity, interdependence and interpenetration. All these have contributed to geopolitical and geoeconomic shifts.
We have been invested in the current order for almost eight decades and, understandably, instability and a changing scenario are causing anxiety. But now there is an opportunity to reposition ourselves and have multiple engagements to shape the emerging multipolar world. A change in mindset, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and fresh and bold thinking are required to protect our national interest and that of the international community. Engagement with both multilateral institutions and the multipolar world is an imperative to influence and shape the international norms, rules and laws. The need for an active and agile foreign policy is both evident and urgent, based on the analysis provided by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
My second point is about the need to strengthen our influence through soft power. While in some instances boots on the ground may be necessary, and we have to strengthen our defence capabilities, in the long run, to keep peace, soft shoes on the ground will yield better results. This is increasingly important in our volatile world, where there is more need for deeper understanding, mutuality, collaboration, co-operation and new partnerships. We have decades of experience in the exercise of soft diplomacy and building intercultural relations.
We were leaders in this space through the British Council well before Joseph Nye talked about soft power. But recently the UK has dropped to third place behind China in business, trade and governance. These are signs that we need to bolster our soft power strategy. The Government have established the Soft Power Council, but this requires just as much attention as defence, because hard and soft power go hand in hand. All the institutions that are the engine of our soft power need support and revitalisation.
Thirdly, we have been a force for good, offering a fair and balanced voice; our values and governance were a beacon. In recent years, we have squandered our reputation to some extent, and now is the time to recover it. We should not underestimate either working through the Commonwealth to achieve our objectives or the importance of our broader strategic relations with India and the global South.
Finally, we should not see ourselves as a mid-sized power. Our hyper-interconnected world is no longer about power; it is about networks and what we can bring to the table that is distinctive. We have many distinctive assets, as has been mentioned. The role played by the Prime Minister in the current crisis is one illustration of what we are capable of. The change and turmoil provide an opportunity to shape and negotiate our global influence and to be optimistic in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested; I very much hope that the Government will pay heed to what he said.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for his debate. I apologise to the House for being slow in getting to my seat.
The kaleidoscopic view of the world today resembles that observed by Alice—probably more through the looking-glass than in wonderland. The 28 February scenes in the Oval Office suggested a bid by President Trump, vying with President Putin, for a role as one of the characters. The weakening of democracy in so many countries, and its absence in many others, increases the risk of anarchy—which is, by definition, unstable and so permits, and indeed promotes, alternative forms of rule.
The Second World War resulted in the resounding defeat of fascism. The subsequent founding of the United Nations sought to banish fascism for all time. Article 2.4 of the UN charter calls on all UN states to refrain
“from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
That could not be clearer. Yet today, fascism has re-emerged and is a growing threat to world peace, security and prosperity. Putin’s Russia not only ticks every box—tyranny, brutality, intolerance and territorial expansion—but, by its ruthless diplomacy, has managed to convert and expand the BRICS group of countries into an anti-western alliance.
Perhaps the greatest threat from fascism now comes from political Islam. I emphasise that political Islam is not part of the religion of Islam. Political Islam has attempted to highjack the theology of Islam to support its own ideology. This ideology originated in the 18th century as Wahhabism, a reform movement. It was relaunched in 1928 with the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the first act of which was to kill the Egyptian Prime Minister. It attempted to kill Nasser, and in 1981 it assassinated President Anwar Sadat after he had attempted to make peace with Israel.
Since that time, the Muslim Brotherhood has acted as the political front for many violent organisations. A turning point was the unexpected launch of the Islamic State—ISIS—in April 2014. Formed from the Iraqi franchise of al-Qaeda, it rejects national borders and has declared its ultimate aim as the creation of a worldwide caliphate. The ideology and presence of the Islamic State is expanding widely and rapidly, especially in sub-Saharan African. The nature of the fascist lifestyle that it seeks to impose is demonstrated daily for those who live under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It is crucial that we understand, and pay the cost of resisting, the twin threats of fascism led by President Putin and by political Islam. The UK, with our long history as a world leader and as one of the P5 members of the UN Security Council, has a crucial role to play.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for securing this debate and in congratulating my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town on an excellent maiden speech that was a very good example of how, if you have something worth saying in your Lordships’ House and you can deliver it with a strong, confident voice, a measured sense of self-deprecation and a sense of humour, you have a far better chance of it being heard.
In the short time available, I shall focus on the UK’s position in Africa, but hardly comprehensively. In that context, today’s proceedings take place against a sobering backdrop. Over 80% of USAID projects have been cancelled, with the surviving 18% now falling under the auspices of the State Department. Accompanying this cull has been a presidential narrative about the subversive nature of USAID’s activities that could have been dictated by the US’s strategic adversaries. Germany and France have cut aid over several years and, owing to a combination of fiscal stringency and a darkening international picture, we have been forced to allocate money away from aid and towards defence—a decision I support reluctantly.
Meanwhile, in September last year, China pledged $51 billion in loans and aid to Africa. Russia’s Africa Corps provides security assistance in countries including Libya, Niger and Burkina Faso, while its new African Initiative—a self-described “Russian news agency”—deepens Russian influence through propaganda, civil society networks and outreach. Russia opened embassies in Burkina Faso and Equatorial Guinea last year and new missions are due to open in Niger and Sierra Leone this year, with missions in South Sudan, Gambia, Liberia, Comoros and Togo due to open shortly thereafter. It is clear, therefore, that our strategic adversaries plan to fill any vacuum left by a western retreat from engagement in Africa.
Aid matters for three reasons. First, we have a humanitarian duty to help those suffering from appalling poverty, conflict, natural disasters or climate change. Secondly, we are defined in the long term by what we do as a country rather than by our aspirations. Thirdly, even by the most cynical calculus of self-interest, foreign aid enhances the UK’s soft power and promotes peace. It makes conditions less fertile for terrorism and in some cases keeps frozen conflicts from kindling into flame. In this sense, foreign aid should be defined as national security spending, rather than just as empathy translated into hard currency.
Foreign aid is often an early warning system, alerting us to the prospect of an outbreak of conflict or terrorist violence. Given, as I have said, that Russia and China are prepared to step into any vacuum left by western powers in Africa, we will have to work extremely hard to ensure that our cut to aid and the reallocation of funds to defence do not resemble someone selling their burglar alarm in order to buy a baseball bat. Based on the most recent forecasts for GNI, the aid budget will now be around £9.2 billion, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue their work in Sudan, among other existing commitments.
Before I finish, I want to ask two questions of my noble friend the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in her place. First, what discussions have taken place as to the future balance between spending on regional and country-specific programmes and spending on our multilateral commitments? In assessing what capacity we now have, it would be helpful to know whether the Government envisage that balance changing. Secondly, what discussions have taken place with the EU as to whether there is scope for UK participation in future CSDP missions? Collective action is more important than ever at a time when we are finding it more difficult to act alone or within the framework of our traditional alliances.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for initiating this debate. I start with a quote from Lenin: “Don’t mourn, organise.” The past few weeks have demonstrated that we need to look fundamentally at what we are organising our defences for. In particular, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will read this debate and, if necessary, rewrite considerable portions of his report which he is about to give to the Government. I am not sure that we should be planning for war; we need more thorough planning for peace, to make sure that the voice of Britain is listened to in the world.
We are too stuck in the language of the past—the language of Bevin, Attlee, NATO and Churchill. We need to move into the future. Our future is as a medium-sized—number seven in the world—important regional power. Our home defence needs—as I would prioritise them—are the Baltics, the Nordics and the northern Europeans. We need to look, for instance, at our ability to protect our undersea assets. We need to look at playing a much more active part in the Arctic Council.
Most of all—and I recognise that this would have to be done very privately—we need an independent British nuclear deterrent. We can no longer rely on the system we have relied on up to now. We have to acknowledge that the French got it right. It will cost us quite a bit of money. Although I just told you to forget Ernie Bevin, let us remember that he said, “I want a bomb with a union jack on top”. We have to look at this as part of our defence capacity.
Yesterday, in the Times, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, gave a good list of Britain’s overseas commitments which still exist. We know that the only way that we could defend the Falklands is by a nuclear threat. We also know that we could not make it with the present structure of our defence forces. We need a stronger defence and an independent nuclear deterrent. We need to negotiate at least to get France and Germany into the Five Eyes agreement; it is too skewed at the moment.
There is a big challenge ahead. I am glad that, for once, I have been able to make a speech without annoying everybody. I strongly believe in British defence. We need to strengthen our military forces and our soft power, particularly through the British Council and the overseas service of the BBC. This is a huge challenge, but I am sure that the Minister—whom I congratulate on her elevation—will be up to convincing her colleagues to face it.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this very timely debate. I congratulate noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his very enlivening and to-the-point maiden speech.
In the very short time available, I am not going to try to deliver a verdict on the UK’s global position. In light of what Mr Trump has been up to, I want to make a couple of points about the fundamentals of UK security, on which our role in the world hangs.
Since the inauguration of the 47th President of the United States, I have been more worried about what is happening than I can remember since the Cuban missile crisis, when we feared for our lives. It is not true to say that that is the case today, but I fear the growing threat to our freedoms from an aggressive and highly militarised Russia, in alliance with China. It is a different world. The UK is lucky to not be on the front line geographically, but the Kremlin’s ambassador in London has made it clear that it has the UK in its sights. We can expect, at the very least, increased espionage, cyberattacks aimed destabilising our politics, services and military capabilities, and incidents on and under the sea, as well as, potentially, more attempted assassinations.
It is a long-standing Russian policy to interfere in other people’s societies. I have no doubt that the UK can cope with this level of threat, though we need to do much more than is currently the case to strengthen the resilience of national infrastructure against attack. That is a task for not just the Government but the private sector. The imponderable question is whether this country and other European countries have the political will to generate sufficient military capability to deter overt Russian attack against the background of a much-reduced contribution to our security. Hitherto, as Europeans we have sought collectively to do just enough to keep the US on board without suggesting that we could do without it.
It is very clear that this level of effort will no longer suffice, whatever colour Administration is in office in Washington, now or in the future. What is much less clear is whether in the foreseeable future we will still be operating within the integrated framework of NATO or whether in effect the US will opt out of the Article 5 guarantee, which will also imply the removal of the nuclear umbrella and the effective end of NATO. At one level, it would be helpful to know what we are up against, but at another I dread to know the answer, which I doubt would be founded on any well thought-through American national security strategy. For all our doubts about Washington and what is going on at the moment, the Prime Minister is being well advised to present policy based on the assumption of continuing full-blooded American commitment to European security. However, as others have said, I hope that we are thinking hard about less optimistic scenarios.
What happens next in Ukraine could bring answers: this is my last point. There are several possible scenarios. It is unlikely that the Russians will flatly reject a ceasefire, through which lies an apparent path to the lifting of sanctions and the potential end of isolation, but it is doubtful that they will act in good faith. They will spin out talks to gain territory, they will make the guardrails of a ceasefire as weak as possible and they will set out to find pretexts for resuming fighting, based on claims of Ukrainian breaches. The likelihood of fighting resuming is high. Events after that could be fateful. Will the Americans back the Ukrainians hard, or will they try a Minsk? A Minsk could be the end of the road for the defence of Europe as we have known it. Credible American backing for any ceasefire is essential. On this key issue, the UK is indeed showing the leadership that this House wishes to see, and I congratulate the Government on pursuing it.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and hope that he enjoys his time here. We are in rather difficult times, so we look forward to further contributions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for making possible this important debate. It is more than important. It is an extraordinary debate. It would have been inconceivable, months or even weeks ago, for the House to be united in saying the things that it has said about our position in the world, and particularly the position of the United States. Matters are changing fast—as we speak, even. These are unprecedented times, in which America has joined the autocracies and dictatorships of the world in a belief that might is right, abandoning the rule of law, abandoning international free trade, abandoning liberal democracies, attacking its own allies and clearly adopting the same expansionism as that of Xi and Putin. It is as if the America First movement in the 1930s had seized power just when the Americans in practice came behind us to defeat Hitler when those America First politicians had argued for them to abandon Europe to Hitler. The wrong side has taken control. It is unimaginable that this Chamber would be united in these concerns, yet that is obviously so.
I will touch on the two big issues. The first is trade. It is absolutely evident that there is nothing about what Trump has said—and he is saying it more today—that suggests that this country can expect a genuinely good trade agreement with the United States. If he has one, it will be based entirely on self-interest and on us surrendering any measure of our interests to do a deal. We have to recognise that we need to work with all countries that believe in the rule of law, free trade and international institutions to build an alliance around trade. We cannot compromise our position by thinking that we can somehow sit on both sides of the Atlantic—that is just not an opportunity now available to us.
My second point is on defence. People have often misunderstood what NATO is about. The most important element that NATO provided was, effectively, an anti-proliferation treaty that said a member state could rely on America to defend it and therefore did not need the bomb. France has a few bombs—independently. Britain has a smaller few, which are not independent of America in any event; we cannot in practice use them without it.
The truth is that the offer to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, the Baltics, Britain, Germany and France—all of those other democracies—was, “We will defend you and therefore you don’t need the bomb”. Even more importantly, not only do we need a defence alliance across Europe and other likeminded countries that has a nuclear deterrent—we are going to have to think about that now—but behind the nuclear deterrent was the promise that, if Russia or China used nuclear weapons at any point, the first response would be a non-nuclear one: an overwhelming shock and awe attack.
This was said to Russia when it threatened a nuclear attack at the start of the Ukraine war. Russia was told, “You will be taken out by a non-nuclear response”. But the only country in the world capable of providing that is America, and it is quite apparent that we cannot rely on it to do so; indeed, it is very unlikely that it would do so. Therefore, our defence now needs to work with our likeminded allies around the world to build a non-nuclear capability to respond to and stop these “might is right” countries, of which America now is one.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that they must stick to their advisory speaking time of four minutes, because we have to finish the debate by 3.19 pm.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on securing this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his interesting maiden speech. My noble friend Lady May set out a powerful vision for our global position in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017—already eight years ago. She reminded us that our history and culture are profoundly internationalist. She suggested that our previous place in the European Union had come at the expense of our global ties and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world.
Her view very much chimed with my own, which was much influenced by the years I spent in Japan in the 1980s and 1990s, representing the investment bank Kleinwort Benson. The relationship between the UK and Japan had already largely recovered from the Second World War, and many Japanese harboured affection for Britain and the similar elements within our national identities. The influence that we could bring to bear, and the respect in which we were held in Japan, did not in any way derive either from our membership of the EU or from the special relationship that we had maintained since the phrase was coined by Winston Churchill in 1946. Things have changed since then more than any of us had ever dreamed possible. The new Administration in Washington has destroyed our certainties and made us and our other allies around the world sit up and rethink everything.
It is not just because I am one-quarter American that I venture to suggest that it is too early to say that the special relationship is over for good, but it is very clear that the UK and our allies will have to do much more of the heavy lifting in Europe, and that we will all have to spend much more on defence. It was reassuring to hear the Secretary of State for Defence say that he is determined to continue to work with the US to deepen our defence ties. We should also give credit to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has demonstrated in working with other allies such as Australia in assembling a coalition of the willing to protect a ceasefire in Ukraine.
It is clearly necessary to increase our defence spending significantly, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s mentioning a 3% figure, although I was impressed by a recent speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in which he pointed out that a recent study suggested that NATO countries need to spend 3.7% of their collective GDP now in order to maintain defence capabilities at a level necessary to meet the challenges we face. It is important to continue to work with our European and transatlantic allies through NATO, because this is the most likely way to maintain US commitment to the alliance and because Canada and the US are both even nearer than we are to another area of growing instability, the Arctic and High North.
I do not believe that the global aspirations adopted by the last Government after Brexit were unrealistic. The tilt to the Indo-Pacific was greatly welcomed by our friends in the region. It was well matched by our accession to the CPTPP, in which Japan played a larger role than is appreciated by many. The CPTPP can become an engine of growth, and it is exciting that, following Britain’s accession, other countries such as Indonesia and South Korea have applied or stated their intentions to join. In carrying out the planned reset of our EU relationships, it is important not to yield to the siren voices asking for dynamic alignment with EU rules, because that would put the kibosh on our effective participation in CPTPP. Now that the UK has joined, eight out of 12 CPTPP member states are Commonwealth countries. My noble friend Lord Howell is a strong supporter of the Commonwealth, and I, too, believe that we should work with its members and through its organisation to support more stability, more free trade and more prosperity around the world. Working also with our other friends and allies, we should not underestimate how much we can achieve.
I, too, congratulate the Minister on her promotion and look forward to her winding-up speech.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, most warmly on securing this debate and join in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley. It is timely to review Britain’s global position. The world is changing rapidly around us in many ways. We face the additional challenges posed by a highly unusual new Administration in Washington, hitherto one of the most fundamental of the UK’s international defence relationships.
We have been favoured relative to many countries with our raw materials: coal, oil and gas, and now, wind. We have an abundant and, overall, very talented workforce. We have a significant number of exceptional universities, and Britain has a proud heritage of remarkable innovation. Brand Britain and the whole edifice of history, achievement and professionalism; the monarchy and the Royal Family; Parliament, our historic buildings, the laws of England and the courts; our scientific innovation record; the BBC, which does such a brilliant job in international broadcasting; our universities, the British Council and many technical and professional institutions; our Armed Forces and much more—all are positive and impressive. However, as earlier speakers have cautioned, at this critical time we must not sit back and rest on our laurels. I recall the famous quotation from Lampedusa’s The Leopard:
“For things to remain the same, everything must change”.
Perhaps not everything, but many things will need to change. But how do we achieve the right sort of change and minimise the risks of what might be called bad change?
First, we must grow our economy and our prosperity. Fundamental to this is growing aspiration among more of our countrymen. Many of them are content but could, dare I suggest, aim higher. Homeworking and the long tail of Covid have been very detrimental to our economy and our society. There are of course occasions when homeworking is justified, perhaps in particular circumstances or specific sectors, but overall, society, businesses and organisations are better served by the team working together, stimulating problem-solving, encouraging mentoring and growing skills together.
Also fundamental is working not necessarily harder but, as the Americans say, smarter. We need to grow and sustain a favourable environment for business in all sectors, many of which are critical, because business is the key to growth. I have profound respect for the Minister, but I have to tell her that the Budget was very unhelpful to business. In her new position, on which I warmly congratulate her, will she urge the Treasury to look more positively on UK businesses when awarding procurement contracts?
The defence and strategic aspects of Britain’s global position have been discussed admirably already. I will turn my attention to soft power, which has become so important, and specifically to the City of London, an important national asset in many ways. The City of London is a significant contributor to UK soft power. Financial services account for 13% of the UK’s economic output and employ nearly 1.1 million people, with a further 1.4 million in related professional services. Financial services contribute to growth not only of our economy but internationally, and thus to export markets. The new Soft Power Council is to be welcomed and offers a valuable opportunity to enhance the nation’s global influence. Its composition should be broadened and strengthened to include key businesses, ensuring a more comprehensive and representative approach to enhancing the UK’s global influence.
The City Corporation supports UK international engagement through visits by the Lord Mayor and the policy chairman to key global markets. The Lord Mayor’s overseas visits are often accompanied by business delegations to help strengthen trade relations, foster economic partnerships and showcase London’s financial expertise and wider offer on the global stage. The City Corporation is building a new courthouse on Fleet Street. The development will increase capacity in London’s courts and project an image of the City that remains at the forefront of the provision of arbitration and adjudication.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome today’s debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for securing the opportunity to discuss this subject. I thank him too for his excellent, brilliant analysis of the situation; I really enjoyed listening to it. I also want to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his maiden speech.
The international order is shifting, and today we stand at a crossroads. I, like everybody else, rise to reaffirm that the United Kingdom must remain a force for freedom, prosperity and peace in a very troubled world. As mounting global uncertainty seeks to challenge the post-1945 world order, we have an obligation—indeed, a duty—to reassert our leadership and to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, particularly in Europe, in defence of the very principles that have long underpinned our standing in the world. Nowhere is this duty more relevant than in our resolve to support and stand by the people of Ukraine.
Casting our minds back to 24 February 2022, the barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation was not merely an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation but an assault on the universal values of democracy, freedom and, above all, the rule of law. Today, the people of Ukraine fight not just for soil or boundaries on a map, but for the values that have defined our national psyche for centuries. I therefore welcome the Government’s continued support for Ukraine, as it demonstrates what we stand for as a nation.
We have been at the very forefront of military, economic and humanitarian support, but I remind the House today that even when others dither and dally, we must not falter in our resolve and our efforts, for the very security and peace of Europe hangs finely in the balance. History teaches us that Britain’s strengths have never been in passivity, but in boldness. It is now time for the Government to go even further. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the stance he has taken and what he has done, but we must go further in our support for Ukraine. It is time, therefore, to take rapid action in bringing forward the legislation needed to seize and utilise frozen Russian assets.
I appreciate that this is not an issue on which Britain can act alone, but, as we did in 2022, we must lead in uniting Europe and the G7 in bringing forward the legal mechanisms required to mobilise the more than £237 billion-worth of frozen assets and deploy them to bring about the end of this horrific war. If we show leadership here, it will send a message to the world that the United Kingdom remains a force for good and the standard-bearer of justice and liberty among the nations. I believe that at this time we must continue to show the support we have shown and provide leadership as we develop our defence forces for the future.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on securing this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on his very good maiden speech.
Last night, I attended an event at the Royal Over-Seas League where the Prime Minister of Samoa spoke. She reminded her audience that in difficult times it is always better to stand face to face rather than back to back. I think she is right because at a time when global norms and traditional modes of international engagement are being disrupted to an unprecedented extent, in-person and face-to-face dialogue is ever more important. This requires us to build bridges, often by having difficult conversations with allies and even more difficult conversations with adversaries. For this, we require places and organisations that can convene and facilitate in-person dialogue. Wilton Park is such an organisation. For the record, I declare my interest as chair of Wilton Park, an executive agency of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
We are undoubtedly a global player, but I think our confidence has been waxing and waning in recent years. The “abroad” directly affects the “at home”, but in our public-facing dialogue we have not always made this sufficiently clear. Understanding this direct causal relationship matters in a democracy. Similarly, no business can ignore geostrategic developments. Business as usual in global affairs is no longer an option, and there is a sense of urgency. The UK Government need to place themselves confidently as a key driver in shaping the international order, which, for the moment, cannot rely on all its traditional allies to enforce it. We have many of the skills and the resources needed, but we have to use them in a radically different way.
Last year, Wilton Park set up the Global Impact Group, and we were grateful to the Minister for speaking at the launch at Lancaster House. It is a collaborative effort between the private sector and government to foster co-operative working relationships and aid mutual understanding. At a time when the United States is retreating from international engagement, the UK has an opportunity and a need to step up to support key markets.
We should also show greater confidence in defending democratic structures and articulate why democracy is a better model for organising societies than any other. I expect that the college for British diplomacy will play an important role in increasing our capacity to absorb the fast-changing insights, skills and relationships driving today’s world, learning alongside representatives from business, friendly Governments and other organisations which equally need to understand how to navigate an ever more complex global picture.
At the meeting last night with the Prime Minister of Samoa, I also had the privilege of speaking to the incoming Commonwealth Secretary-General, the honourable Shirley Botchwey. We need to remind ourselves that the modern Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal sovereign states with a combined population of 2.7 billion, of whom 60% are under the age of 29, and that its secretariat is based here in London. All this was a very forceful reminder that we are an incredibly interconnected state in a great global position, but it requires us to use what we have with a sense of urgency with our willing allies and those we can trust.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, in an episode of “The Simpsons”, Homer Simpson says of the Economist magazine, “I don’t need to spend $4 a week to be told that Indonesia’s at the crossroads”. Today, we in the West really are at the crossroads, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and many others have said. The international chessboard has been thrown up and we still do not know where the pieces will land. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford on securing this debate at such an important time.
It seems to me that we now face three main challenges, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on them. The first is our relationship with the United States. Until now, the Anglo-American alliance has been the cornerstone of British foreign policy. The question we are all now asking is: how far can we rely on the United States? We know we have to take on more defence, but how reliable is the US as an ally?
The second great challenge is our relationship with Europe and how we recalibrate it. The Prime Minister sees himself, I think, as a bridge between Europe and the United States. I do not quite know how that will work, so the Minister’s reflections on that would also be very helpful.
The third great challenge is defence. Of course, we should have been spending more on defence for many years, so I very much welcome the Government’s decision to increase defence expenditure, going up to a target of 3% of GDP. But I would like to know a bit more about not just the percentage but what exactly the defence expenditure will go on, what it will provide and how it will help meet our objectives. I am sure that this will also come out in the defence review in due course.
I want to make two other points. First, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said, the strength of a country lies in not just its hard power but its economic strength. We know that for many years we have been falling behind the United States in particular, which has had much greater economic growth than we have. We need to make sure that we do everything we can to secure—I know that this is the Government’s objective—a more successful and stronger economy, because that gives Britain strength in the world.
The second point, referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, is soft power. He referred to the report published in 2014 when he chaired the committee that looked into soft power. I urge the Government to go back and take that report off the shelf. It is full of recommendations and really worth pulling out again to see what else the Government can do.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing us this debate. It gave us an opportunity to hear the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, made under what I observed to be the studious eye of the occupant of the Woolsack at the time. The noble Lord said that dreams alone are not enough. That is something we on these Benches have reflected on for many years, but he is very welcome and will make an excellent contribution to this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked us to set aside some of the orthodoxies and consider the fast pace of change. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said that there was a kind of reckoning, which I agree with. My noble friend Lord Taylor said in response that there is a very high degree of consensus in this Chamber. For us, on a cross-party and non-party basis, the norms and rules are even more important in a modern technological world, especially if those who control the technology have personal, political and financial ambitions and see nation states as vessels. Just this week, the Polish Foreign Minister called for European satellite and security resilience, and Elon Musk replied on X:
“Be quiet, small man … there is no substitute for Starlink”.
We have benefited, until recently, when navigating these uncertainties and complexities of the 21st century, from being a joint partner both within and then with the European Union, and working closely with the United States. We know, however, that we cannot entirely rely on the Trump Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that Administration was unreliable. Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times this week, wrote:
“I would call Trump’s foreign policy philosophy not ‘containment’ or ‘engagement,’ but ‘smash and grab.’ Trump aspires to be a geopolitical shoplifter”.
I think that has a great deal of sense to it.
This new reality is posing us major challenges, and it is fair to say—I think, very fair—that our Prime Minister is conducting himself, on behalf of us all, with professionalism and a seriousness befitting the office and, importantly, the moment, and we thank him for it. This recognition will, of course, not inhibit us from highlighting areas of either difference or concern; we are functioning democracy and a Parliament. My noble friend Lord Bruce eloquently referred, as many others have, to choices on development assistance and also soft power. We remain a significant force in that, and that is to be welcomed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted, recent complacency is leading us to fall behind China and putting us in a deteriorating position in our relationship with developing economies.
I have often questioned the term “soft power”; what it means is quality, innovation, standards, reliability and predictability. These should all be part of our position in the world and are all elements that are in deep need, given that our key partner is showing very little of those qualities. It is why, when we look at our BBC World Service, cherished around the world, and when there is concern about its future funding, we on these Benches will challenge the Minister—we will seek to add pressure. When it comes to other areas of ODA, linked with national security, I will continue to ask and challenge the Minister, in temperate ways, on choices where we think the Government have taken the wrong direction. Earlier, the Minister suggested I might not have done well in the House of Commons if I think the tone is intemperate here. Her noble friend Lady Curran, behind her, will know I have a saddle-leather thick skin from my time in the Scottish Parliament. We will have this cut and thrust, because we can in our Parliament, and that is to be cherished.
On that aspect, I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He highlighted one of the consequences of cutting ODA in areas where countries are on the front line against not only terrorism but the encroachment of Russia. For example, there was a high degree of consensus when we proscribed the Wagner Group, so in areas where its successor, the Africa Corps, is active, it makes little sense for our national security to pull ODA development funding when it comes to resilience against autocracies.
On 26 March 10 years ago, there was consensus when we passed the 0.7% legislation in this House. Part of that consensus was not just about the 0.7% level, that our ability to be a development partner should be on that scale. It was also that defence spending and development investment were complementary, and that one should not be cut to fund the other. I hope we can restore that consensus, because it is of great significance to our standing in the world. It is interesting to me, looking at the fiscal tests, that they were not being met in 2014 or 2015 when we established 0.7%. These are policy choices, not fiscal choices, and that is why, when it comes to policy choices about our position in the world, the faster we can return to 0.7% the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said there was some shift in American policy. It perhaps could be argued by some in America—apologists for Trump, not the noble Lord—that the main adversary is Beijing and therefore we have to settle ourselves to the rescheduling of our relationship with Moscow. That does not even make sense for those who support the Trump Administration, because of decisions they have made such as reversing the decision on TikTok, Elon Musk wanting contracts from Beijing and raising concerns about Taiwan.
I want to raise Taiwan and some others, and I hope the House will allow me to be partisan for a second. Taiwan, Ukraine and now Canada all have Governments that are our sister parties. There are Liberals on the front line of the challenges of this new, unsettling world order. Fascinating discussions I have had with my parliamentary colleagues in all three of those governing parties have inspired me, and this is where I want to close.
In listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, some others and my noble friend, there are potential opportunities in this global landscape. I agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made that there are more people living in a democracy. There are more people living in economic security than ever before in civilisation, however messy, uneven or unequal that is. For my party, often perhaps with bitter experience—or maybe because of the Scottish perspective—when you have exhausted pessimism, there is only optimism left.
So what are the opportunities? We are seeing now Parliaments, whether in Lebanon or Ukraine, resisting the interference of cyberattacks on a daily basis, or interference in democratic elections. There is civil society. Young women in Sudan are still doing remarkable things to keep their communities safe in unbelievably difficult circumstances. There are brave and principled political leaders, and we should be signalling our support for them. There are innovative young people, especially in African nations, who present an enormous economic and social opportunity for the UK. Of course, there are the networks, whether it is the Commonwealth or the European Union.
Nancy Pelosi always used to say that diversity is our strength but unity is our power. We can relay that to our friendship networks around the world. There are also standards, including the sustainable development goals, which, interestingly, have received not one mention in the debate so far. We can work with our allies. Let me close on this. We need to have the 2.5% and growing defence, not funded from cuts in ODA but by, perhaps, as we have suggested, the tech companies contributing not 2% but 10% of their unearned profits. There should be a distinct development department again, not a replacement of the 1997 DfID but a department for global transition, so countries know that, in this uncertain world when they are transitioning to zero poverty and zero emissions, the UK is a reliable, dependable and predictable partner at a time of great flux.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure today to address this important subject and to have heard so many great speeches from all sides of the House. There seems to have been, if you like, an overall theme of strategic uncertainty—just how much the world has changed in the last few weeks.
I have to say that the debate was so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford in what I thought was an outstanding introductory contribution, and I also really enjoyed listening to an excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley. Like the rest of the House, I am sure, I am looking forward to some excellent contributions from him to your Lordships’ House in the future.
My noble friend Lord Howell made some very thought-provoking points in his introduction and I agreed with so many of his conclusions, particularly about the world being potentially on the edge of an abyss. I, like many other Members of the House, I am sure, wake up in the morning, switch on the radio and wonder with trepidation what statements have emerged from the current occupant of the White House during the night. Indeed, we have had more of them during the course of today’s debate. We debated yesterday during OQs some of the appalling attacks on our Canadian brethren and I commend the Government for the support they have provided. Even if they are a Liberal party, sometimes we have to support them in their democracy.
I was particularly impressed by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Howard, who expressed very well the changing nature of the US under its current leader, who, it seems, as he said, sadly can no longer be regarded as an ally. He seems to revel in his unpredictability, as my noble friend also said. It is an uncomfortable realisation for those of us who have grown up during an era of US leadership to have someone like this occupying the presidency of the US. Throughout my political life, I have always regarded the president as the leader of the free world and somebody I have wanted to support.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey also made some excellent points about UK soft power, one of the greatest examples of which—I do not think this has been mentioned much in the debate—is our education system. A few weeks ago, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we were in Malaysia with a CPA delegation. It was striking just how many of our interlocuters in the Parliament and the Government had been educated in UK universities, or currently had children attending them, and used it as an excuse to visit our country. It really is a powerful soft power asset of the UK.
My noble friend Lord Hannan was right to remind us of the importance of our largest continental allies; the opportunity of working with them in a CANZUK-like relationship is one we should take increasingly seriously.
There has been an awful lot of common ground in this debate and that is understandable, but there are some actions of the current Government that I want to take issue with. There is great concern at some of their actions on the world stage. Just last week, it was announced that Britain has fallen behind China on the prestigious soft power index. While we welcome and are enthusiastic backers of the Government’s continued support for Ukraine, as I said, they have taken some decisions to which we are opposed.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Government’s decision to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. This is not just a betrayal of the Chagossian people; it is a profound abdication of Britain’s responsibilities as a sovereign power. The islands have been British territory for over two centuries, and our presence there has been critical to both UK and allied security. This Government, in their eagerness to appease international critics, and populated as they are by human rights lawyers, have shown no regard for our strategic interests or for the right of the Chagossians to defend their own future. Instead of standing firm, Labour has caved in to international pressure, surrendering territory in a manner reminiscent of past colonial retreats, sending a clear signal that Britain no longer has the resolve to defend its commitments. It sets a dangerous precedent. What message does this send to our other overseas territories, be it the Falkland Islands or even Gibraltar? A strong Britain does not surrender territory for short-term diplomatic approval. A strong Britain does not weaken its historical narrative for fear of offending others, and it should not apologise for its past; it should build upon it.
We should reject the culture of retreat. The UK remains a global power, and we should have the will and means to act like one. We should stand by our overseas territories, and we need to defend our legacy. We should refuse to be cowed by those who seek to diminish Britain’s role on the world stage.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
It was all going really well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for that. When he was on the topic of universities, I thought “This is going to be really good”. I was chancellor of a university until I was told that that would be incompatible with my role in government. I agree with him about the importance of our higher education partnerships, the benefits of leaders coming here to be educated, and the great export of our amazing higher education institutions.
However, to then pivot to Chagos and to suggest that in any way there is a threat, particularly to the Falkland Islands, is really unbecoming of the noble Lord, who actually was doing rather well up until that point. The level of consensus and agreement in this Chamber this afternoon speaks really well of all the speeches we have heard. It is such a shame we had a little bit of a blip with that section of his speech, but never mind—we will move on none the less.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work over many years, and particularly to his recent work on the International Agreements Committee. It has been an outstanding debate. First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, for his excellent maiden speech. The creativity, adaptability and leadership that he recommended to us all, he demonstrated in his speech. I refer the noble Lord opposite to the first motto that the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, said that he had in his organisation. I am not going to repeat it; the noble Lord can look it up in Hansard.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked where the trust, respect and manners are. Our Prime Minister is behaving with impeccable decency, integrity and diplomatic skill at this time of real challenge and disruption in the world, and I thank all noble Lords who have made similar points about the work Keir Starmer is doing. We cannot always influence others as much as we might like, but we can control what we do and the way that we go about it, and I am proud of our Prime Minister in that.
We can all see that the world faces an uncertain future. In too many places, it is dangerous, contested and volatile. We are seeing a greater number of active armed conflicts than any time since the Second World War, and progress to address them is fragile: from Russia’s brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine to the need for a permanent ceasefire and lasting peace in the Middle East. The natural world around us is under enormous pressure, with the ever more visible impact of climate change and environmental degradation on every continent, including here in the UK. We are seeing the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence, hybrid threats and cyberattacks, with adversaries active in all these areas.
As the Foreign Secretary underlined at the G20, so many of the greatest challenges and opportunities we face today are truly global, with direct consequences for the national interest. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear: we may not like it, but here we are, in a world where so much has changed.
As Homer Simpson would no doubt agree, we are at a crossroads in history. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, for that reference. We have had everything from Lenin to Nancy Pelosi to “The Simpsons”—I think that speaks well of this debate. As he suggested, it is time to act. A generational challenge requires a generational response. It demands extremely difficult and painful choices. It requires us to call on our strengths, and it puts a premium on our willingness and ability to focus squarely on the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. So, we take realistic steps towards the secure, prosperous, stable future that people everywhere want to see, including here in the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, encouraged us to sing our song to the world, and I would agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, encouraged soft shoes on the ground—for example, her emphasis on diplomatic efforts. I can assure her that our Soft Power Council is going well. It is early days, but she is right, and others made this point: soft power goes hand in hand with strong defence. It was also wonderful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, champion the benefits of dialogue, specifically Wilton Park. I commend her for all she does to bring about the vital conversations that have never been more needed.
Our national security is the bedrock of the UK’s society and economy, and the ultimate guarantor of everything we hold dear. It is the foundation of this Government’s plan for change. Seven months ago, the British people gave this Government this responsibility, and we hold it with a profound sense of duty. Putin’s Russia is a threat not only to Ukraine and its neighbours but to all of Europe, including the UK.
As I have taken on the international development brief in recent weeks—I thank noble Lords for noticing that—something that has been at the forefront of my mind is how deeply the impacts of Russia’s aggression are being felt by the poorest and most vulnerable people right across the globe, so we are speeding up support for Ukraine and increasing economic pressure on Russia. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have travelled to Washington in recent weeks; convened European leaders, including here in London; and brought friends and allies together from both sides of the Atlantic, just as we have done for decades, to ensure peace and security. Serious leadership is exactly what the times require, and the UK has a unique role to play. We are focused on pursuing a just and lasting peace through strength.
As many noble friends will understand, our closest ally, the United States, has focused on the Indo-Pacific increasingly, over successive Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, spoke wisely on this point. We are calling for NATO’s European members to shoulder more of the burden for our continent’s security. The noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Kerr, referred to Bevin and I thank them for that. I can assure them that the Foreign Secretary talks regularly of Bevin, who has become a big feature in my life in recent months.
We are stepping up. This is not to please the US but, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said we must, to strengthen our own security in a time of instability and threat. These are shared priorities, from our AUKUS partnership—the Foreign Secretary visited Japan and the Philippines last week—to the Prime Minister’s long-standing argument that all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his comments on leadership, soft power and diplomacy. His words were grounded in values. Despite our different affiliations—I do not care about football teams, which he talked about, but I know the point he was making—we share many of those values across this House.
At this moment of pressure on public finances and geopolitics changing around us, things are moving quickly. We will never leave our country ill prepared for a more dangerous world or facing even tougher choices in the future. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, that the Prime Minister has announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, through this Parliament and the next, and we urge others to do the same. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, made an excellent case for never assuming that the public will come with us. We must make the case, win the argument, explain and rebuild trust in the ability of politics to deliver. This is no small task, but one that I think every speaker today believes we have a responsibility to undertake.
In order to make this commitment within our fiscal rules, we have had to lower our spending on international development. As the Prime Minister said, that is not a decision the Government take lightly. It is not one that we relish, and I know I have now taken on a great responsibility. I am determined to make the argument for international development afresh and win the public’s trust. I will be coming back to this House soon to update Parliament on some of the early choices that we have made.
I echo the pride that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have expressed in our record on international development, as I did in my earliest meetings with key partners from the World Bank and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Between the late 1990s and the early 2010s, the world made headway in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Throughout recent decades, our work has shown that the UK can address global challenges from health to migration, boost prosperity at home and across the globe, and improve the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people. I have seen this for myself in all my visits to our partners overseas. We continue to play a hugely important role in everything from reaching tens of millions of people with immunisations, including polio vaccination campaigns in Gaza, to working alongside partners from the global South to secure reforms at the big multilateral development banks that will unlock tens of billions over the next 10 years, at no cost to donors, and get more of it flowing to those in greatest need across everything from education to resilience.
For all those reasons and more, this Government remain committed to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance when the fiscal conditions allow. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, of this, and I welcome his challenge and our—not that robust—exchanges across this Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, urged us to continue to face the world, especially the Commonwealth, and to reset our relationship with Europe. The Government accept this advice. We continue to provide humanitarian assistance in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, and remain committed to tackling climate change and to multinational efforts on global health. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right that we need to work harder than ever to strengthen partnerships in the future, looking carefully and reviewing what will work. In all we do, we want the public to take pride in our work overseas, feel the benefits of it in their lives and have confidence that we are using their money wisely and in ways that match their sense of decency and our moral obligations to the world’s poorest people.
We know that so many countries share our ambitions for growth and opportunity. For most of them, aid is no longer the most important part of that, to say nothing of the paternalism that has all too often gone with it. The introduction to this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the importance of respect, listening and partnership is timely and very wise. We are focusing on genuine, respectful partnerships, which are more effective in creating security, growth and investment in jobs and opportunities here at home and around the world, and are better suited to fusing local knowledge with our greatest strengths, from the City of London to science, technology, innovation, arts and culture and to our world-class expertise right across the UK.
Much has been said about soft power. Someone said that they wonder about that phrase, as do I—“I am going to do soft power on you” is not really the best introduction to having influence. But it is a phrase that we all use and probably all understand.
We are looking to the future, from auditing our relationship with China to resetting our relationships with the global South. The Foreign Secretary hosted the Indian Foreign Minister this week and announced the reopening of FTA negotiations. The Foreign Secretary’s dialogue with the Nigerian Foreign Minister demonstrated our partnership on regional security and migration. We are making the most of the valuable role that the UK has to play, proving through our actions that we are a responsible permanent member of the UN Security Council, committed to international law, the UN charter and the rules-based trading system.
Keeping our country safe is the first duty of government. We must meet the world as it is, with an indelible belief that things can be better. We recognise that we do not need to balance the compassion of our internationalism with the necessity of our national security—they go hand in glove. We must respond to the urgent challenges before us. That is the job of any Government. Despite the hard choices before us, however much we might wish it were not so, we must make the best of the moment to give even greater impetus to the important work of modernising our approach to international development, which is already under way. That is how we bring security and prosperity to people here at home and around the world in the months and years ahead.
As the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Vaizey, said, everyone needs a country to love. We all love this country and have a duty to share that love with the world as a force for good and, as the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said, for freedom, prosperity and peace.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all who have spoken in this debate, including the Front Benches. It is, frankly, the kind of debate that one really needs to read rather than just pick up as it goes along, not least because a great deal of it, inevitably with a very tight time limit, is in shorthand. There are all sorts of issues behind the issues that need examining and thinking about much more carefully. I have talked to successive generations of Chief Whips as to why we need to organise things exactly this way, in this sort of minute race. I never fully understand the answers, though I am sure they are terribly sound. We all know that it takes a lot more time to formulate a draft of a four-minute speech than it does to draft a 10-minute, 12-minute or two-hour speech. There we are—it is something we have to live with, but if we could solve it one day, I think it would benefit us all.
I thank everybody for picking up one of the themes that I touched on: Commonwealth friends. In the age of networks that is emerging, the Commonwealth network is very different from the organisation of the past, thanks to hyperconnectivity and international, instant communication on a scale never before known in history.
One or two colleagues touched on something I did not have time to touch on in my speech, which is the Trident programme and whether our deterrent would be affected if the worst came to the worst—as it might—and we had to go it alone without American support. I listened to Sir Lawrence Freedman, a Clausewitz of our day, say cautiously on the radio that we could manage and operate in that way. That is a slight reassurance. I hope it is not necessary; we hope America remains “America the Beautiful”—the country the world loves—but at the moment it does not look like it is striking the right note to continue the attraction it had in the past. I thank all noble Lords and beg to move.