Lords Chamber
10:06
10:06
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Labour)
-
-
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Labour)
My Lords, motioned
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this House takes note of the Strategic House takes note of the Strategic Defence Review 2025. I am looking forward later in the debate to forward later in the debate to listening to my colleague and friend listening to my colleague and friend Lord Mackay makers Maiden speech. I am going to start my speech today am going to start my speech today with my conclusion. After a full year examining, consulting, year examining, consulting, challenging, inspecting, and intently looking at every aspect of intently looking at every aspect of the defence of this country, and bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in, and how to survive that we live in, and how to survive in, this is what I firmly believe.
We are underinsured, we are We are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. This country and its people are not safe. country and its people are not safe. The British people faced with a The British people faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competition spilling over into competition spilling over into conflict, with constant attacks on our mainland, and with Russia, often our mainland, and with Russia, often with the cooperation of Iran, China, and North Korea, challenging the existing world order.
We simply in this country are not safe. This review outlines graphically the threats that we face. Describes our weaknesses and our vulnerabilities. At this is crucial. It also charts the way in which we can recreate the war readiness which alone will guarantee deterrence and safety for the future. The 62 times specified recommendations in the report are the very minimum that we need to ensure that our country and our people are going to be properly safe in the future.
That is why we in the report called for a national conversation in the country about defence and security. An the Prime Minister has endorsed that view. It has to be led from the top and there must be no restraint on military and other people from articulating the case to the country as well. I acknowledge as a long-time politician that defence is still not sufficiently high in people's priority. They rightly worry about the cost-of-living, a lot of which has to do with the invasion, Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
They worry about welfare, education, and the National Health Service. But if I could quote Denis Healey, who I used to work with, who said in 1967, " Once we cut the defence expenditure to the extent where our security is in peril, we have no houses. We have no hospitals. We have no schools. We have a heap of cinders. " I think we now have to change public opinion, all of us have an obligation to do that as well.
I want to preface what more I have to say about the review with some words of thanks. First I want to thank the prime minister and the Defence Secretary for entrusting my excellent colleagues, general Richard Barrons, and Dr Fiona Hill, and myself to do an external review of the nation's defence. It was a pretty bold move. This is my second Strategic Defence Review. But the access we had to the Ministry of defence, to its people, and its information allowed us to be both radical and profound in our 62 recommendations.
And then to have the endorsement of the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the whole government. Secondly, I want to put on record my thanks to the many experts who assisted us in this historic endeavour. Working with the three reviewers was the defence review team. Six nonpartisan experts with us the whole way. Robin Martial, Ed dims for, Grace Cassie, John Christophe Gray, Angus Lapsley and finally and importantly Sir Jeremy Quin, who was one of the best defence procurement minister's and the last Conservative government.
In addition to them, over 150 experts were involved in the review and challenge process. A process which was the crucial way of capturing and interrogating external views, and we are very grateful to all of them. Of course I paid fulsome credit to that talented team who worked with us on this review. Led by group Captain Matthew and our chief. We had a staff of truly remarkable and dedicated people assisting us in the submission. They made a pivotal contribution to the review.
A review which I'm confident will intimidate our enemies, inspire our friends, invigorate our defence industry, and make our country safer. They can be proud of what they have done, and we are proud of them. This is a truly transformational review. It does not tinker with the issues, or gloss over deficiencies, or just marginally improve on business as usual. Our adversaries have given up this as usual, and we have got to do so as well. Over the years, we have allowed our forces and our defence to become hollowed out.
We say in the report that we are unprepared, it is an understatement. We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with that mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high- intensity warfare. Over the years, and I suppose I must plead guilty to that as well, we took a substantial peace dividend, because we believe that the world had changed for the better. That the values of liberal democracy had been cemented into our societies.
That war between nations was outmoded, and that our military forces would be needed only for short-term distant interventions. Sadly we were not alone in that. We have been overoptimism, or at worst wishful thinking for but the brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia three years ago was a savage wake up call for all of us. This world we now live in has changed out of all recognition, and we have got to change as well. So this review, competitive and detailed as it is, is therefore designed to bolster deterrence.
Both conventional and nuclear, by rebuilding war fighting readiness. The combination of homeland resilience, and new integrated force, a new command structure, and by putting NATO first, you will I believe be safer at home and more influential abroad. we ruthlessly examine every aspect of defence. The review challenges preconceived notions and habits for the very different world that we now live in. We conclude that we have need a strong Digital foundation, and an effective digital targeted web which underpins the lethal nature of our forces across all five domains.
We propose a reinvigorated partnership with the defence industry, capturing innovation and wartime pace. And with a powerful new national armaments director shaking up the procurement process. This will ensure that our fighting forces have the modern equipment that they need, the modern equipment that they need, The review proposals are a major boost to Reserves and Cadets, reinvigorate the modernising training, tackles the accommodation problems that we have just now, and deals with the recruitment shortfalls with innovative new ideas.
It also confronts, and this is important, it confronts peacetime cultures of risk aversion, lack of trust, bureaucracy, and will capture the innovations, importantly, that we all see emerging from Ukraine. The lessons of Ukraine do not just lie in the impressive ingenuity and tenacity of the Ukrainian people and their leaders, it has been on the forefront of helping Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invaders. We should make the mistake at all, if Putin prevails in subjugating his neighbour, we will all pay a heavy price.
I dealt with Vladimir Putin on a number of occasions when I was in NATO and he once said these words beside me, "Ukraine is a sovereign, independent nation which will make its own decisions over peace and security." He is now not just a threat to Ukraine but the whole of Western Europe. We have already substantially supported Ukraine and that remains at the heart of the review. What are they most important recommendations we have made and the review is that the offence has to be a matter for the whole of society.
We cannot, in a world when the homeland is already under attack with critical national infrastructure on a knife edge, over 95% of international data comes from threatened undersea cables. 77% of the gas supply comes in one single pipeline. In these circumstances, we cannot simply contract out defences to people in uniform. We must learn the lessons of Finland, Sweden, Norway, obliging lovers to be aware of our individual and collective role in protecting the nation.
Anti-finally addressed the question which I'm confident will be at the core of the species it will come later. -- And to finally. Where is the money for what we propose? I believe that there is and has to be. The Prime Minister knows that as well. In the National Security Strategy, published only a few days ago, the Prime Minister says, "That is why, as part of the strategy, we make the historic commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2045." No qualifications no caveats involved in the statement.
In the House of Commons on 2 June, the Defence Secretary John Healey said this, "Ticket from the premonition of when he said that we will spend what is needed in the review. The vision of the Strategic Defence Review becomes the mission of the government to deliver." There is no messing and what they say and no messing in what the review will hold. Finally, I say to members of the House travel home after the debate in peace and safety.
-- Who will travel. 3.5 years ago, citizens of areas like Mariupol and Zaporizhzhia in Eastern Ukraine, we want the European streets to be in peace and safety and then came the invasion of Putin and Russia and the depraved violence that followed. In an instant, they were not safe, not at peace, not free. Ordinary European people in ordinary European streets, doing ordinary things. Until they were not. And that is a warning for all of us, too.
The British people need, more than ever in my lifetime, the renewed Defence assurance that this review promises. Those of us including those in this Those of us including those in this House, who know the danger, we must decisively win the argument. I beg to move. to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this House takes note of the Strategic House takes note of the Strategic Defence Review 2025. I am looking forward later in the debate to forward later in the debate to listening to my colleague and friend listening to my colleague and friend Lord Mackay makers Maiden speech. I am going to start my speech today am going to start my speech today with my conclusion. After a full year examining, consulting, year examining, consulting, challenging, inspecting, and intently looking at every aspect of intently looking at every aspect of the defence of this country, and bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in, and how to survive that we live in, and how to survive in, this is what I firmly believe.
We are underinsured, we are We are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. This country and its people are not safe. country and its people are not safe. The British people faced with a The British people faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competition spilling over into competition spilling over into conflict, with constant attacks on our mainland, and with Russia, often our mainland, and with Russia, often with the cooperation of Iran, China, and North Korea, challenging the existing world order.
We simply in this country are not safe. This review outlines graphically the threats that we face. Describes our weaknesses and our vulnerabilities. At this is crucial. It also charts the way in which we can recreate the war readiness which alone will guarantee deterrence and safety for the future. The 62 times specified recommendations in the report are the very minimum that we need to ensure that our country and our people are going to be properly safe in the future.
That is why we in the report called for a national conversation in the country about defence and security. An the Prime Minister has endorsed that view. It has to be led from the top and there must be no restraint on military and other people from articulating the case to the country as well. I acknowledge as a long-time politician that defence is still not sufficiently high in people's priority. They rightly worry about the cost-of-living, a lot of which has to do with the invasion, Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
They worry about welfare, education, and the National Health Service. But if I could quote Denis Healey, who I used to work with, who said in 1967, " Once we cut the defence expenditure to the extent where our security is in peril, we have no houses. We have no hospitals. We have no schools. We have a heap of cinders. " I think we now have to change public opinion, all of us have an obligation to do that as well.
I want to preface what more I have to say about the review with some words of thanks. First I want to thank the prime minister and the Defence Secretary for entrusting my excellent colleagues, general Richard Barrons, and Dr Fiona Hill, and myself to do an external review of the nation's defence. It was a pretty bold move. This is my second Strategic Defence Review. But the access we had to the Ministry of defence, to its people, and its information allowed us to be both radical and profound in our 62 recommendations.
And then to have the endorsement of the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the whole government. Secondly, I want to put on record my thanks to the many experts who assisted us in this historic endeavour. Working with the three reviewers was the defence review team. Six nonpartisan experts with us the whole way. Robin Martial, Ed dims for, Grace Cassie, John Christophe Gray, Angus Lapsley and finally and importantly Sir Jeremy Quin, who was one of the best defence procurement minister's and the last Conservative government.
In addition to them, over 150 experts were involved in the review and challenge process. A process which was the crucial way of capturing and interrogating external views, and we are very grateful to all of them. Of course I paid fulsome credit to that talented team who worked with us on this review. Led by group Captain Matthew and our chief. We had a staff of truly remarkable and dedicated people assisting us in the submission. They made a pivotal contribution to the review.
A review which I'm confident will intimidate our enemies, inspire our friends, invigorate our defence industry, and make our country safer. They can be proud of what they have done, and we are proud of them. This is a truly transformational review. It does not tinker with the issues, or gloss over deficiencies, or just marginally improve on business as usual. Our adversaries have given up this as usual, and we have got to do so as well. Over the years, we have allowed our forces and our defence to become hollowed out.
We say in the report that we are unprepared, it is an understatement. We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with that mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high- intensity warfare. Over the years, and I suppose I must plead guilty to that as well, we took a substantial peace dividend, because we believe that the world had changed for the better. That the values of liberal democracy had been cemented into our societies.
That war between nations was outmoded, and that our military forces would be needed only for short-term distant interventions. Sadly we were not alone in that. We have been overoptimism, or at worst wishful thinking for but the brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia three years ago was a savage wake up call for all of us. This world we now live in has changed out of all recognition, and we have got to change as well. So this review, competitive and detailed as it is, is therefore designed to bolster deterrence.
Both conventional and nuclear, by rebuilding war fighting readiness. The combination of homeland resilience, and new integrated force, a new command structure, and by putting NATO first, you will I believe be safer at home and more influential abroad. we ruthlessly examine every aspect of defence. The review challenges preconceived notions and habits for the very different world that we now live in. We conclude that we have need a strong Digital foundation, and an effective digital targeted web which underpins the lethal nature of our forces across all five domains.
We propose a reinvigorated partnership with the defence industry, capturing innovation and wartime pace. And with a powerful new national armaments director shaking up the procurement process. This will ensure that our fighting forces have the modern equipment that they need, the modern equipment that they need, The review proposals are a major boost to Reserves and Cadets, reinvigorate the modernising training, tackles the accommodation problems that we have just now, and deals with the recruitment shortfalls with innovative new ideas.
It also confronts, and this is important, it confronts peacetime cultures of risk aversion, lack of trust, bureaucracy, and will capture the innovations, importantly, that we all see emerging from Ukraine. The lessons of Ukraine do not just lie in the impressive ingenuity and tenacity of the Ukrainian people and their leaders, it has been on the forefront of helping Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invaders. We should make the mistake at all, if Putin prevails in subjugating his neighbour, we will all pay a heavy price.
I dealt with Vladimir Putin on a number of occasions when I was in NATO and he once said these words beside me, "Ukraine is a sovereign, independent nation which will make its own decisions over peace and security." He is now not just a threat to Ukraine but the whole of Western Europe. We have already substantially supported Ukraine and that remains at the heart of the review. What are they most important recommendations we have made and the review is that the offence has to be a matter for the whole of society.
We cannot, in a world when the homeland is already under attack with critical national infrastructure on a knife edge, over 95% of international data comes from threatened undersea cables. 77% of the gas supply comes in one single pipeline. In these circumstances, we cannot simply contract out defences to people in uniform. We must learn the lessons of Finland, Sweden, Norway, obliging lovers to be aware of our individual and collective role in protecting the nation.
Anti-finally addressed the question which I'm confident will be at the core of the species it will come later. -- And to finally. Where is the money for what we propose? I believe that there is and has to be. The Prime Minister knows that as well. In the National Security Strategy, published only a few days ago, the Prime Minister says, "That is why, as part of the strategy, we make the historic commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2045." No qualifications no caveats involved in the statement.
In the House of Commons on 2 June, the Defence Secretary John Healey said this, "Ticket from the premonition of when he said that we will spend what is needed in the review. The vision of the Strategic Defence Review becomes the mission of the government to deliver." There is no messing and what they say and no messing in what the review will hold. Finally, I say to members of the House travel home after the debate in peace and safety.
-- Who will travel. 3.5 years ago, citizens of areas like Mariupol and Zaporizhzhia in Eastern Ukraine, we want the European streets to be in peace and safety and then came the invasion of Putin and Russia and the depraved violence that followed. In an instant, they were not safe, not at peace, not free. Ordinary European people in ordinary European streets, doing ordinary things. Until they were not. And that is a warning for all of us, too.
The British people need, more than ever in my lifetime, the renewed Defence assurance that this review promises. Those of us including those in this Those of us including those in this House, who know the danger, we must decisively win the argument. I beg to move. to move.
10:21
Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
The question is that this motion be approved. the very powerful introduction to the debate from Lord Robertson and I thank the government for facilitating this debate. The Strategic Defence Review is a significant piece of work with clear sightlines as to what Defence capability should be, in the world of multifaceted and fast-moving rates. I pay tribute to Lord Robertson for his skilled leadership of the review and his colleagues, Richard Barron's and for your help, for they are powerful -- the powerful contributions from Richard and Fiona.
The noble Lord got off to a good start in Port Glasgow, attending the high school which has a fine reputation. Regardless of our political differences, I feel an affinity with him and wish that he was a member of this House. Because the SDR is such a comprehensive document, there is insufficient time in the debate to do justice to the variety of issues in the document. The great majority of which, I am in support of. I will reduce this to bite sized chunks.
Firstly, I commend the reviewers for the realistic assessment of the threats and challenges found in the UK. The phrase 'the international chess board has been tipped over' struck a chord and another part that hit home was that with the multiple threats and challenges facing us now and in the future, we need an approach that involves the whole of society, it is essential. These phrases summarise the holistic threat we must confront with the one part in the geopolitical environment and the other part at home, with incalculable consequences of risk and that creates a solid foundation in terms of the analysis with which to construct a Defence capability which reaches beyond shapes and structures to the many and in that reality which is inescapable this review deserves all of our gratitude.
A lot of logical conclusions that follow the analysis, commitment to the independent nuclear deterrent, specifically identified by NATO as a bedrock of defence, reinforcing the serious, modern, integrated force, boosting reserves, a new partnership with industry, and the employment of a new national armaments director, I certainly hope all of that allows us to address the new character of the threat. One note of dissidence, it lifts the language of immediacy and lifts the language of immediacy and pace which was repeated by Lord Robertson this morning.
There is a mismatch by reference to, for instance, when circumstances allow, on essential and specific dates and either take the meddling fingers of the Treasury and that, after Lord Robertson had done his valuable work. This exciting and brave new world for Defence, the elephant in the room as money. None of this excellent aspiration proposed means anything without attaching pain signs to the proposal and we must signs to the proposal and we must have a commitment.
-- pound. I make no apologies for dealing with funding, resource, spending projections. I would like to discuss this with the Minister. The Minister probably regards me as unrelenting and irritating, constantly nagging him on funding but I do that as a constructive challenge to ensure the government is doing what it says it is, which was repeated by Lord Robertson this morning. Noble Lord will know the government has committed to increasing Defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, or 2.6%, if intelligence spending is considered.
We come down to simple arithmetic. If one takes the projected GDP figures of £3.134 trillion and then the spending on the single intelligence account for 2027 but is set at £5.1 million in the Spending Review, that indicates it will be 0.1% on intelligence of GDP in 2037. This leads to several questions. The government is claiming it will spend that in 2027 or 2% including intelligence, how does this square from 0.1% spent on intelligence? Those of you that Einstein will have worked out the answer to the subtraction is 2.1%.
If this continues with Defence spending, it would appear it would not be meeting the target of 2.5%. Can the Minister clear this up? Is it the case the government are classifying intelligence expenditure as Defence expenditure? Are they reclassifying a portion of it? Can the Minister tell the host what proportion of new medical terms of intelligence medical terms of intelligence spending switches into intense? -- Numerical terms. Secondly, on money, there are the new NATO targets and the 2025 summit in May led to a new target for spending of 5% of GDP annually for core Defence, and defence and security spending by 2035.
And this is obviously higher than the stated ambition of 3% for Defence expenditure, as far as physical restrictions, can the Minister committee will meet the target by 2035? -- Fiscal. The remaining amount is to protect critical infrastructure, secure networks, and if it, and strengthen the Defence Industrial Base. We must consider what is included in this. Italy recently passed a decision to reclassify a bridge as a strategic project, vital for the interest of NATO, so it can be included in the percentage.
What will the Government percentage. What will the Government bundle into this definition? If the noble Lord can give some concrete examples, and I use the word 'complete' deliberately, that would be appreciated. My interpretation of the definition is it will not lead to more money for Defence but more creative accounting. I hope the Minister will implore his colleagues in the Treasury and the MoD to ensure the Armed Forces are not fobbed off with financial wizardry but we see tangible benefit.
Returning to the review, as I welcome the analysis thread, so I phoned refreshingly frank assessment to be found on page 12 of the document, paragraph 3, "In modern warfare, simple metrics that the number of people and platforms that I directed and inadequate. Through networks of accrued and non-accrued autonomous assets that lethality and military effect are outfitted with military systems making decisions at machine speed." Us a Defence Minister I stood at the dispatch box warning that the army was at its smallest size since Napoleon and responded as courteously as I could to the inadequately of the comparison, implying the military strategy and technology had remained static for 200 years.
I made my argument in vain. The numbers for all that mattered to some. I would say we must have the courage for the review to be bold. I could talk review to be bold. I could talk about Mr -- a lot of matters including reserve numbers, industry, and many other excellent matters considered in the review and each merits a debate on its own and gives rise to separate questions. I anticipate many of these will be reflected in contributions from your Lordships today and I also expect the House to return to some of these issues.
Some of you may want to talk about what is omitted from the Strategic Defence Review and I look Strategic Defence Review and I look What I want to do made possible by the thoroughness of the view is to focus on space and cyber, and focus on space and cyber, and electromagnetism or cyber EN. Review says "With the integrated force fighting as one across all five domains, greater attention must be given to the space and cyber and electromagnetic domains.
" It says, "The reinvigorated Cabinet subcommittee should set the U.K.'s strategic approach to space, maximising synergies he'd between the UK civil sector and clear military leads. " I'm delighted by that recommendation. When I was a Defence Minister, it was chaired by the then Primodos the Boris Johnson because astutely he understood the need for strategic leadership and governance embracing government departments with primary interest in space. It meant that space, a domain with unlimited opportunity, but if non-regulated, a domain which could deliver a catastrophic consequence, was at the top of government thinking, and an awareness will stop sadly my parting government subsequently downgraded that.
I urge the government in accepting this recommendation from the review to give serious thought to restoring that top level of political leadership. I had hoped for comparable recognition or the domain of cyber there, and given the primary importance of this domain, I had thought it appropriate to have parity of status with space. The review has chosen to restrict his proposals to defence only. The creation of a new cyber command, and that is very worthy. But it is the heart of government activity.
Sharing government thinking awareness across government will not happen without strategic leadership and governance, as is proposed for space. The alternative is silos of varying knowledge, and I urge the government to consider replicating government to consider replicating the new structure. As with cyber. I focused on these domains because of the rightful prominent attached to them. They are the new defence territory. In a fast changing environment, but they have an umbilical connection with many other areas of government activity. It must be matched by an appropriate structure the top of government.
I look forward to this debate. I concluded my overriding concern, money, unless the government can be specific about the amount and timing, this well received and Strategic Defence Review will become an interesting but passive library exhibit. Our defence industry will wither in that vacuum. Our safety and security will be deeply compromised. None of us wants to see that. I asked the Minister to reassure us.
The noble Lord got off to a good start in Port Glasgow, attending the high school which has a fine reputation. Regardless of our political differences, I feel an affinity with him and wish that he was a member of this House. Because the SDR is such a comprehensive document, there is insufficient time in the debate to do justice to the variety of issues in the document. The great majority of which, I am in support of. I will reduce this to bite sized chunks.
Firstly, I commend the reviewers for the realistic assessment of the threats and challenges found in the UK. The phrase 'the international chess board has been tipped over' struck a chord and another part that hit home was that with the multiple threats and challenges facing us now and in the future, we need an approach that involves the whole of society, it is essential. These phrases summarise the holistic threat we must confront with the one part in the geopolitical environment and the other part at home, with incalculable consequences of risk and that creates a solid foundation in terms of the analysis with which to construct a Defence capability which reaches beyond shapes and structures to the many and in that reality which is inescapable this review deserves all of our gratitude.
A lot of logical conclusions that follow the analysis, commitment to the independent nuclear deterrent, specifically identified by NATO as a bedrock of defence, reinforcing the serious, modern, integrated force, boosting reserves, a new partnership with industry, and the employment of a new national armaments director, I certainly hope all of that allows us to address the new character of the threat. One note of dissidence, it lifts the language of immediacy and lifts the language of immediacy and pace which was repeated by Lord Robertson this morning.
There is a mismatch by reference to, for instance, when circumstances allow, on essential and specific dates and either take the meddling fingers of the Treasury and that, after Lord Robertson had done his valuable work. This exciting and brave new world for Defence, the elephant in the room as money. None of this excellent aspiration proposed means anything without attaching pain signs to the proposal and we must signs to the proposal and we must have a commitment.
-- pound. I make no apologies for dealing with funding, resource, spending projections. I would like to discuss this with the Minister. The Minister probably regards me as unrelenting and irritating, constantly nagging him on funding but I do that as a constructive challenge to ensure the government is doing what it says it is, which was repeated by Lord Robertson this morning. Noble Lord will know the government has committed to increasing Defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, or 2.6%, if intelligence spending is considered.
We come down to simple arithmetic. If one takes the projected GDP figures of £3.134 trillion and then the spending on the single intelligence account for 2027 but is set at £5.1 million in the Spending Review, that indicates it will be 0.1% on intelligence of GDP in 2037. This leads to several questions. The government is claiming it will spend that in 2027 or 2% including intelligence, how does this square from 0.1% spent on intelligence? Those of you that Einstein will have worked out the answer to the subtraction is 2.1%.
If this continues with Defence spending, it would appear it would not be meeting the target of 2.5%. Can the Minister clear this up? Is it the case the government are classifying intelligence expenditure as Defence expenditure? Are they reclassifying a portion of it? Can the Minister tell the host what proportion of new medical terms of intelligence medical terms of intelligence spending switches into intense? -- Numerical terms. Secondly, on money, there are the new NATO targets and the 2025 summit in May led to a new target for spending of 5% of GDP annually for core Defence, and defence and security spending by 2035.
And this is obviously higher than the stated ambition of 3% for Defence expenditure, as far as physical restrictions, can the Minister committee will meet the target by 2035? -- Fiscal. The remaining amount is to protect critical infrastructure, secure networks, and if it, and strengthen the Defence Industrial Base. We must consider what is included in this. Italy recently passed a decision to reclassify a bridge as a strategic project, vital for the interest of NATO, so it can be included in the percentage.
What will the Government percentage. What will the Government bundle into this definition? If the noble Lord can give some concrete examples, and I use the word 'complete' deliberately, that would be appreciated. My interpretation of the definition is it will not lead to more money for Defence but more creative accounting. I hope the Minister will implore his colleagues in the Treasury and the MoD to ensure the Armed Forces are not fobbed off with financial wizardry but we see tangible benefit.
Returning to the review, as I welcome the analysis thread, so I phoned refreshingly frank assessment to be found on page 12 of the document, paragraph 3, "In modern warfare, simple metrics that the number of people and platforms that I directed and inadequate. Through networks of accrued and non-accrued autonomous assets that lethality and military effect are outfitted with military systems making decisions at machine speed." Us a Defence Minister I stood at the dispatch box warning that the army was at its smallest size since Napoleon and responded as courteously as I could to the inadequately of the comparison, implying the military strategy and technology had remained static for 200 years.
I made my argument in vain. The numbers for all that mattered to some. I would say we must have the courage for the review to be bold. I could talk review to be bold. I could talk about Mr -- a lot of matters including reserve numbers, industry, and many other excellent matters considered in the review and each merits a debate on its own and gives rise to separate questions. I anticipate many of these will be reflected in contributions from your Lordships today and I also expect the House to return to some of these issues.
Some of you may want to talk about what is omitted from the Strategic Defence Review and I look Strategic Defence Review and I look What I want to do made possible by the thoroughness of the view is to focus on space and cyber, and focus on space and cyber, and electromagnetism or cyber EN. Review says "With the integrated force fighting as one across all five domains, greater attention must be given to the space and cyber and electromagnetic domains.
" It says, "The reinvigorated Cabinet subcommittee should set the U.K.'s strategic approach to space, maximising synergies he'd between the UK civil sector and clear military leads. " I'm delighted by that recommendation. When I was a Defence Minister, it was chaired by the then Primodos the Boris Johnson because astutely he understood the need for strategic leadership and governance embracing government departments with primary interest in space. It meant that space, a domain with unlimited opportunity, but if non-regulated, a domain which could deliver a catastrophic consequence, was at the top of government thinking, and an awareness will stop sadly my parting government subsequently downgraded that.
I urge the government in accepting this recommendation from the review to give serious thought to restoring that top level of political leadership. I had hoped for comparable recognition or the domain of cyber there, and given the primary importance of this domain, I had thought it appropriate to have parity of status with space. The review has chosen to restrict his proposals to defence only. The creation of a new cyber command, and that is very worthy. But it is the heart of government activity.
Sharing government thinking awareness across government will not happen without strategic leadership and governance, as is proposed for space. The alternative is silos of varying knowledge, and I urge the government to consider replicating government to consider replicating the new structure. As with cyber. I focused on these domains because of the rightful prominent attached to them. They are the new defence territory. In a fast changing environment, but they have an umbilical connection with many other areas of government activity. It must be matched by an appropriate structure the top of government.
I look forward to this debate. I concluded my overriding concern, money, unless the government can be specific about the amount and timing, this well received and Strategic Defence Review will become an interesting but passive library exhibit. Our defence industry will wither in that vacuum. Our safety and security will be deeply compromised. None of us wants to see that. I asked the Minister to reassure us.
10:33
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, today is a very welcome opportunity to consider the defence review. But I am sure, as the debate develops, it will also cover the wider aspects including China audit, soft power, and developing policies. All needs to be integrated, as all have a part to play in keeping our country safe and our values protected. With regard to the review, I thank on behalf of these benches, the work of Lord Robertson, and his team that he quoted, for all of their work.
I also look forward to the Maiden speech of Lord Mackay. Given that all three opening speakers are from north of the border, I agree very much with Baroness Goldie that another Scottish voice is very welcome in this chamber. My colleagues in this debate will likely focus on the aspects in this broad area with the experience they bring. I want to focus on the wider safety and security landscape. And my noble friend Baroness Smith she winds up in this debate.
We support a great deal in the review from the noble Lord. And the National Security Strategy, we accepted many of the judgement of government, the threats that we face, the change in security landscape, both in potential conflicts and in the emerging dangers to technological change. We need to address them across all parts of government. The economy and society as a whole. We agree about that. We have taken for granted the safeties Lord Robertson has said. To safeties Lord Robertson has said.
To some extent, I think as a vibrant democracy for our people to get on with their daily lives, there is a positive element here, because of the work of our Armed Forces, the security, and the intelligence community. But with conflict growing around the world, with climate emergency, conflict abroad will have repercussions here at home. Just yesterday, in Grand Committee, we debated the tension between India and Pakistan. That could have been an enormous configurations which would have had direct impact here in the United Kingdom with the enormous Diaspora community that we have.
The Sudan conflict is being played out within our community here at home. Whilst we are geographically an island, we are not a security island. There should be a high level of cross-party support and, on defence benches have long tradition of supporting Armed Forces and veterans. As well as adhering to the view that the visible job of government is to maintain national security. In that regard I hope the government will both continue to engage but also bring regular updates on the many action plans that are included within the defence review, proposed as well as national security, and the many work streams that feed into its strategy.
As the noble Lord said, this is the work of not one parliament one party. We all need to be engaged in that process to ensure they are sustainable decisions. In parliament, we can appraise progress. Parliamentary scrutiny is part of our freedom we seek to protect. That is why I think many of us have been shaken by the lengths of the MoD in the previous government to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. I feel this will have deep repercussions. With the revelations just from yesterday with regard to that data breach, and the extent to how parliamentarians themselves were not able to consider this, I hope this government will never follow this terrible example.
In many ways, the UK government has a unique security need. But in most others can act as a global open and internet connected country -- interconnected country, if we secure the help of others. I mentioned that our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. The noble Lord referred to this and is conservation. We were the first country to lay sub-sea munication is 175 years ago. Today we are exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution.
Today our consumers reliant on shipped imports in key sectors like shipwrecks. Conflict between China and Taiwan would have immediate repercussions here at home. We require our naval and maritime capabilities enhanced, our reach broadens, and intelligence services administered an outside resource reinforced. We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the government on increased defence expenditure, it would be help all of them if they could indicate the breakdown of resources of the overall 5% that was announced on national defence and security.
What is the assumed level of growth in the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure expects to be necessary? Will the Minister provide more clarity on the timeframe and the certainty of the level of resources that will be available, not aspirations? There needs to be cross-party talks on this also if this is to be a generational approach. And the degree of consensus on planning and investment. It is interesting to note the seachange in Germany where Berlin has allocated 86 billion to defence equal to 2.4% of GDP this year.
By 2029, annual defence expenditure is expected to reach 153 billion, 3.5% of GDP. The most ambitious since reunification for top Chancellor Merkel has signalled a willingness to spend up to 14 has signalled a willingness to spend up to 1415% on defence adjacent infrastructure. Baroness Goldie reference this with potentially a ridge with the French government doing it. There may be vitally important infrastructure upgrades necessary for a whole national defence. Transport corridors, strategic mobility projects, coinciding with NATO's wider agreement to split the 5% target to 3.5% for hard defence spending, and 1.5% for expenditures related to defence.
Bundling may be justified, but we need a plan, it needs to be transparent, and we need to see it. An aspirational approach also needs to come with specificity and planning. And indeed transparency on procurement. This is not something where the United Kingdom necessarily has been a world leader in recent years. And how we link our procurement with those within the European continent and the United States will be vital. So we don't therefore depart from the level of funding, although we do want to see more detail.
We do say, with respect to the government that it should not have been transferred from the officials of and systems budget. With respect, this is a strategic mistake. We are seeing considerable reductions in programs that have been part of the UK national security platform, and successfully so, for many years. It is no surprise to me that, in recent weeks, we have seen public statements from former defence chiefs, literally does, amounts, and heads of intelligence community in the United Kingdom, appealing to the prime minister not to cut the rate programs that have been national security focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
And in supporting allies to build resilient civil society and institutions against line interference. The Western Balkans has raised both the defence and National Security Strategy. Three times in the chamber I've asked for clarity on the continuation of the Western Balkans freedom and resilience program, and I hope that is not under threat. The UK and US aid cuts to the Voice of America and the World Service, frequencies and spectrums immediately filled by Russia, are doing damage. Because we know of the very sphere where Lord Robertson had referred to, within eastern Europe and other countries with malign influences, when we cut supported resilient institutions in freedom of speech, freedom of media, and rule of law Russia, and China will fill that vacuum.
FCDO network and are excellent diplomats were raised within the security review and also by the noble Lord. We agree with that. It is why we regret that year-on-year funding is being reduced. On other threats such as biosecurity, I believe that we are less of an island than many might hope. I looked back the U.K.'s first biological security strategy in 2018 the previous government. I thought it was a good strategy. DFI and ODA were mentioned on most every single page, a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in the countries where we have a large Diaspora community or a tribal relationship will stop there was a reason why 10 years ago Ebola did not become Covid.
It was because of the UK, deferred, and our official develop and systems. But now we only have passing references from the government I hope the Minister will be able to say development assistance is a critical part to our partnerships as round the world. The noble Lord Robertson said we are underinsured, we are unprepared and we are unsafe. To correct that we need investment, partnership, and our allies to be safe also. We may well hear about the Commonwealth. The noble Lord speaks eloquently about our Commonwealth network.
The previous Conservative government Partnership support for a developing Commonwealth nations by one third and the incoming Labour government have cut it further by 40%. We know through the Center for Global Development that has already shown that those very countries that are moving to China and an East Africa Russia, to finance more debt. It is not a wise insurance only to spend on the eventuality of an emboldened adversary when we, by our actions, are bolstering it. As I close, Official Development Assistance according to a report on Tuesday by the independent commission on impact, at the end of the financial year it will be appointed percent this is the lowest in the 50 years development statistics.
Why is this significant? Because we know that conflicts now and always in the future, I never fought on one front with one technology and one tactic. We need an approach for our defence and our security which also is for diplomacy and development. All should be complimentary. It is not too late for the government to show they are not set against it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I also congratulate the authors of this review and Lord Robertson on his eloquent and
I also look forward to the Maiden speech of Lord Mackay. Given that all three opening speakers are from north of the border, I agree very much with Baroness Goldie that another Scottish voice is very welcome in this chamber. My colleagues in this debate will likely focus on the aspects in this broad area with the experience they bring. I want to focus on the wider safety and security landscape. And my noble friend Baroness Smith she winds up in this debate.
We support a great deal in the review from the noble Lord. And the National Security Strategy, we accepted many of the judgement of government, the threats that we face, the change in security landscape, both in potential conflicts and in the emerging dangers to technological change. We need to address them across all parts of government. The economy and society as a whole. We agree about that. We have taken for granted the safeties Lord Robertson has said. To safeties Lord Robertson has said.
To some extent, I think as a vibrant democracy for our people to get on with their daily lives, there is a positive element here, because of the work of our Armed Forces, the security, and the intelligence community. But with conflict growing around the world, with climate emergency, conflict abroad will have repercussions here at home. Just yesterday, in Grand Committee, we debated the tension between India and Pakistan. That could have been an enormous configurations which would have had direct impact here in the United Kingdom with the enormous Diaspora community that we have.
The Sudan conflict is being played out within our community here at home. Whilst we are geographically an island, we are not a security island. There should be a high level of cross-party support and, on defence benches have long tradition of supporting Armed Forces and veterans. As well as adhering to the view that the visible job of government is to maintain national security. In that regard I hope the government will both continue to engage but also bring regular updates on the many action plans that are included within the defence review, proposed as well as national security, and the many work streams that feed into its strategy.
As the noble Lord said, this is the work of not one parliament one party. We all need to be engaged in that process to ensure they are sustainable decisions. In parliament, we can appraise progress. Parliamentary scrutiny is part of our freedom we seek to protect. That is why I think many of us have been shaken by the lengths of the MoD in the previous government to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. I feel this will have deep repercussions. With the revelations just from yesterday with regard to that data breach, and the extent to how parliamentarians themselves were not able to consider this, I hope this government will never follow this terrible example.
In many ways, the UK government has a unique security need. But in most others can act as a global open and internet connected country -- interconnected country, if we secure the help of others. I mentioned that our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. The noble Lord referred to this and is conservation. We were the first country to lay sub-sea munication is 175 years ago. Today we are exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution.
Today our consumers reliant on shipped imports in key sectors like shipwrecks. Conflict between China and Taiwan would have immediate repercussions here at home. We require our naval and maritime capabilities enhanced, our reach broadens, and intelligence services administered an outside resource reinforced. We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the government on increased defence expenditure, it would be help all of them if they could indicate the breakdown of resources of the overall 5% that was announced on national defence and security.
What is the assumed level of growth in the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure expects to be necessary? Will the Minister provide more clarity on the timeframe and the certainty of the level of resources that will be available, not aspirations? There needs to be cross-party talks on this also if this is to be a generational approach. And the degree of consensus on planning and investment. It is interesting to note the seachange in Germany where Berlin has allocated 86 billion to defence equal to 2.4% of GDP this year.
By 2029, annual defence expenditure is expected to reach 153 billion, 3.5% of GDP. The most ambitious since reunification for top Chancellor Merkel has signalled a willingness to spend up to 14 has signalled a willingness to spend up to 1415% on defence adjacent infrastructure. Baroness Goldie reference this with potentially a ridge with the French government doing it. There may be vitally important infrastructure upgrades necessary for a whole national defence. Transport corridors, strategic mobility projects, coinciding with NATO's wider agreement to split the 5% target to 3.5% for hard defence spending, and 1.5% for expenditures related to defence.
Bundling may be justified, but we need a plan, it needs to be transparent, and we need to see it. An aspirational approach also needs to come with specificity and planning. And indeed transparency on procurement. This is not something where the United Kingdom necessarily has been a world leader in recent years. And how we link our procurement with those within the European continent and the United States will be vital. So we don't therefore depart from the level of funding, although we do want to see more detail.
We do say, with respect to the government that it should not have been transferred from the officials of and systems budget. With respect, this is a strategic mistake. We are seeing considerable reductions in programs that have been part of the UK national security platform, and successfully so, for many years. It is no surprise to me that, in recent weeks, we have seen public statements from former defence chiefs, literally does, amounts, and heads of intelligence community in the United Kingdom, appealing to the prime minister not to cut the rate programs that have been national security focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
And in supporting allies to build resilient civil society and institutions against line interference. The Western Balkans has raised both the defence and National Security Strategy. Three times in the chamber I've asked for clarity on the continuation of the Western Balkans freedom and resilience program, and I hope that is not under threat. The UK and US aid cuts to the Voice of America and the World Service, frequencies and spectrums immediately filled by Russia, are doing damage. Because we know of the very sphere where Lord Robertson had referred to, within eastern Europe and other countries with malign influences, when we cut supported resilient institutions in freedom of speech, freedom of media, and rule of law Russia, and China will fill that vacuum.
FCDO network and are excellent diplomats were raised within the security review and also by the noble Lord. We agree with that. It is why we regret that year-on-year funding is being reduced. On other threats such as biosecurity, I believe that we are less of an island than many might hope. I looked back the U.K.'s first biological security strategy in 2018 the previous government. I thought it was a good strategy. DFI and ODA were mentioned on most every single page, a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in the countries where we have a large Diaspora community or a tribal relationship will stop there was a reason why 10 years ago Ebola did not become Covid.
It was because of the UK, deferred, and our official develop and systems. But now we only have passing references from the government I hope the Minister will be able to say development assistance is a critical part to our partnerships as round the world. The noble Lord Robertson said we are underinsured, we are unprepared and we are unsafe. To correct that we need investment, partnership, and our allies to be safe also. We may well hear about the Commonwealth. The noble Lord speaks eloquently about our Commonwealth network.
The previous Conservative government Partnership support for a developing Commonwealth nations by one third and the incoming Labour government have cut it further by 40%. We know through the Center for Global Development that has already shown that those very countries that are moving to China and an East Africa Russia, to finance more debt. It is not a wise insurance only to spend on the eventuality of an emboldened adversary when we, by our actions, are bolstering it. As I close, Official Development Assistance according to a report on Tuesday by the independent commission on impact, at the end of the financial year it will be appointed percent this is the lowest in the 50 years development statistics.
Why is this significant? Because we know that conflicts now and always in the future, I never fought on one front with one technology and one tactic. We need an approach for our defence and our security which also is for diplomacy and development. All should be complimentary. It is not too late for the government to show they are not set against it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I also congratulate the authors of this review and Lord Robertson on his eloquent and
10:45
Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
Robertson on his eloquent and powerful presentation. The key arguments he makes are compelling, the recommendations are in the main well judged. There are of course points of detail that are open to debate. These will no doubt be the subject of further scrutiny as the government develops its policy response to the conclusions. In the limited time available today, I want to focus on the issue that threatens to undermine the effectiveness of the whole review. The government unwillingness to face up to the urgency of the financial consequences.
The authors were constrained by the financial assumptions they were given, but even so their analysis demonstrates clearly that we face a quantitative as well as qualitative challenge. NATO has since agreed these can only be addressed successfully by its members committing 3.5% of GDP to defence. And that Prime Minister has agreed that the UK will meet this The current proposition of the government is defence spending will be increased to 2.5-2.6% of GDP by 2037 and anything beyond that remains vague and uncertain.
At the remains vague and uncertain. At the dispatch box -- 2027. Lord Livermore confirmed last week that 3% is only an aspiration for the next Parliament and any further increases would be the next Parliament, 2034 and beyond. This is completely unrealistic for a number of reasons. First is the urgency of the need. On current assumptions, only about 3% of total Defence funding for the remainder of this Parliament will be available to fund the crucial capabilities identified in the review.
On that basis, many of the proposed improvements will not be made until well into the 2030s, including remediation of some current and very serious vulnerabilities. The second reason is the need to build up the scale of Defence orders over a number of years, matching them to the necessary growth in industrial capacity. If this is not given an industry has a sudden cascade of orders in the 2030s, the consequences will be a massive increase in inflation, seriously undermining the value of any increase in budget.
We have seen this damaging phenomenon is consequences of the war in Ukraine already. Finally, the issue of the wider fiscal position. There are only three ways to pay for the increase in the defence budget, taxation, borrowing, public expenditure adjustments. Increases in taxation look inevitable and are likely to be consumed almost entirely in sustaining the viability of the economy on the whole. This is already challenging, given the high and volatile cost of servicing national debt and saw the scope for further borrowing is limited.
At least expenditure. We are spending 4% of GDP in the 1990s and by 2024 that has reduced to 2.3% but accounting changes in the interim period means that would be more like 2.1% in the terms of the 1990s. By 2023, health and social security accounted for about 41% of total managed public expenditure with Defence taking just 1.8%. That she would have to increase to 7.2% to bring the budget up to 3.9% of GDP. -- That share. This would equate to a reduction of 5% in total health and social security spending.
Considering the scale of the challenge and the difficulty of the various options, it is clear that the kind of restructuring I believe is necessary could not be carried out quickly. And so the process needs to start soon, if we are to be anywhere near 3.5% of GDP for Defence by 2035. There is no sign of any urgency on any side of the political divide on addressing this. This is surely the key issue for public policy and debate over the coming months.
Unless it is resolved, and quickly, the excellent work that has gone into the review will have been wasted and the country will be left ill prepared for the risks it will face in this for the risks it will face in this
The authors were constrained by the financial assumptions they were given, but even so their analysis demonstrates clearly that we face a quantitative as well as qualitative challenge. NATO has since agreed these can only be addressed successfully by its members committing 3.5% of GDP to defence. And that Prime Minister has agreed that the UK will meet this The current proposition of the government is defence spending will be increased to 2.5-2.6% of GDP by 2037 and anything beyond that remains vague and uncertain.
At the remains vague and uncertain. At the dispatch box -- 2027. Lord Livermore confirmed last week that 3% is only an aspiration for the next Parliament and any further increases would be the next Parliament, 2034 and beyond. This is completely unrealistic for a number of reasons. First is the urgency of the need. On current assumptions, only about 3% of total Defence funding for the remainder of this Parliament will be available to fund the crucial capabilities identified in the review.
On that basis, many of the proposed improvements will not be made until well into the 2030s, including remediation of some current and very serious vulnerabilities. The second reason is the need to build up the scale of Defence orders over a number of years, matching them to the necessary growth in industrial capacity. If this is not given an industry has a sudden cascade of orders in the 2030s, the consequences will be a massive increase in inflation, seriously undermining the value of any increase in budget.
We have seen this damaging phenomenon is consequences of the war in Ukraine already. Finally, the issue of the wider fiscal position. There are only three ways to pay for the increase in the defence budget, taxation, borrowing, public expenditure adjustments. Increases in taxation look inevitable and are likely to be consumed almost entirely in sustaining the viability of the economy on the whole. This is already challenging, given the high and volatile cost of servicing national debt and saw the scope for further borrowing is limited.
At least expenditure. We are spending 4% of GDP in the 1990s and by 2024 that has reduced to 2.3% but accounting changes in the interim period means that would be more like 2.1% in the terms of the 1990s. By 2023, health and social security accounted for about 41% of total managed public expenditure with Defence taking just 1.8%. That she would have to increase to 7.2% to bring the budget up to 3.9% of GDP. -- That share. This would equate to a reduction of 5% in total health and social security spending.
Considering the scale of the challenge and the difficulty of the various options, it is clear that the kind of restructuring I believe is necessary could not be carried out quickly. And so the process needs to start soon, if we are to be anywhere near 3.5% of GDP for Defence by 2035. There is no sign of any urgency on any side of the political divide on addressing this. This is surely the key issue for public policy and debate over the coming months.
Unless it is resolved, and quickly, the excellent work that has gone into the review will have been wasted and the country will be left ill prepared for the risks it will face in this for the risks it will face in this
10:50
The Lord Bishop of Bristol (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Bristol (Bishops)
I am grateful to Lord Robertson for bringing the SDR to debate in this House and I look forward to hearing more with the wide-ranging expertise here and I look forward to the forthcoming maiden speech. George Bell thought deeply about the ethics of international relations and spoke controversially on occasions in this House about his conclusions. Speaking more generally of the church in Brighton, and I believe we are in a time of considerable risk of war, -- church in wartime, and I believe we are in the time of war, he said the church had the responsibility to be the church and that is often a practical endeavour within a response of the call of society.
Last weekend, the Church of England in York responded to the current international threat level practically by providing new legislative arrangements to hold the records of military chaplains centrally, not locally. Chaplains, regular service, will now have licence to move more rapidly into operation and I commend the new legislation to members of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the House as the church seeks to support the aim of increasing agility and deployment. In Bristol this week, I pondered the experience of the bombing of the city of Bristol in the second world war and the remarkable resilience of Bristol in the face of it felt like total war.
Last month, volunteers, I illustrate this, first aid teams, and more, providing not just cups of tea and reassurance but hope. That volunteering spirit showed itself again in the response of Bristol to Covid and the stand of the whole community last summer against unrest. Individualism may seem to be prevalent but supporting neighbours, however different from us, is still strong in our city. There is scope for a new volunteer civil reserve of the sword frequently found across European states including Poland, the Baltic states, Italy.
Of those recruited, trained and supported to provide an emergency response, not least in war. Alongside investment in weapons, I would urge investment in civil resilience. And as logic made expect, alongside a strategy for readiness for war, I would welcome conflict prevention and peace building strategies, not least as the budget for it is depleted. If a crisis leads to the brink of, the UK must contribute to the capability through development and diplomacy to cool down tension and reduce the inevitability of armed conflict.
This is both a moral and economic argument, one small example. Through taking a lead on the global investor commission on mining and working with the partnership for peace building based in Cape Town, the church is enabling local communities to be trained in dialogue for looking at the nexus of friction around extraction and armed groups where conflict is fuelled by the demand for critical materials. This is an active development opportunity. Further north, the UN is working with Anglican leaders, trained in dialogue skills, to be peacemakers and social and civic rebuilder is in places where civil society has completely broken down.
And while I welcome the Strategic Defence Review, not least in its honesty and courage, I am also concerned about the financial components alongside it. I also yearn for a strategic peace building review. The church, being the church, stands ready to be a partner church, stands ready to be a partner
Last weekend, the Church of England in York responded to the current international threat level practically by providing new legislative arrangements to hold the records of military chaplains centrally, not locally. Chaplains, regular service, will now have licence to move more rapidly into operation and I commend the new legislation to members of the Ecclesiastical Committee and the House as the church seeks to support the aim of increasing agility and deployment. In Bristol this week, I pondered the experience of the bombing of the city of Bristol in the second world war and the remarkable resilience of Bristol in the face of it felt like total war.
Last month, volunteers, I illustrate this, first aid teams, and more, providing not just cups of tea and reassurance but hope. That volunteering spirit showed itself again in the response of Bristol to Covid and the stand of the whole community last summer against unrest. Individualism may seem to be prevalent but supporting neighbours, however different from us, is still strong in our city. There is scope for a new volunteer civil reserve of the sword frequently found across European states including Poland, the Baltic states, Italy.
Of those recruited, trained and supported to provide an emergency response, not least in war. Alongside investment in weapons, I would urge investment in civil resilience. And as logic made expect, alongside a strategy for readiness for war, I would welcome conflict prevention and peace building strategies, not least as the budget for it is depleted. If a crisis leads to the brink of, the UK must contribute to the capability through development and diplomacy to cool down tension and reduce the inevitability of armed conflict.
This is both a moral and economic argument, one small example. Through taking a lead on the global investor commission on mining and working with the partnership for peace building based in Cape Town, the church is enabling local communities to be trained in dialogue for looking at the nexus of friction around extraction and armed groups where conflict is fuelled by the demand for critical materials. This is an active development opportunity. Further north, the UN is working with Anglican leaders, trained in dialogue skills, to be peacemakers and social and civic rebuilder is in places where civil society has completely broken down.
And while I welcome the Strategic Defence Review, not least in its honesty and courage, I am also concerned about the financial components alongside it. I also yearn for a strategic peace building review. The church, being the church, stands ready to be a partner church, stands ready to be a partner
10:55
Lord McCabe (Labour)
-
-
Lord McCabe (Labour)
Can I thank the earlier speakers for their kind remarks. Having spent 27 years next door, it is a pleasure to make my maiden speech in the sedate atmosphere of this place. I have not rushed to make this speech because I felt that I needed some time to familiarise myself with the quaint and charming traditions of this House. I want to begin by thanking those who have been so helpful as I have wondered, often in circles, trying to navigate this building.
The Offices of the House, staff, police, security, doormen, catering staff, indeed everyone who has made me feel welcome. I am also grateful for the induction sessions which proved extremely useful for new members. I want to thank my sponsors, Baroness Smith, Leader of the House, for her kindness and sage advice and Baron Kennedy, who has been most welcome, by making expectations clear that message we associate with him. I would also like to thank people in the constituencies who adopted me as one of their own which was perhaps an achievement, given my accent and that of the average person from Birmingham.
Despite the occasional mishap, like being offered peanut butter while trying to offer a pint of bitter, I am proud to say I am an adopted Brummie. I have not always been a fan of the Lords but had the privilege of serving on the committee of House Of Lords Reform chaired by Lord Cullen, in 2002. It convinced me -- Lord Cunningham. It could be fitted for a reformed chamber and, of course, there are arguments about composition which I look forward to debating on another occasion.
Suffice to say that democracy is better served with a second jib. I'm originally from Port Glasgow, shipbuilding tone, when I was growing up. -- town. My mother was a single mother and wanted to give me opportunities she never had and instilled work ethic and drive for me. I understand I am in a place full of experts, some at least, but seriously, I look forward to learning from the knowledge and wisdom which is here. I think of myself as a journalist with common sense, more interested in practical solutions than ideological beliefs.
I started as a social worker and spent many years working with young offenders and children who have experienced trauma in early life. We must improve interactions of justice, social welfare and education structures. There is too much process and not enough problem-solving. When it comes to Defence, we also need thinking to be more joined up. As a former shadow defence minister, I welcome the SDR and congratulate Lord Robertson on a fine piece of work. It is time to face reality about the risk of war.
Only by preparing can we hope to maintain peace. I agree that we have got to increase the contribution to Euro-set Atlantic security and I welcome contributions of Defence innovators is the way forward and I'm convinced the increased Defence spending can drive growth. As we have heard, it won't be easy to find the resources that are needed under the current financial rules. Perhaps greater flexibility and innovation is required the a. May be Defence -- is required there.
Maybe Defence once or something that will let the constraints on current Treasury. As a former chair of Labour's Friends of Israel, I take an active interest in the security of the country and the search for a just peace which I believe includes the people of Iran. They deserve our support in the struggle to free themselves from the corrupt and barbarous regime which is oppressing them and exporting more conflict and terrorism. I am a supporter of life sciences, a huge fan of the hospice movement, and I am keen on medical technology.
Through my association with Heart Valve Voice, I support improve diagnosis and treatment for those with heart valve. I look forward to working with others across the House who share my interest. Finally, it is a long way from port Glasgow to this place but if I can do it, anyone can. British values are something to be proud of. Opportunity really matters, if we are to modernise and renew the country, to face the challenges of country, to face the challenges of
The Offices of the House, staff, police, security, doormen, catering staff, indeed everyone who has made me feel welcome. I am also grateful for the induction sessions which proved extremely useful for new members. I want to thank my sponsors, Baroness Smith, Leader of the House, for her kindness and sage advice and Baron Kennedy, who has been most welcome, by making expectations clear that message we associate with him. I would also like to thank people in the constituencies who adopted me as one of their own which was perhaps an achievement, given my accent and that of the average person from Birmingham.
Despite the occasional mishap, like being offered peanut butter while trying to offer a pint of bitter, I am proud to say I am an adopted Brummie. I have not always been a fan of the Lords but had the privilege of serving on the committee of House Of Lords Reform chaired by Lord Cullen, in 2002. It convinced me -- Lord Cunningham. It could be fitted for a reformed chamber and, of course, there are arguments about composition which I look forward to debating on another occasion.
Suffice to say that democracy is better served with a second jib. I'm originally from Port Glasgow, shipbuilding tone, when I was growing up. -- town. My mother was a single mother and wanted to give me opportunities she never had and instilled work ethic and drive for me. I understand I am in a place full of experts, some at least, but seriously, I look forward to learning from the knowledge and wisdom which is here. I think of myself as a journalist with common sense, more interested in practical solutions than ideological beliefs.
I started as a social worker and spent many years working with young offenders and children who have experienced trauma in early life. We must improve interactions of justice, social welfare and education structures. There is too much process and not enough problem-solving. When it comes to Defence, we also need thinking to be more joined up. As a former shadow defence minister, I welcome the SDR and congratulate Lord Robertson on a fine piece of work. It is time to face reality about the risk of war.
Only by preparing can we hope to maintain peace. I agree that we have got to increase the contribution to Euro-set Atlantic security and I welcome contributions of Defence innovators is the way forward and I'm convinced the increased Defence spending can drive growth. As we have heard, it won't be easy to find the resources that are needed under the current financial rules. Perhaps greater flexibility and innovation is required the a. May be Defence -- is required there.
Maybe Defence once or something that will let the constraints on current Treasury. As a former chair of Labour's Friends of Israel, I take an active interest in the security of the country and the search for a just peace which I believe includes the people of Iran. They deserve our support in the struggle to free themselves from the corrupt and barbarous regime which is oppressing them and exporting more conflict and terrorism. I am a supporter of life sciences, a huge fan of the hospice movement, and I am keen on medical technology.
Through my association with Heart Valve Voice, I support improve diagnosis and treatment for those with heart valve. I look forward to working with others across the House who share my interest. Finally, it is a long way from port Glasgow to this place but if I can do it, anyone can. British values are something to be proud of. Opportunity really matters, if we are to modernise and renew the country, to face the challenges of country, to face the challenges of
11:01
Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)
-
-
Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)
My Lords, I'm delighted to follow Lord McCabe and his excellent Maiden speech. I have known my noble Friend for many more years than either of us would care to say. We work together on the all-party group on policing, and in the PLP, the middle group on Home Affairs. He describes your Lordships House as quaint but charming. I wonder if that was how he was described in Birmingham Hall Green when he was given his peanut butter.
His many years working with young offenders and children who have experienced trauma may not seem like it would be immediately valuable in fitting into your Lordships House. Then again it might. That experience, that pragmatic experience of needing to find practical solutions to problems will certainly add value to the deliberations we have here. Indeed that self-description of being a generalist with common sense, focusing on solutions rather than psychological fantasies that you see encapsulating the best traditions of your Lordships House.
My noble Friend is very welcome, and we look forward to hearing from him frequently in the future. My Lords, this House and the nation owes a debt of gratitude to Lord Robertson and his team for the review we are debating today. The assessment is candid. Both that the UK is closer to the reality of war and it has been at any time in the last 60 years. And that we are woefully unprepared for conflict. As chair of the National preparing group, I welcome the SDR focus on building a national defence effort that includes the whole of society.
An express reference to building national resilience to threats low and above the threshold of armed attack. To a concerted collective effort involving among others industry, the finance sector, civil society, academia, education, and communities. But the public has to some extent been shielded from the escalating risk. The willingness of government to start a national conversation that my noble Friend court for about resilience and preparedness is welcome and essential. Is all threat already threatening our daily lives? Cyber attacks against public and private organisations detected daily.
Russian submarines encroaching into British waters. Geopolitical unrest threatening continuity of supply chains, and disinformation campaigns that threaten national cohesion. We have to improve our preparedness for all of these. In the nature of these changes, these attacks, will change and intensify. They will demand a nationwide response, a nationwide endurance, and in the same way we need to be prepared for all the other risks that we face. Just think of what has happened in the last few months.
The cyber attacks on Marks & Spencer's and the Co-op, four substation fires in five weeks. One of them shutting down Heathrow. Probably not malicious, but demonstrating the consequences of clapped-out aged infrastructure and highlighting vulnerability to future malign actors. A virus detected in mosquitoes here in Britain. A wildfire shutting the M25 following on from the driest UK March on record. And most recently three men guilty of an arson attack on a warehouse carried out by three ne'er-do-wells on behalf of the Wagner Group.
That is why the National preparing this commission has advocated the need for a threat agnostic preparedness. We must be ready as a nation for whatever may happen. The SDR proposes a defence readiness bill that would give the government new powers to improve preparedness of key industries, to support the mobilisation of resources when needed, and mandate annual reporting on our war fighting readiness. Can the minister tell us when this will be introduced? The National Preparedness Commission has proposed a national resilient act following the model of the Climate Change Act, that will place a legal obligation on government departments and public bodies to take account of, and prioritise, the need for preparedness and resilience in all their actions.
Such an act could establish an independent national resilience committee akin to the Climate Change Committee. To advise the UK government on its assessment of the progress being made and what additional measures should be taken. So why not bring these proposals together? Let's have a national resilience and defence readiness bill in the next Session of Parliament. This should set out the respective roles of the UK government, the devolved administrations, mayors, and local authorities. It will place explicit expectations on the Critical National Infrastructure and businesses more generally.
It would strengthen and rationalise the network of Local Resilience Forum and require them to engage with local businesses and the local voluntary community and faith sectors. We need that national conversation. We must raise public awareness of the threats we face. The escalating risk of conflict, as well as the consequence of climate change, the associated extreme weather events and other hazards. The SDR has kickstarted the process. The government has acknowledged what needs to be done in National Security Strategy, but now that must be turned into action.
We have not got long.
His many years working with young offenders and children who have experienced trauma may not seem like it would be immediately valuable in fitting into your Lordships House. Then again it might. That experience, that pragmatic experience of needing to find practical solutions to problems will certainly add value to the deliberations we have here. Indeed that self-description of being a generalist with common sense, focusing on solutions rather than psychological fantasies that you see encapsulating the best traditions of your Lordships House.
My noble Friend is very welcome, and we look forward to hearing from him frequently in the future. My Lords, this House and the nation owes a debt of gratitude to Lord Robertson and his team for the review we are debating today. The assessment is candid. Both that the UK is closer to the reality of war and it has been at any time in the last 60 years. And that we are woefully unprepared for conflict. As chair of the National preparing group, I welcome the SDR focus on building a national defence effort that includes the whole of society.
An express reference to building national resilience to threats low and above the threshold of armed attack. To a concerted collective effort involving among others industry, the finance sector, civil society, academia, education, and communities. But the public has to some extent been shielded from the escalating risk. The willingness of government to start a national conversation that my noble Friend court for about resilience and preparedness is welcome and essential. Is all threat already threatening our daily lives? Cyber attacks against public and private organisations detected daily.
Russian submarines encroaching into British waters. Geopolitical unrest threatening continuity of supply chains, and disinformation campaigns that threaten national cohesion. We have to improve our preparedness for all of these. In the nature of these changes, these attacks, will change and intensify. They will demand a nationwide response, a nationwide endurance, and in the same way we need to be prepared for all the other risks that we face. Just think of what has happened in the last few months.
The cyber attacks on Marks & Spencer's and the Co-op, four substation fires in five weeks. One of them shutting down Heathrow. Probably not malicious, but demonstrating the consequences of clapped-out aged infrastructure and highlighting vulnerability to future malign actors. A virus detected in mosquitoes here in Britain. A wildfire shutting the M25 following on from the driest UK March on record. And most recently three men guilty of an arson attack on a warehouse carried out by three ne'er-do-wells on behalf of the Wagner Group.
That is why the National preparing this commission has advocated the need for a threat agnostic preparedness. We must be ready as a nation for whatever may happen. The SDR proposes a defence readiness bill that would give the government new powers to improve preparedness of key industries, to support the mobilisation of resources when needed, and mandate annual reporting on our war fighting readiness. Can the minister tell us when this will be introduced? The National Preparedness Commission has proposed a national resilient act following the model of the Climate Change Act, that will place a legal obligation on government departments and public bodies to take account of, and prioritise, the need for preparedness and resilience in all their actions.
Such an act could establish an independent national resilience committee akin to the Climate Change Committee. To advise the UK government on its assessment of the progress being made and what additional measures should be taken. So why not bring these proposals together? Let's have a national resilience and defence readiness bill in the next Session of Parliament. This should set out the respective roles of the UK government, the devolved administrations, mayors, and local authorities. It will place explicit expectations on the Critical National Infrastructure and businesses more generally.
It would strengthen and rationalise the network of Local Resilience Forum and require them to engage with local businesses and the local voluntary community and faith sectors. We need that national conversation. We must raise public awareness of the threats we face. The escalating risk of conflict, as well as the consequence of climate change, the associated extreme weather events and other hazards. The SDR has kickstarted the process. The government has acknowledged what needs to be done in National Security Strategy, but now that must be turned into action.
We have not got long.
11:07
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
... For his role in leading the Strategic Defence Review. And for delivering such a thoughtful and important contribution to UK defence policy. I'm particularly grateful to that reviewing team for appearing last week before the International Relations and Defence Committee which I chair, to discuss the findings and recommendations of the review. Before I go further, I congratulate Lord McCabe on his Maiden speech which I listened carefully. My Lords I welcome the government's recognition that national security and defence must be the first duty of government.
And today's threat landscape requires an integrated response. The SDR recommendations come with serious financial indications. But defence is the best insurance policy we have. As General Sir Richard Barrons told the committee, cost of war in human and economic terms are more than the price of preparedness. If we fail to invest now in deterrence, resilience, and technological advantage, we risk being outpaced by adversaries who won't wait for us to catch up. The committee welcomes the ambition and breadth of the SDR and we are pleased to see many of the conclusions in the report.
However laudable ambition must be matched by incredible delivery. There is as yet no, hence the funding profile aligned to the SDR recommendations, or clear pathway to the government ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence will stop let alone to the Prime Minister as NATO pledge of 5%. Without this, delivery of the SDRs recommendations is at best uncertain. The Defence Investment Plan due this autumn must address this and set out the trade-offs involved if the 3% of GDP target is not achieved.
The SDR rightly commits to a NATO first posture. Meeting NATO's evolving investment pledge marks, enhancing interoperability of allies and reinforcing our forward presence in Eastern Europe and the high North must follow. Domestically the SDR emphasis on home defence and resilient is timely. But Can the minister set out what the government will do to ensure the " More substantive body of work needed to secure the U.K.'s Critical National Infrastructure " will be undertaken properly? Regarding the commitment to home air and missile defence, the creation of a new cyber and electromagnetic commands, how can the Minister be confident that this funding will be sufficient to deliver the SDRs objectives? The SDRs focus on innovation and digital skills is essential.
The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of rapid procurement sites, and scalable technologies. We welcome that £400 million identified for defence innovation and the doubling investment in autonomous systems. Yet SMEs still face major challenges in engaging with the Minister of Defence. Radical procurement reform is essential, and concrete timelines for this are still lacking. Returning to the central theme of resilience, defence and the 21st- century is no longer confined to the battlefield. It requires the full mobilisation of society, an integrated approach that can the population, industry, infrastructure, and education.
While there is much in the SDR that reflects a broader understanding of defence as a collective national effort, which Lord Robertson referred to, the MoD continues to show misunderstanding of Reserve Forces such an important part. And the pressures on those who seek to do this while holding down civilian job. Can you guarantee Reserve Forces will not be singled out as it often have been recently, for cuts and so-called in year savings? The MoD is persistent in its efforts to neuter the Reserve Forces and cadets associations, council I chair, who could and would, rather than indelibly constrained and been converted into a more costly area, they could do so much to promote the resilience the country needs.
I know ministers do not understand the damage that will be done, especially to the SDRs aspirations for reserves and national resilience, if they follow what their officials are pushing them into. I asked the minister to look at that again. To conclude, notwithstanding what I have said, shifting the strategic approach set out by the SDR is welcome. Turning ambitions into reality will require strong and continuing commitment especially on funding but also on improved relations with industry and sustained engagement with the public.
I emphasise the need for a fully costed roadmap, and asked the Minister what plans he has to keep Parliament updated on the SDR recommendations.
And today's threat landscape requires an integrated response. The SDR recommendations come with serious financial indications. But defence is the best insurance policy we have. As General Sir Richard Barrons told the committee, cost of war in human and economic terms are more than the price of preparedness. If we fail to invest now in deterrence, resilience, and technological advantage, we risk being outpaced by adversaries who won't wait for us to catch up. The committee welcomes the ambition and breadth of the SDR and we are pleased to see many of the conclusions in the report.
However laudable ambition must be matched by incredible delivery. There is as yet no, hence the funding profile aligned to the SDR recommendations, or clear pathway to the government ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence will stop let alone to the Prime Minister as NATO pledge of 5%. Without this, delivery of the SDRs recommendations is at best uncertain. The Defence Investment Plan due this autumn must address this and set out the trade-offs involved if the 3% of GDP target is not achieved.
The SDR rightly commits to a NATO first posture. Meeting NATO's evolving investment pledge marks, enhancing interoperability of allies and reinforcing our forward presence in Eastern Europe and the high North must follow. Domestically the SDR emphasis on home defence and resilient is timely. But Can the minister set out what the government will do to ensure the " More substantive body of work needed to secure the U.K.'s Critical National Infrastructure " will be undertaken properly? Regarding the commitment to home air and missile defence, the creation of a new cyber and electromagnetic commands, how can the Minister be confident that this funding will be sufficient to deliver the SDRs objectives? The SDRs focus on innovation and digital skills is essential.
The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of rapid procurement sites, and scalable technologies. We welcome that £400 million identified for defence innovation and the doubling investment in autonomous systems. Yet SMEs still face major challenges in engaging with the Minister of Defence. Radical procurement reform is essential, and concrete timelines for this are still lacking. Returning to the central theme of resilience, defence and the 21st- century is no longer confined to the battlefield. It requires the full mobilisation of society, an integrated approach that can the population, industry, infrastructure, and education.
While there is much in the SDR that reflects a broader understanding of defence as a collective national effort, which Lord Robertson referred to, the MoD continues to show misunderstanding of Reserve Forces such an important part. And the pressures on those who seek to do this while holding down civilian job. Can you guarantee Reserve Forces will not be singled out as it often have been recently, for cuts and so-called in year savings? The MoD is persistent in its efforts to neuter the Reserve Forces and cadets associations, council I chair, who could and would, rather than indelibly constrained and been converted into a more costly area, they could do so much to promote the resilience the country needs.
I know ministers do not understand the damage that will be done, especially to the SDRs aspirations for reserves and national resilience, if they follow what their officials are pushing them into. I asked the minister to look at that again. To conclude, notwithstanding what I have said, shifting the strategic approach set out by the SDR is welcome. Turning ambitions into reality will require strong and continuing commitment especially on funding but also on improved relations with industry and sustained engagement with the public.
I emphasise the need for a fully costed roadmap, and asked the Minister what plans he has to keep Parliament updated on the SDR recommendations.
11:12
Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)
My Lords, I want to raise two issues which were not covered in what is otherwise a thoroughly convincing and comprehensive review. The first is soft power. Perhaps the terms of reference were too tightly drawn all too narrowly interpreted, but defence is not just about weapons and Armed Forces, the hard power. And I don't in any case want to diminish the importance of what the review said about that at all. But defence is also about prevention and deterrence in the broadest possible sense.
A potential aggressor is less likely to attack you if you share a significant degree of intercultural knowledge and understanding and experience. To be strong abroad, as the review puts it, the UK must be appreciated, respected, and even enjoyed abroad. Our soft power comes in many forms including the World Service, the British Council, universities, the Royal family, the Premier League, and overseas aid. It is also very sobering to note that Russia makes no such distinction between soft and hard power.
Leaping into the vacuum to occupy radio frequencies given up for cost reasons by the World Service, as Russia has done in Lebanon. This is just one example of Russian aggression on what I would call a seamless continuum of what we might call soft and hard power. But which they just call power. So I asked the Minister whether he agrees that soft power should be acknowledged as one important element within the broad sweep of defence, on the basis that prevention is better than cure? If he does, he also agree that the government needs to take a strategic and generous view of the financial support it gives to the World Service, the British Council, higher education, and the aid budget.
The second issue I want to raise, which is missing in the review discussion of training, education, and preparedness, is the importance of language training for the Armed Forces. The defence Academy, which I have visited, provides pre- deployment training in 40 languages for members of the Armed Forces. A report by the British Academy pointed out that the role of military linguists is particularly key to ground operations, as a vital component of defence diplomacy, and is also essential for peacekeeping work and conflict prevention.
As the BA report put it, "The ability of military officers and patrols to communicate with local communities during ground operations can help not only with local engagement but might also mean the difference between life-and-death. " Crucially the MoD language training uses the NATO standardisation agreed, which is a common framework of assessing language proficiency for military personnel. It assures that all member nations can communicate effectively a military context it is vital for interoperability and joint exercises and operations.
So I would like to ask the Minister to reassure me that the SDR recommendation that defence should only run training and education itself when it can't maintain suitable external quality and cost, will not apply to the language training currently provided by that Defence Academy? It is very difficult to imagine how local Fe colleges could replicate the NATO standards, or engage teaching staff qualified in both military context and terminology, as well as all 40 Will the Minister guarantee that the budget for the Centre for Language and Culture will not be subject to any cuts? Finally, on language skills, I was alarmed two weeks ago at the closure without notice of the ACRS scheme and also there has been the closure of the ARR scheme since then, all suddenly.
This will impact Afghan volunteers who work with UK Armed Forces under still vulnerable from oppression from the telephone. I've been told no interpreters were included in the secret ARR scheme because they were not to be a high enough risk to qualify. However, it has been said that there is a risk that eligible individuals will remain at risk or seek to use a regular routes including small pots following the closure of ARAP. Is this any way to treat people who risk their lives for us? These people are the definition of a special case, and a number advice.
Can we ensure the remaining have the viable option to move to the UK, subject to security checks?
A potential aggressor is less likely to attack you if you share a significant degree of intercultural knowledge and understanding and experience. To be strong abroad, as the review puts it, the UK must be appreciated, respected, and even enjoyed abroad. Our soft power comes in many forms including the World Service, the British Council, universities, the Royal family, the Premier League, and overseas aid. It is also very sobering to note that Russia makes no such distinction between soft and hard power.
Leaping into the vacuum to occupy radio frequencies given up for cost reasons by the World Service, as Russia has done in Lebanon. This is just one example of Russian aggression on what I would call a seamless continuum of what we might call soft and hard power. But which they just call power. So I asked the Minister whether he agrees that soft power should be acknowledged as one important element within the broad sweep of defence, on the basis that prevention is better than cure? If he does, he also agree that the government needs to take a strategic and generous view of the financial support it gives to the World Service, the British Council, higher education, and the aid budget.
The second issue I want to raise, which is missing in the review discussion of training, education, and preparedness, is the importance of language training for the Armed Forces. The defence Academy, which I have visited, provides pre- deployment training in 40 languages for members of the Armed Forces. A report by the British Academy pointed out that the role of military linguists is particularly key to ground operations, as a vital component of defence diplomacy, and is also essential for peacekeeping work and conflict prevention.
As the BA report put it, "The ability of military officers and patrols to communicate with local communities during ground operations can help not only with local engagement but might also mean the difference between life-and-death. " Crucially the MoD language training uses the NATO standardisation agreed, which is a common framework of assessing language proficiency for military personnel. It assures that all member nations can communicate effectively a military context it is vital for interoperability and joint exercises and operations.
So I would like to ask the Minister to reassure me that the SDR recommendation that defence should only run training and education itself when it can't maintain suitable external quality and cost, will not apply to the language training currently provided by that Defence Academy? It is very difficult to imagine how local Fe colleges could replicate the NATO standards, or engage teaching staff qualified in both military context and terminology, as well as all 40 Will the Minister guarantee that the budget for the Centre for Language and Culture will not be subject to any cuts? Finally, on language skills, I was alarmed two weeks ago at the closure without notice of the ACRS scheme and also there has been the closure of the ARR scheme since then, all suddenly.
This will impact Afghan volunteers who work with UK Armed Forces under still vulnerable from oppression from the telephone. I've been told no interpreters were included in the secret ARR scheme because they were not to be a high enough risk to qualify. However, it has been said that there is a risk that eligible individuals will remain at risk or seek to use a regular routes including small pots following the closure of ARAP. Is this any way to treat people who risk their lives for us? These people are the definition of a special case, and a number advice.
Can we ensure the remaining have the viable option to move to the UK, subject to security checks?
11:18
Lord Soames of Fletching (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Soames of Fletching (Conservative)
I thank by congratulating the noble Lord on his excellent noble speech, Lord McCabe. It is wonderful to see Lord Hennessy again. I agree with everything that Lord Robertson said in his speech and I think the Review is largely excellent but I sure, as -- I also share the anxieties about the requirements and the urgency and clarity of the financial profile of how this expensive matter will be dealt with.
I also see Mutch I share -- I also say how much I share the sentiments of my noble friend, whose committee I sit on, and particularly the armed forces which are a fantastic asset to the country. The publication of the Strategic Defence Review does set out with great clarity the nature of the threats in one civil place but, as it makes plain, the truth is we are already involved in a one-sided war and under constant threat of attack from the drummer.
We think, most people think that we are not here for the war with Russia and we are not, Russia is at war with us on the whole of Western Europe. We are subject in this country to efforts to manipulate information and undermine social cohesion and political will and they will become worse and they are highly effective. Trying to make the public aware of the very pressing dangerous is almost impossible. Understandably, nobody really wants to hear it and this is one particular part of the Strategic Defence Review that I think is very important.
We need all of society effort to counter this and prepare for this and I strongly agree with the noble Lord in that aspect and and also with Lord Harris said in his speech. It's imperative to take action for the government and ensure Britain is ready to make warnings. It is not enough for television and newspapers to publish urgent editorials. The truth and the task is we have two primary eight public consciousness and I believe that unless the public has an idea of the sense of urgency, and the only way to wake people up is to establish a minister or Ministry of civil defence, charged with killing millions of people how to respond to an attack.
The first priority is information. Right now, most have no idea of what to do in the event of a cyber attack on the internet or mobile phone network. The next step mobile phone network. The next step is to build up preparedness and we saw the quick panic of people during Covid and every home should have a backup of it as standard and information on basic steps that they should take. The national resilience question ranks at the forefront of the challenges facing this country now, in my opinion.
After all, communications networks are being hacked, social media is flooded with this information, free elections are targeted, undersea cables are cut, military bases are attacked by drones, infrastructure has been sabotaged, assassinations have been carried out on British soil. Financial and media companies are regularly blacked out and there are bombs on cargo planes. Resilience does not apply to the civilians but also the military of all three services and they must know that we support them. I conclude by saying, if I may, and to ask the noble Lord, the ex-defence minister, what sort of sign does it sure to those on the frontline -- show on the frontline of Estonia, which could slip into trouble, that we, as Britain, should reduce the contribution to the force that has done so much good.
What confidence can that give our allies that Britain should reduce its contribution at a time of great
I also see Mutch I share -- I also say how much I share the sentiments of my noble friend, whose committee I sit on, and particularly the armed forces which are a fantastic asset to the country. The publication of the Strategic Defence Review does set out with great clarity the nature of the threats in one civil place but, as it makes plain, the truth is we are already involved in a one-sided war and under constant threat of attack from the drummer.
We think, most people think that we are not here for the war with Russia and we are not, Russia is at war with us on the whole of Western Europe. We are subject in this country to efforts to manipulate information and undermine social cohesion and political will and they will become worse and they are highly effective. Trying to make the public aware of the very pressing dangerous is almost impossible. Understandably, nobody really wants to hear it and this is one particular part of the Strategic Defence Review that I think is very important.
We need all of society effort to counter this and prepare for this and I strongly agree with the noble Lord in that aspect and and also with Lord Harris said in his speech. It's imperative to take action for the government and ensure Britain is ready to make warnings. It is not enough for television and newspapers to publish urgent editorials. The truth and the task is we have two primary eight public consciousness and I believe that unless the public has an idea of the sense of urgency, and the only way to wake people up is to establish a minister or Ministry of civil defence, charged with killing millions of people how to respond to an attack.
The first priority is information. Right now, most have no idea of what to do in the event of a cyber attack on the internet or mobile phone network. The next step mobile phone network. The next step is to build up preparedness and we saw the quick panic of people during Covid and every home should have a backup of it as standard and information on basic steps that they should take. The national resilience question ranks at the forefront of the challenges facing this country now, in my opinion.
After all, communications networks are being hacked, social media is flooded with this information, free elections are targeted, undersea cables are cut, military bases are attacked by drones, infrastructure has been sabotaged, assassinations have been carried out on British soil. Financial and media companies are regularly blacked out and there are bombs on cargo planes. Resilience does not apply to the civilians but also the military of all three services and they must know that we support them. I conclude by saying, if I may, and to ask the noble Lord, the ex-defence minister, what sort of sign does it sure to those on the frontline -- show on the frontline of Estonia, which could slip into trouble, that we, as Britain, should reduce the contribution to the force that has done so much good.
What confidence can that give our allies that Britain should reduce its contribution at a time of great
11:23
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (Crossbench)
I thank my honourable friend for his kind words. It is a delight to be sandwiched between him and my other noble friend. It is good to see if you want. At the heart of the storm in British government since VE Day is two all the drills which are linked and the pursuit of them has brought frustration. -- Two holy Grail Prue. They are strategies. They are involved in productivity growth and GDP per head. Also, there are the reviews, by the dozen, intended to extract every fluid ounce of military and diplomatic Jews from the economy.
-- dues. This is to maintain float and the marketable. Our greatest ever Foreign Secretary understood the situation instinctively. In 1947, when coal was nationalised and I was born, there was an extra 1 million tonnes of coal a year in return for a policy. If he was in the chamber today, he would appreciate, in a flash, the significance of what we are debating and what was in the are debating and what was in the report from Lord Robertson.
This is the latest in a long line of reviews and Lord Robertson has applied grey matter and rich experience to break through the crust of the matters and I congratulate my noble friend on the penetration of analysis and the risk assessment. I share the thrust of along with the conviction of the Prime Minister that the sustained effort is required if the multiple dangers facing our land, people, values are to be reduced. We really need a sense of urgency of the kind Lord Bevan brought to the creation of NATO in 1949 and we also need a dash of poetry in the planning.
We have to convey the moral arguments to make them sing and we must have no shortcuts taken with rule of law at home with the decency of the constitution and the same applies to military operations. Defence reviews should say that firmly and without equivocation. We must hold our ground in terms of morality. We ground in terms of morality. We carry the values of society as well as explosives in the nose cones of our weapons.
Lord Robertson's Comments have sharpened our sense of what is needed for Defence all round and there are issues with the electronic revolution in the hands of those who would do us harm and we must look at civil and military defence to secure national security. I add my support to the suggestions about this approach made by the noble Lord. I end with a final vote, might this be the moment to revive something alongside the old central policy created by Edward Heath which matches my honourable friend and my honourable friend is a founding member of the CRPS.
Might this be the moment for revival? It could be part of the cabinet office as it was and it could work alongside the national security secretary at. About 30 people could do this. 50% insiders, 50% insiders, past to forecast, where possible, and to speak truth, where necessary. It should publish as much of its product as it can for the benefit of public Parliament, select committees. It is so modest in terms of cost as to barely disturb even the most sceptical Treasury main.
The rest is for another day. Before I sit down, cast your mind's I up to the gallery. You can see Aneurin Bevan with his huge smiles appreciation. It is time once again to stand on the shoulders of giants. to stand on the shoulders of giants.
-- dues. This is to maintain float and the marketable. Our greatest ever Foreign Secretary understood the situation instinctively. In 1947, when coal was nationalised and I was born, there was an extra 1 million tonnes of coal a year in return for a policy. If he was in the chamber today, he would appreciate, in a flash, the significance of what we are debating and what was in the are debating and what was in the report from Lord Robertson.
This is the latest in a long line of reviews and Lord Robertson has applied grey matter and rich experience to break through the crust of the matters and I congratulate my noble friend on the penetration of analysis and the risk assessment. I share the thrust of along with the conviction of the Prime Minister that the sustained effort is required if the multiple dangers facing our land, people, values are to be reduced. We really need a sense of urgency of the kind Lord Bevan brought to the creation of NATO in 1949 and we also need a dash of poetry in the planning.
We have to convey the moral arguments to make them sing and we must have no shortcuts taken with rule of law at home with the decency of the constitution and the same applies to military operations. Defence reviews should say that firmly and without equivocation. We must hold our ground in terms of morality. We ground in terms of morality. We carry the values of society as well as explosives in the nose cones of our weapons.
Lord Robertson's Comments have sharpened our sense of what is needed for Defence all round and there are issues with the electronic revolution in the hands of those who would do us harm and we must look at civil and military defence to secure national security. I add my support to the suggestions about this approach made by the noble Lord. I end with a final vote, might this be the moment to revive something alongside the old central policy created by Edward Heath which matches my honourable friend and my honourable friend is a founding member of the CRPS.
Might this be the moment for revival? It could be part of the cabinet office as it was and it could work alongside the national security secretary at. About 30 people could do this. 50% insiders, 50% insiders, past to forecast, where possible, and to speak truth, where necessary. It should publish as much of its product as it can for the benefit of public Parliament, select committees. It is so modest in terms of cost as to barely disturb even the most sceptical Treasury main.
The rest is for another day. Before I sit down, cast your mind's I up to the gallery. You can see Aneurin Bevan with his huge smiles appreciation. It is time once again to stand on the shoulders of giants. to stand on the shoulders of giants.
11:29
Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)
I congratulate Lord McCabe on his maiden speech. It was robust and sensible. I cannot conceal my extreme pleasure that we are here under the terms of my noble friend, Lord Hennessy, who guides our thoughts on the constant need for constitutional evolution and reform to stay together and it begins to shine the light on the changing relationship and affects everything else, including, particularly, the nature of Defence in society. I hope the excellent and wise reviewers, who I greatly respect, and that you been to deprecate Uelese I see the been to deprecate Uelese I see the review as excellent in parts -- to deprecate when I say that I see review is excellent in parts.
It is about time and alongside that, there are some clear risks and floors which challenge the value and trust which challenge the value and trust optical exercise. -- flaws. I will come to them quickly but first, the positives, and Lord Robertson talked positives, and Lord Robertson talked about this being a whole-of-society issue and it's not a new thought stop the Russians have tried to undermine civilian morale and destroy facilities to undermine, in turn, the troops.
The aim and obvious things is to destroy civilian morale and the put that first and military collapse will follow and that is what the Germans thought they could do a 1939 and the Russians are trying to kill supply lines, civilian life, the nation. It fails every time and will probably fail again but it is the first of Secondly in this review, marvellous emphasis on new technology and activity, fundamental change brought on by drones of every shape and size in huge quantities.
Amazing missile accuracy and enormous range, and the review itself says, technology driving the greatest change in how war is fought for a century. Almost the greatest change in holiday history. Then there is the core for a new National Armaments Director, something we tried back in 1970 with Sir Derek Rayner and the new Minister for Procurement. We learnt blood loss we have learnt enough. Huge substantial reserves, are still excellent. And of course the cadet forces as well.
It sounds a bit like restored national service, and this is a big move in the right direction. Much get improvements, much better force, but I note no merging of forces. Always a delicate matter with regimental loyalties. Talk of the Navy which itself will have to concentrate on patrolling the seabed, unmanned submarines, these will be the features 10 years from now. They will require a whole new approach of a naval strategy. And then warfare. That is the good part of the story.
The bad side, be free to be mentioned, firstly there is no reference in this whole document to nuclear pool of about which the rest of the world is discussing. We have spent 50 years trying to prevent nuclear proliferation, but suddenly everyone is talking about it and saying if Ukraine had hung on to its nuclear weapons, it would not be where it is now. There is nothing on the central financial issue of Treasury over dominance, the need for a private finance initiative, and the sort of ideas touched on by Lord Hennessy of restoring a seminal drive for the strategy system, in a part of government that is not always dominated and delayed by Treasury been counting.
I'd like to say more about baptism in this report. I don't think nationalism, but I mean everyone needs a country to love and we certainly do. I am worried about the emphasis on NATO first. I think the next challenge may well be coming from a new war zone in the Indo-Pacific which has become a dangerous crossroads of world trade and prosperity with Diego Garcia. The Commonwealth was mentioned earlier, ideally the coastal and island states of the Commonwealth, the ideal network for the integration of maritime data and integration of maritime data and this should be exploited.
Bearing in mind that the Red Sea entrance is now closed, and the Cape route is being challenged. These are dangerous times for this nation on the high seas. Finally, I would like to have seen a much stronger stretched out to Japan which is anxious to merge with us with many new projects. And finally finally, what about the United Nations? Everyone says it should be reformed or replaced because it is not doing its job or stop we will not be safe until we have jointly and contributed powerfully to what should replace the international order, in the present climate and energy operation in August.
Populism
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is more assertive. My Lords, my Lords, the House has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, my Lords, the House has been very encouraging but it is two
**** Possible New Speaker ****
minutes over the advisory time so perhaps you really could wind up. My last sentences, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My last sentences, the international rules of law are being international rules of law are being broken, international rules of war are being broken and we must be
It is about time and alongside that, there are some clear risks and floors which challenge the value and trust which challenge the value and trust optical exercise. -- flaws. I will come to them quickly but first, the positives, and Lord Robertson talked positives, and Lord Robertson talked about this being a whole-of-society issue and it's not a new thought stop the Russians have tried to undermine civilian morale and destroy facilities to undermine, in turn, the troops.
The aim and obvious things is to destroy civilian morale and the put that first and military collapse will follow and that is what the Germans thought they could do a 1939 and the Russians are trying to kill supply lines, civilian life, the nation. It fails every time and will probably fail again but it is the first of Secondly in this review, marvellous emphasis on new technology and activity, fundamental change brought on by drones of every shape and size in huge quantities.
Amazing missile accuracy and enormous range, and the review itself says, technology driving the greatest change in how war is fought for a century. Almost the greatest change in holiday history. Then there is the core for a new National Armaments Director, something we tried back in 1970 with Sir Derek Rayner and the new Minister for Procurement. We learnt blood loss we have learnt enough. Huge substantial reserves, are still excellent. And of course the cadet forces as well.
It sounds a bit like restored national service, and this is a big move in the right direction. Much get improvements, much better force, but I note no merging of forces. Always a delicate matter with regimental loyalties. Talk of the Navy which itself will have to concentrate on patrolling the seabed, unmanned submarines, these will be the features 10 years from now. They will require a whole new approach of a naval strategy. And then warfare. That is the good part of the story.
The bad side, be free to be mentioned, firstly there is no reference in this whole document to nuclear pool of about which the rest of the world is discussing. We have spent 50 years trying to prevent nuclear proliferation, but suddenly everyone is talking about it and saying if Ukraine had hung on to its nuclear weapons, it would not be where it is now. There is nothing on the central financial issue of Treasury over dominance, the need for a private finance initiative, and the sort of ideas touched on by Lord Hennessy of restoring a seminal drive for the strategy system, in a part of government that is not always dominated and delayed by Treasury been counting.
I'd like to say more about baptism in this report. I don't think nationalism, but I mean everyone needs a country to love and we certainly do. I am worried about the emphasis on NATO first. I think the next challenge may well be coming from a new war zone in the Indo-Pacific which has become a dangerous crossroads of world trade and prosperity with Diego Garcia. The Commonwealth was mentioned earlier, ideally the coastal and island states of the Commonwealth, the ideal network for the integration of maritime data and integration of maritime data and this should be exploited.
Bearing in mind that the Red Sea entrance is now closed, and the Cape route is being challenged. These are dangerous times for this nation on the high seas. Finally, I would like to have seen a much stronger stretched out to Japan which is anxious to merge with us with many new projects. And finally finally, what about the United Nations? Everyone says it should be reformed or replaced because it is not doing its job or stop we will not be safe until we have jointly and contributed powerfully to what should replace the international order, in the present climate and energy operation in August.
Populism
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is more assertive. My Lords, my Lords, the House has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, my Lords, the House has been very encouraging but it is two
**** Possible New Speaker ****
minutes over the advisory time so perhaps you really could wind up. My last sentences, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My last sentences, the international rules of law are being international rules of law are being broken, international rules of war are being broken and we must be
11:36
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Harlech (Conservative)
alert and prepared and defend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I declare my interest are serving with the first Battalion guard. And as a member of the APPG on climate nature and security. I congratulate Lord McCabe on an outstanding Maiden Lord McCabe on an outstanding Maiden speech. We are right to recognise the scale of the threats we now face. As the noble Lord Lord Robertson outlined in his introduction, the world is becoming introduction, the world is becoming more dangerous, not less. Russia's ambitions have not dimmed. Our adversaries reach is growing.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, grey zone warfare is no longer a grey zone warfare is no longer a theory, it is being waged against us daily, from cyber attacks to disinformation, sabotage, and political subversion. The review political subversion. The review sets out a vision. Rebuilding the Armed Forces, lifting defence Armed Forces, lifting defence spending, investing in new capabilities. In reasserting our role within NATO. All of this is not role within NATO. All of this is not only welcome, it is necessary.
But if we are serious about national if we are serious about national defence, we cannot afford to let ambition outpace delivery. And ambition outpace delivery. And nowhere is that more at risk than in our treatment of the Reserve Forces. For too long, we have treated reserves as an afterthought. A "Just in case " solution was too often called at short notice, handed outdated kits, sidelined from training opportunities, and expected to deliver at the same standard as regulars. That is not the strategy.
As my noble friend outlined, if we are to rely more heavily on the reserves, as the review suggests, then we must be honest about what that actually requires. It means giving them the same standard of equipment. No more trickle-down hand-me-downs. It means equal access to courses and training opportunities. Too often, reserves find themselves bumped off areas by cadets or even other groups. That is not how serious military trains. It means securing the reserve estate itself. I have visited centres where the infrastructure is visibly crumbling.
Leaking roofs, obsolete classes, and equipping that has not been safer functional for years. It is not resilience, it is neglect. This is not the fault of the RFCA. We need a properly funded plan to fix the estate. Not patch and mend, but from what I have seen it is non-existent in the reserve context will stop what has happened to the reserve estate optimisation? My first question to the Minister is, will the MoD commit to a strategically funded upgrade plan of reserve infrastructure that matches the SDRs ambitions? With the facilities required to deliver training and operational capability? Because when the next war comes, and my Lords it will come, it will be too late to discover that the people we were relying on have been left behind by the very system that claims to need them.
So yes, let's support the aims of this review. Let us invest in a credible nuclear deterrent, let us embrace the potential of AI, of drones, opposition and long-range fires. But let us also remember that Armed Forces are built not on capability statement but on people. What we statement but on people. What we want our reserves to be is ready to fight alongside the regulars, and they must be trained, equipped, and respected as equals. Not as a budget saving measure.
I know that the Minister and the Minister for Veterans value reservists. But too often, words are not matched by action. Further questions to the Minister are, if, in the words of the Prime Minister, we are to move to war fighting readiness, will reservists be given legal job protection, not only for mobilisation, and also for training, as in the US, Canada, and Australia? Will the MoD introduce Reservist skills passport, in line with the army talent management system then rolled out to regulars? To tangibly demonstrate the value reservists bring to civilian employers, by giving equivalent to military courses and qualifications, as is also the case in our Five Eyes counterparts.
The fine work of the SDR cannot be another glossy document followed by excuses. This document followed by excuses. This must be the moment we stop hollowing out the defences and start rebuilding with purpose, properly, and for the long term. and for the long term.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I declare my interest are serving with the first Battalion guard. And as a member of the APPG on climate nature and security. I congratulate Lord McCabe on an outstanding Maiden Lord McCabe on an outstanding Maiden speech. We are right to recognise the scale of the threats we now face. As the noble Lord Lord Robertson outlined in his introduction, the world is becoming introduction, the world is becoming more dangerous, not less. Russia's ambitions have not dimmed. Our adversaries reach is growing.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, grey zone warfare is no longer a grey zone warfare is no longer a theory, it is being waged against us daily, from cyber attacks to disinformation, sabotage, and political subversion. The review political subversion. The review sets out a vision. Rebuilding the Armed Forces, lifting defence Armed Forces, lifting defence spending, investing in new capabilities. In reasserting our role within NATO. All of this is not role within NATO. All of this is not only welcome, it is necessary.
But if we are serious about national if we are serious about national defence, we cannot afford to let ambition outpace delivery. And ambition outpace delivery. And nowhere is that more at risk than in our treatment of the Reserve Forces. For too long, we have treated reserves as an afterthought. A "Just in case " solution was too often called at short notice, handed outdated kits, sidelined from training opportunities, and expected to deliver at the same standard as regulars. That is not the strategy.
As my noble friend outlined, if we are to rely more heavily on the reserves, as the review suggests, then we must be honest about what that actually requires. It means giving them the same standard of equipment. No more trickle-down hand-me-downs. It means equal access to courses and training opportunities. Too often, reserves find themselves bumped off areas by cadets or even other groups. That is not how serious military trains. It means securing the reserve estate itself. I have visited centres where the infrastructure is visibly crumbling.
Leaking roofs, obsolete classes, and equipping that has not been safer functional for years. It is not resilience, it is neglect. This is not the fault of the RFCA. We need a properly funded plan to fix the estate. Not patch and mend, but from what I have seen it is non-existent in the reserve context will stop what has happened to the reserve estate optimisation? My first question to the Minister is, will the MoD commit to a strategically funded upgrade plan of reserve infrastructure that matches the SDRs ambitions? With the facilities required to deliver training and operational capability? Because when the next war comes, and my Lords it will come, it will be too late to discover that the people we were relying on have been left behind by the very system that claims to need them.
So yes, let's support the aims of this review. Let us invest in a credible nuclear deterrent, let us embrace the potential of AI, of drones, opposition and long-range fires. But let us also remember that Armed Forces are built not on capability statement but on people. What we statement but on people. What we want our reserves to be is ready to fight alongside the regulars, and they must be trained, equipped, and respected as equals. Not as a budget saving measure.
I know that the Minister and the Minister for Veterans value reservists. But too often, words are not matched by action. Further questions to the Minister are, if, in the words of the Prime Minister, we are to move to war fighting readiness, will reservists be given legal job protection, not only for mobilisation, and also for training, as in the US, Canada, and Australia? Will the MoD introduce Reservist skills passport, in line with the army talent management system then rolled out to regulars? To tangibly demonstrate the value reservists bring to civilian employers, by giving equivalent to military courses and qualifications, as is also the case in our Five Eyes counterparts.
The fine work of the SDR cannot be another glossy document followed by excuses. This document followed by excuses. This must be the moment we stop hollowing out the defences and start rebuilding with purpose, properly, and for the long term. and for the long term.
11:41
Lord Alderdice (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Alderdice (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, in a debate on 9 October 2024, are welcome at Strategic Defence Review being undertaken by Lord Robertson, I appeal to the noble Lord as I have done previously to see this review of defence as defence in its widest sense. He and his colleagues have done that, with the cooperation of a wide range of colleagues inside and outside government, and with a great deal of energy and commitment. They have produced an excellent review document, and I was most pleased to see it addressed many of the issues to which I referred at the time.
I am very encouraged that his Majesty's government has accepted both the vision and 62 recommendations in the SDR, with substantial upgrades to the Army, Navy, and RAF, and the greater degree of integration of the services. I welcome this though, in passing, can I say on a specific and quite expensive issue, I am less sure of the continued and deepening commitment to the F-35s is the wisest choice. The investment in homeland air and Missile Defence Centre the creation of new cyber units command, it's necessary.
But not just any future war but to protect us from the global cyber conflict that has already been underway for some years. The announcement about research and development in increasingly technologically sophisticated weapons and defence system, including the huge increase in the significance of drone warfare, cyber walk, and space as a key domain for defence, are all welcome. There is also an appreciation of less high- tech requirements, not only the necessary replacement of ammunition for the weapons we already have, but looking after the people in the services on whom we are so dependent.
For example, in addressing the shameful deterioration in military accommodation, and as a doctor you will not be surprised to see I welcome the chapter on defence medical services with its insistence on greater collaboration between the government department responsible for defence and health and social care. Chapter 4, subsection 3 emphasises that full-time and reserve service people are key to our defence. And in chapter 6, home defence and the whole of society approach is rightly emphasised. Everyone in our country needs to come to understand that we all have a part to play.
In a dangerous world, and at the time of the international rule of law seems to be dissolving before our eyes, we need to understand that the traditional boundaries of behaviour between countries in times of peace and war are being disavowed. Even bite some of our own close allies. I agree that we need to maintain and update our nuclear defence capabilities. I also firmly believe that de-escalation is an essential feature of defence planning. If our only response to acts of aggression is to engage in ever higher levels of aggression in return, which then provoke a reaction by the other side, then, as has often been observed, an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind.
In a world of nuclear weapons, the consequences are potentially not only catastrophic but existential. We need to think, work, and plan for how we use diplomatic and other relations with our enemies, as well as our friends, to be able to de- escalate dangerous situations, and that requires the deployment of appropriate resources to defend our Discussing the SDR in July, 2025, we would do well to reflect that in July 1955, 70 years ago this month, there was a manifesto issued by Bernard Russell in the middle of the Cold War, highlighting the dangers of nuclear weapons and calling for world leaders to look for peaceful resolutions to international conflicts.
Albert Einstein had written and spoken extensively on the issue and signed the manifesto shortly before his death on April 18, 1955. He had already realised that science and technology protect mankind along a road to develop nuclear weapons so powerful and destructive as to be beyond comprehension and perhaps beyond survival. It is later years, he -- in his later years, he devoted himself to writing about ideas for the future of humankind and in an article entitled 'The Real Robbery in the Hearts and Minds of Men', He Said, "High Thinking Will Not Said, "High Thinking Will Not Prevent Future World wise, future thinking can prevent broad was." One aspect of strategic defences not deterrence but also strategic de- escalation.
escalation.
I am very encouraged that his Majesty's government has accepted both the vision and 62 recommendations in the SDR, with substantial upgrades to the Army, Navy, and RAF, and the greater degree of integration of the services. I welcome this though, in passing, can I say on a specific and quite expensive issue, I am less sure of the continued and deepening commitment to the F-35s is the wisest choice. The investment in homeland air and Missile Defence Centre the creation of new cyber units command, it's necessary.
But not just any future war but to protect us from the global cyber conflict that has already been underway for some years. The announcement about research and development in increasingly technologically sophisticated weapons and defence system, including the huge increase in the significance of drone warfare, cyber walk, and space as a key domain for defence, are all welcome. There is also an appreciation of less high- tech requirements, not only the necessary replacement of ammunition for the weapons we already have, but looking after the people in the services on whom we are so dependent.
For example, in addressing the shameful deterioration in military accommodation, and as a doctor you will not be surprised to see I welcome the chapter on defence medical services with its insistence on greater collaboration between the government department responsible for defence and health and social care. Chapter 4, subsection 3 emphasises that full-time and reserve service people are key to our defence. And in chapter 6, home defence and the whole of society approach is rightly emphasised. Everyone in our country needs to come to understand that we all have a part to play.
In a dangerous world, and at the time of the international rule of law seems to be dissolving before our eyes, we need to understand that the traditional boundaries of behaviour between countries in times of peace and war are being disavowed. Even bite some of our own close allies. I agree that we need to maintain and update our nuclear defence capabilities. I also firmly believe that de-escalation is an essential feature of defence planning. If our only response to acts of aggression is to engage in ever higher levels of aggression in return, which then provoke a reaction by the other side, then, as has often been observed, an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind.
In a world of nuclear weapons, the consequences are potentially not only catastrophic but existential. We need to think, work, and plan for how we use diplomatic and other relations with our enemies, as well as our friends, to be able to de- escalate dangerous situations, and that requires the deployment of appropriate resources to defend our Discussing the SDR in July, 2025, we would do well to reflect that in July 1955, 70 years ago this month, there was a manifesto issued by Bernard Russell in the middle of the Cold War, highlighting the dangers of nuclear weapons and calling for world leaders to look for peaceful resolutions to international conflicts.
Albert Einstein had written and spoken extensively on the issue and signed the manifesto shortly before his death on April 18, 1955. He had already realised that science and technology protect mankind along a road to develop nuclear weapons so powerful and destructive as to be beyond comprehension and perhaps beyond survival. It is later years, he -- in his later years, he devoted himself to writing about ideas for the future of humankind and in an article entitled 'The Real Robbery in the Hearts and Minds of Men', He Said, "High Thinking Will Not Said, "High Thinking Will Not Prevent Future World wise, future thinking can prevent broad was." One aspect of strategic defences not deterrence but also strategic de- escalation.
escalation.
11:47
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
I welcome the debate and commend the noble Lord for the ambitious review and I congratulate Lord review and I congratulate Lord McCabe on his maiden speech. The world is less predictable and more dangerous, as others have noted and there are challenges identified from China, Iran, North Korea, Russia is at the centre of the threats to the UN and NATO allies. I would add that those in Europe not protected by the two find themselves at the mercy of Russia and also near two and the must shore it up and defend it.
The US is pivoting towards the Indo- Pacific and so European allies must shoulder a greater responsibility shoulder a greater responsibility for European security. We should not be unsettled by the asks of Washington. Credibility as an ally hinges on dependability, not dependents. The US contribution should complement, not substitute European capability. Too often, some allies are the recipients rather than acting to contribute to collective Defence. Rightly, technology is at the heart of the review and drones have transformed warfare in Ukraine and led to a decisive edge and we must keep pace with the integration and I welcome autonomy and integration.
An edition of 3% in the next Parliament is welcome. If you are serious about helping Ukraine we should treat 3% as a baseline. The review fails to exposing the mentioned commitment to international law. A war is a war. There is acknowledgement of the erosion of international agreements, but the review does not have mention of upholding international law and this is a multiple of concerning omission. Previous reviews and security strategies in 2010, 2015, all reaffirmed UK commitment to international law but the current Strategic Defence Review does not.
This matters profoundly. We are facing a series who have not followed the rules and are not curtailing aggression and promoting peace. We must protect civilians from sexual violence in conflict and prevent nuclear issues. They are as unprecedented strain and particularly given was in Syria, particularly given was in Syria, Ukraine, Orion, the DRC, Gaza. A world in which these laws are ignored is dangerous to the UK. -- Iran. There must not be double standards with our adversaries are among us.
Delivering the aims of the review will not be achieved by statements alone. Success, whether in building industrial capacity or deeper integration with NATO depends on political bill, resources, public support. I welcome the emphasis and that if you are national resilience and a whole-of-society approach but it cannot be taken for granted. Defence is too disconnected from every delay can people do not understand what we are defending and why it matters or how we intend to do it. Rebuilding that understanding will be essential and it relies on public trust only policy and commitment to international law.
The review marks a step in the right direction and has many oh claims of correct policies and pass forward but we must focus on finding what we promise, re-establishing the link between power and legitimacy, and making the case for Defence, not only in this House but throughout the country. the country.
The US is pivoting towards the Indo- Pacific and so European allies must shoulder a greater responsibility shoulder a greater responsibility for European security. We should not be unsettled by the asks of Washington. Credibility as an ally hinges on dependability, not dependents. The US contribution should complement, not substitute European capability. Too often, some allies are the recipients rather than acting to contribute to collective Defence. Rightly, technology is at the heart of the review and drones have transformed warfare in Ukraine and led to a decisive edge and we must keep pace with the integration and I welcome autonomy and integration.
An edition of 3% in the next Parliament is welcome. If you are serious about helping Ukraine we should treat 3% as a baseline. The review fails to exposing the mentioned commitment to international law. A war is a war. There is acknowledgement of the erosion of international agreements, but the review does not have mention of upholding international law and this is a multiple of concerning omission. Previous reviews and security strategies in 2010, 2015, all reaffirmed UK commitment to international law but the current Strategic Defence Review does not.
This matters profoundly. We are facing a series who have not followed the rules and are not curtailing aggression and promoting peace. We must protect civilians from sexual violence in conflict and prevent nuclear issues. They are as unprecedented strain and particularly given was in Syria, particularly given was in Syria, Ukraine, Orion, the DRC, Gaza. A world in which these laws are ignored is dangerous to the UK. -- Iran. There must not be double standards with our adversaries are among us.
Delivering the aims of the review will not be achieved by statements alone. Success, whether in building industrial capacity or deeper integration with NATO depends on political bill, resources, public support. I welcome the emphasis and that if you are national resilience and a whole-of-society approach but it cannot be taken for granted. Defence is too disconnected from every delay can people do not understand what we are defending and why it matters or how we intend to do it. Rebuilding that understanding will be essential and it relies on public trust only policy and commitment to international law.
The review marks a step in the right direction and has many oh claims of correct policies and pass forward but we must focus on finding what we promise, re-establishing the link between power and legitimacy, and making the case for Defence, not only in this House but throughout the country. the country.
11:51
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
-
-
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
To my noble friend, Lord McCabe, many congratulations. To Lord Hennessy, welcome home. To make good friend, Lord Robertson, I am reminded that, uniquely, this is his second SDR with the first in 1998. Much has changed since 1998. Back then, there was less emphasis on hormone security and the whole-of- society approach. There was a different view of Russia, almost up a name view, because we had the -- benign view.
We had the NATO-Russia, a Parliamentary assembly, and no, following the speech of Putin, Russia is ever more aggressive and threatening us with cyber attacks, underwater cables, most of all, underwater cables, most of all, following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and Brexit has occurred since and now we can look at less from NATO, less from the US, and more Europe. I am concerned about the recent bilateral visits by the German and French leaders. There are a vast number of other changes.
From China, it is more salient. The nature of warfare has changed, as we have seen in Ukraine and, at the have seen in Ukraine and, at the time, in 1998, there was not much mention of drones and now 80% of the damage in Ukraine is caused by them and, of course, AI has altered the perception of warfare and available weaponry. The question is, since 1998, with all these changes, has the new SDR adequately envisioned the task? I think almost universally the answer from public leaders is yes.
I have two questions. One, recruitment. Two, alliances. On recruitment, there is what the Secretary Of State Defence says in the introduction, a crisis of recruitment. This has already been dealt with by some, including the noble Lord and that is in terms of the reserve forces. We must recognise from the start that there is a military career almost against the spirit of the age, particularly for the younger generation which we need to attract into the military.
There are a number of suggestions made in the SDR. Clearly, we need to make a military career more family- attractive, look at housing, education, qualifications, which are portable and can be taken into civilian life. We need to relate more to civilians and also with the industrial sector. And so there is a vast range of trying to recruit more. In the last bid, one member mentioned relying more on the Gurkhas, which currently make up 8% of military forces.
They are really has to be more reserves and a greater role for civilian staff in greater role for civilian staff in administration and releasing men and women for more frontline matters. My second point is alliances. In the Falklands war, 1982, it was the last war in which we carried out uniquely on our own. In future, alliances have changed, Lecce of change, we have to rely less on the US and more on European forces. Less US, more EU.
These two very important visits from Macron, talking about the new nuclear alliance and the German President talking about more industrial relationships and exports and I wonder if the MoD have talked about a more triangular relationship about a more triangular relationship between the French and Germans and there is a Parliamentary dimension to consider which I think is important and I think this is a valuable Strategic Defence Review which takes into account the changes since the last one by Lord Robertson and we say with a loud voice to the government, "Over to you." government, "Over to you."
We had the NATO-Russia, a Parliamentary assembly, and no, following the speech of Putin, Russia is ever more aggressive and threatening us with cyber attacks, underwater cables, most of all, underwater cables, most of all, following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and Brexit has occurred since and now we can look at less from NATO, less from the US, and more Europe. I am concerned about the recent bilateral visits by the German and French leaders. There are a vast number of other changes.
From China, it is more salient. The nature of warfare has changed, as we have seen in Ukraine and, at the have seen in Ukraine and, at the time, in 1998, there was not much mention of drones and now 80% of the damage in Ukraine is caused by them and, of course, AI has altered the perception of warfare and available weaponry. The question is, since 1998, with all these changes, has the new SDR adequately envisioned the task? I think almost universally the answer from public leaders is yes.
I have two questions. One, recruitment. Two, alliances. On recruitment, there is what the Secretary Of State Defence says in the introduction, a crisis of recruitment. This has already been dealt with by some, including the noble Lord and that is in terms of the reserve forces. We must recognise from the start that there is a military career almost against the spirit of the age, particularly for the younger generation which we need to attract into the military.
There are a number of suggestions made in the SDR. Clearly, we need to make a military career more family- attractive, look at housing, education, qualifications, which are portable and can be taken into civilian life. We need to relate more to civilians and also with the industrial sector. And so there is a vast range of trying to recruit more. In the last bid, one member mentioned relying more on the Gurkhas, which currently make up 8% of military forces.
They are really has to be more reserves and a greater role for civilian staff in greater role for civilian staff in administration and releasing men and women for more frontline matters. My second point is alliances. In the Falklands war, 1982, it was the last war in which we carried out uniquely on our own. In future, alliances have changed, Lecce of change, we have to rely less on the US and more on European forces. Less US, more EU.
These two very important visits from Macron, talking about the new nuclear alliance and the German President talking about more industrial relationships and exports and I wonder if the MoD have talked about a more triangular relationship about a more triangular relationship between the French and Germans and there is a Parliamentary dimension to consider which I think is important and I think this is a valuable Strategic Defence Review which takes into account the changes since the last one by Lord Robertson and we say with a loud voice to the government, "Over to you." government, "Over to you."
11:57
Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
I commend the author on the major and wide-ranging review which fits well into the future and draws the obvious conclusion, without guaranteed funding and being strong enough to deter aggression, security is suspect. We are not safe. I have taken part from the sidelines in review before. The first one focused on the Russian threat and dealing with the effects of the Cold War. And now again we are dealing with mainly Russia. Today, they have chosen to threaten NATO.
In 1975, the Defence Secretary was relying on the nuclear deterrent and it was discussed that it was rapidly declining. I will focus on two major declining. I will focus on two major issues. Firstly, Putin has been mentioned and things are showing improvement but it is well below need. It must be sustained. Recruitment success depends upon getting a lame duck but on the training effort that is available and touring the recruits into frontline performance.
Recruiting frontline performance. Recruiting targets will take longer to reach with retirements. This is recognised by the review. All recruitment specialist in retention must be fully funded. It should be remembered that senior military leaders in the 2052 and 26 Teakle are -- 2050s and 26 Teakle are not the same and we are struggling to retain them at every stage of their retain them at every stage of their careers.
In this review antibody 2033, this has been considered. With respect to rank as well as pay must not be forgotten. The pay review body needs new guidelines that will encourage and sustain full careers for the bright and it must attract and retain the types and range of and retain the types and range of And major issue also fully recognises the court can nature of procurement. Regrettably, it is an issue despite every single one of the reviews of the past 25 years, the Government has a review, new procedures are devised, only to prove, ultimately, as inadequate as before.
While new procedures may well be necessary, listens to be learned from partial failure could not seek to be fully analysed cancel if it is the Treasury's mandate to spread them widely and be averse to risk, this seems to be one reason why just about every expenditure was not solely the responsibility of the budget but must be signed off at a measured pace by the Treasury. The experience of procuring and finance and urgent operational qualms and the shortening of bypass to the treasuries more measured traits, I have listens for the future.
But all MoD procurement procedures targeted may be proving unrealistic for cross Government approval and it is unlikely on past experience. And failure to deliver on the author's proposals is largely due to an inability of finance been delivered at a time with the outcomes posed and accepted. I wish this review a better legacy.
In 1975, the Defence Secretary was relying on the nuclear deterrent and it was discussed that it was rapidly declining. I will focus on two major declining. I will focus on two major issues. Firstly, Putin has been mentioned and things are showing improvement but it is well below need. It must be sustained. Recruitment success depends upon getting a lame duck but on the training effort that is available and touring the recruits into frontline performance.
Recruiting frontline performance. Recruiting targets will take longer to reach with retirements. This is recognised by the review. All recruitment specialist in retention must be fully funded. It should be remembered that senior military leaders in the 2052 and 26 Teakle are -- 2050s and 26 Teakle are not the same and we are struggling to retain them at every stage of their retain them at every stage of their careers.
In this review antibody 2033, this has been considered. With respect to rank as well as pay must not be forgotten. The pay review body needs new guidelines that will encourage and sustain full careers for the bright and it must attract and retain the types and range of and retain the types and range of And major issue also fully recognises the court can nature of procurement. Regrettably, it is an issue despite every single one of the reviews of the past 25 years, the Government has a review, new procedures are devised, only to prove, ultimately, as inadequate as before.
While new procedures may well be necessary, listens to be learned from partial failure could not seek to be fully analysed cancel if it is the Treasury's mandate to spread them widely and be averse to risk, this seems to be one reason why just about every expenditure was not solely the responsibility of the budget but must be signed off at a measured pace by the Treasury. The experience of procuring and finance and urgent operational qualms and the shortening of bypass to the treasuries more measured traits, I have listens for the future.
But all MoD procurement procedures targeted may be proving unrealistic for cross Government approval and it is unlikely on past experience. And failure to deliver on the author's proposals is largely due to an inability of finance been delivered at a time with the outcomes posed and accepted. I wish this review a better legacy.
12:02
Lord Tugendhat (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Tugendhat (Conservative)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Noble Lord Robinson on his review. I to welcome back the Noble Lord Hennessy whose writing has done so much to come to my own thinking on others. Given the time available, it is only possible to deal with one or two subjects in this review I will deal with just two. The first is to take up the Prime Minister's words in his introduction and the step change and the threats we face demands a step change in Britain's defence to meet them.
That is a theme that many of the noble Lords have spoken on, but, actually, it is only half the story. And I are not usually it is the most important of of the story, despite the great ally, the United States on whom we, along with other European countries, are dependent on our ultimate defence, since the war. President Trump has said many things about the United States and NATO and many things about the United States and European defence.
At one thing is absolutely clear, that is he does not see the world in the same wear as we do, and it is not now possible to rely on the US commitment to our defence. Article 5 of the NATO treaty as we have done in the past. And regardless of the threats that we face, regardless of whether Russia is a major threat or a potential threat or actual threat or whatever, regardless of the threats we face, to which the Prime Minister refers, we can no longer assume that we will always be fighting alongside the Americans.
That, in itself, requires a massive military expenditure, given the extent to which our Armed Forces would have been capable of mounting sufficient military operations without Americans support. Other Europeans are in the same boat and I recognise that fact. We are working closely with them and I congratulate the Government on the way in which has his prepared relationships with Germany, with France, and with our other European allies. I believe that to the extent that we and our other European allies spend or prepare more make ourselves more prepare more make ourselves more efficient, we would be able, in fact, to encourage the Americans to play a larger part rather than discouraging, but what about the truth of the matter, it is absolutely essential that we should do everything we can to keep the Americans on board and to keep the Americans closely involved.
My second point is of a very different order, whether or not there would be another crisis that might lead to war, let alone another war, we war, let alone another war, we cannot know, but we do know that our critical national, pipelines, fibre-optic cables, wind turbines, and IT networks is under constant threat. We also know from the review itself that what it terms the cyber and electromagnetic domain is, and I quote, tested by adversaries everyday.
The United Kingdom is in constant confrontation with adversaries in cyberspace defending national. Many of the noble Lords have referred to that. Now, in this, as in other areas, we will, we do, of course, will, of course, works closely with other allies and to the east and south of us but what we have to the rest of us through whose territorial waters and territory the vast bulk of transatlantic cables vast bulk of transatlantic cables pass, as noble Lords no we Ireland spends very little on defence, has no submarines.
So, my question to the Government is this : will our Western approaches be as sufficiently protected as those to the east and to the south of us? If so, will they be sufficiently protected? If not, cannot be fixed? I would be interested to know the Governments views on this point. Governments views on this point.
That is a theme that many of the noble Lords have spoken on, but, actually, it is only half the story. And I are not usually it is the most important of of the story, despite the great ally, the United States on whom we, along with other European countries, are dependent on our ultimate defence, since the war. President Trump has said many things about the United States and NATO and many things about the United States and European defence.
At one thing is absolutely clear, that is he does not see the world in the same wear as we do, and it is not now possible to rely on the US commitment to our defence. Article 5 of the NATO treaty as we have done in the past. And regardless of the threats that we face, regardless of whether Russia is a major threat or a potential threat or actual threat or whatever, regardless of the threats we face, to which the Prime Minister refers, we can no longer assume that we will always be fighting alongside the Americans.
That, in itself, requires a massive military expenditure, given the extent to which our Armed Forces would have been capable of mounting sufficient military operations without Americans support. Other Europeans are in the same boat and I recognise that fact. We are working closely with them and I congratulate the Government on the way in which has his prepared relationships with Germany, with France, and with our other European allies. I believe that to the extent that we and our other European allies spend or prepare more make ourselves more prepare more make ourselves more efficient, we would be able, in fact, to encourage the Americans to play a larger part rather than discouraging, but what about the truth of the matter, it is absolutely essential that we should do everything we can to keep the Americans on board and to keep the Americans closely involved.
My second point is of a very different order, whether or not there would be another crisis that might lead to war, let alone another war, we war, let alone another war, we cannot know, but we do know that our critical national, pipelines, fibre-optic cables, wind turbines, and IT networks is under constant threat. We also know from the review itself that what it terms the cyber and electromagnetic domain is, and I quote, tested by adversaries everyday.
The United Kingdom is in constant confrontation with adversaries in cyberspace defending national. Many of the noble Lords have referred to that. Now, in this, as in other areas, we will, we do, of course, will, of course, works closely with other allies and to the east and south of us but what we have to the rest of us through whose territorial waters and territory the vast bulk of transatlantic cables vast bulk of transatlantic cables pass, as noble Lords no we Ireland spends very little on defence, has no submarines.
So, my question to the Government is this : will our Western approaches be as sufficiently protected as those to the east and to the south of us? If so, will they be sufficiently protected? If not, cannot be fixed? I would be interested to know the Governments views on this point. Governments views on this point.
12:07
Baroness Mobarik (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Mobarik (Conservative)
My Lords, the Noble Lord Robertson's excellent strategic review rightly recognises that space is now a crucial and critical domain. One that monitors defence, national-security, and civilian infrastructure. What was once a metaphor for aspiration is not the domain of competition and, in that competition, space access is as vital to our national energy and national resilience. We often talk about strategic threats, economic resilience and levelling up, as if there are separate challenges. Specifically the U.K.'s ability to launch infrastructure brings all three together.
The Governments Integrated Review National Space Strategy and defence paper Allstate that this is a vital national asset, for security, for sovereignty. We now have you kept movement and a clear division to become a meaningful player in the global space economy. And without access, modern defence, protecting our satellites, all at risk, and this is the case in point, if we are serious about sovereign launch capability and what they're doing to deliver it, the recent STI clearly acknowledges the strategic necessity of space access, it supports the development of enhanced military spaces, calls for greater civil military collaboration and the position space is essential to modern defences, but it does not modern defences, but it does not explicitly commit to developing a UK sovereign or UK launch capability.
That is a striking omission and a missed opportunity to outline the words with action. Let's take this as an example. This is a proud and remote region in the north of Scotland but also one of the most economically fragile. According to Highlands enterprise IT faces a 26% population decline by 2041. The use out my is accelerating and outcomes are 20% lower than the UK average. These are the long-term systems of underinvestment, and yet it is also the site of one of the U.K.'s most forward-looking projects, a vertical launch spaceport spearheaded by the UK space agency.
This is not just a symbol, it is a serious potential sovereign capability, but the problem is that we still have no active lunch capabilities. While the US, India, and even New Zealand are launching from their own soil, the UK is dependent on foreign providers. Over the last decade, the Ministry of Defence has spent £1.4 billion on space -related capabilities, yet the vast majority of this is still outsourced abroad. So, I would suggest that if you want to support private investment, grants alone are not enough.
We need also contracts, long-term reliable Government procurement and satellite services as a single market that the UK backs its own capability. And this should be an opportunity for regeneration and economic growth as well as national security. This enables faster response times, secure ISR, that is intelligence, and independence in crisis and, crucially matter as us to put that capability in regions, giving people new futures they once thought out of reach and we have a chance to turn this into critical infrastructure helping investors turn strategy into something that people can actually see in their communities.
Not one luncheon from the Highlands statement but also a national statement. One that says we are taken in economic sovereignty, we believe in economic transformation and we believe in the people and places that have too long been overlooked, so I asked the Noble Lord the Minister why does the defence review play such important groundwork for the UK sovereign Lodge. Short of making it a court ordered objective? And as a final word I would say that to be truly sovereign we must be resilient across the UK and real tangible support for the plurality of options.
In today's world to luncheon our own soil without access to space, modern defence and prosperity, if we are too circuitous a future in this domain, remaining sovereign access to lunch must become a national imperative.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my Noble Friend. I join with
The Governments Integrated Review National Space Strategy and defence paper Allstate that this is a vital national asset, for security, for sovereignty. We now have you kept movement and a clear division to become a meaningful player in the global space economy. And without access, modern defence, protecting our satellites, all at risk, and this is the case in point, if we are serious about sovereign launch capability and what they're doing to deliver it, the recent STI clearly acknowledges the strategic necessity of space access, it supports the development of enhanced military spaces, calls for greater civil military collaboration and the position space is essential to modern defences, but it does not modern defences, but it does not explicitly commit to developing a UK sovereign or UK launch capability.
That is a striking omission and a missed opportunity to outline the words with action. Let's take this as an example. This is a proud and remote region in the north of Scotland but also one of the most economically fragile. According to Highlands enterprise IT faces a 26% population decline by 2041. The use out my is accelerating and outcomes are 20% lower than the UK average. These are the long-term systems of underinvestment, and yet it is also the site of one of the U.K.'s most forward-looking projects, a vertical launch spaceport spearheaded by the UK space agency.
This is not just a symbol, it is a serious potential sovereign capability, but the problem is that we still have no active lunch capabilities. While the US, India, and even New Zealand are launching from their own soil, the UK is dependent on foreign providers. Over the last decade, the Ministry of Defence has spent £1.4 billion on space -related capabilities, yet the vast majority of this is still outsourced abroad. So, I would suggest that if you want to support private investment, grants alone are not enough.
We need also contracts, long-term reliable Government procurement and satellite services as a single market that the UK backs its own capability. And this should be an opportunity for regeneration and economic growth as well as national security. This enables faster response times, secure ISR, that is intelligence, and independence in crisis and, crucially matter as us to put that capability in regions, giving people new futures they once thought out of reach and we have a chance to turn this into critical infrastructure helping investors turn strategy into something that people can actually see in their communities.
Not one luncheon from the Highlands statement but also a national statement. One that says we are taken in economic sovereignty, we believe in economic transformation and we believe in the people and places that have too long been overlooked, so I asked the Noble Lord the Minister why does the defence review play such important groundwork for the UK sovereign Lodge. Short of making it a court ordered objective? And as a final word I would say that to be truly sovereign we must be resilient across the UK and real tangible support for the plurality of options.
In today's world to luncheon our own soil without access to space, modern defence and prosperity, if we are too circuitous a future in this domain, remaining sovereign access to lunch must become a national imperative.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my Noble Friend. I join with
12:13
Lord Bates (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bates (Conservative)
follow my Noble Friend. I join with others in thanking Lord Robinson for introducing the debate and paying tribute to the Noble Lord for the excellent Maiden speech. I wanted address my remarks to paragraph 7 and eight of section 7.1 on page 100 of the review. They agreed the nuclear non-proliferation is a cornerstone of the disarmament regime. Then in power 88 states to maintain international confidence in the regime, continued UK leadership within the NPT is imperative. That section is highlighted in bold font.
So, the reviews, the NPT is as a cornerstone of our national security and UK leadership is imperative to it. Yet the prospects for agreement at the next MPG review conference in New York in April 2026 are bleak, with some predicting that the regime is on the brink of collapse. The reason is the lack of great power responsibility and leadership being exercised by the five nuclear states of the NPT of which we are one. So, the facts are that the NPT is the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, and yet it is in crisis because of a failure of leadership by the House.
There seems to be a rather obvious solution for that, which is oddly missing from the review and the P5 process because of the P5 process is British initiative that owes its business to visionary and courageous speeches by Baroness Beckett, then former secretary, on 25 June, 2007, in Washington DC, and white Lord Browne, the then defence secretary to the disarmament in Geneva on 5 February, 2008. I commend this to the House, to the Minister, and to his officials. In those speeches, they outlined the client to bring the P5 nuclear powers of the NPT around the table for full 20 of his of reducing risks and providing coordinated leadership for the non-proliferation regime.
They met for the first time at the Coral Street of the Foreign Office in September 2009, initially it worked. The 2010 NPT review conference was one of the most successful ever. Yet for geopolitical reasons with which we are all-too-familiar, that process In April this year, the UK took over the Chair of the process and will carry the leadership but on further P5 nuclear states in the run-up to the crucial NPT review next year. This is a chance to boost our influence to make a real difference when it is desperately needed.
Defence and security is not just about upgrading the military machinery to fight wars. It's also about upgrading the diplomatic machinery to avert them. So my request of the Minister is simple. It is one without cost. Will he agree to meet not me, he will be relieved to hear, but with his esteemed colleagues Baroness Beckett and Lord Browne, to understand their original vision for this great initiative, and consider how to grasp this moment of opportunity to reinvigorate the process which we started and which holds so much promise? If he does so, he will be realising the mission set out in the review of not just making Britain safer at home, but the world also.
I wish him well.
So, the reviews, the NPT is as a cornerstone of our national security and UK leadership is imperative to it. Yet the prospects for agreement at the next MPG review conference in New York in April 2026 are bleak, with some predicting that the regime is on the brink of collapse. The reason is the lack of great power responsibility and leadership being exercised by the five nuclear states of the NPT of which we are one. So, the facts are that the NPT is the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime, and yet it is in crisis because of a failure of leadership by the House.
There seems to be a rather obvious solution for that, which is oddly missing from the review and the P5 process because of the P5 process is British initiative that owes its business to visionary and courageous speeches by Baroness Beckett, then former secretary, on 25 June, 2007, in Washington DC, and white Lord Browne, the then defence secretary to the disarmament in Geneva on 5 February, 2008. I commend this to the House, to the Minister, and to his officials. In those speeches, they outlined the client to bring the P5 nuclear powers of the NPT around the table for full 20 of his of reducing risks and providing coordinated leadership for the non-proliferation regime.
They met for the first time at the Coral Street of the Foreign Office in September 2009, initially it worked. The 2010 NPT review conference was one of the most successful ever. Yet for geopolitical reasons with which we are all-too-familiar, that process In April this year, the UK took over the Chair of the process and will carry the leadership but on further P5 nuclear states in the run-up to the crucial NPT review next year. This is a chance to boost our influence to make a real difference when it is desperately needed.
Defence and security is not just about upgrading the military machinery to fight wars. It's also about upgrading the diplomatic machinery to avert them. So my request of the Minister is simple. It is one without cost. Will he agree to meet not me, he will be relieved to hear, but with his esteemed colleagues Baroness Beckett and Lord Browne, to understand their original vision for this great initiative, and consider how to grasp this moment of opportunity to reinvigorate the process which we started and which holds so much promise? If he does so, he will be realising the mission set out in the review of not just making Britain safer at home, but the world also.
I wish him well.
12:17
Lord Dannatt (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Dannatt (Crossbench)
I'm conscious that I'm at the halfway point of our debate, and therefore I risk some repetition, although repetition adds emphasis. I would emphasise that without sufficient and timely funding, the review will not make the impact to reach the author's aspire and which Irrespective of the many other funding pressures which the Chancellor is juggling, this review must be fully funded 3.5% of GDP by 2034 at the latest. And not deferred until sometime after 2035.
The risk of further repetition by myself, I would remind your Lordships to figures relating to the 1930s, are period in history with worrying analogies today. In 1935, we are spending less than 3% on defence and failed either to deter or appease Hitler. In 1939 when the war broke out, that figure jumped up to 19%. The figure was a staggering 46% later. That is the cost of having to fight a war. The Minister would agree that it is better to pay the correct premium for capable Armed Forces now and ensure ourselves against future war.
Deterrence must be our strategic objective. So, funding is the big issue, but so is our agility to respond quickly to new circumstances. If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it is that war drives the pace of innovation in an ever accelerating cycle. -- In ever accelerating cycles. Changes on or off the battlefield, changes at C and changes in the face of new threats are highly dynamic. Do not only amount to embracing new technologies but also realising that mass matters.
Whether it is masses of drones or soldiers on the ground. As the bloody frontlines of Ukraine testified, quantity has a quality of testified, quantity has a quality of its own. We must produce more and do it quickly. An aspect of the SDR that is particularly to be welcomed is the emphasis on national preparedness and resilience, not just as a response to direct confrontation but to the kaleidoscope of threats in the grey zone. But, as president and founding chairman of the National Emergencies Trust, I'm alarmed to hear that the timetable for delivering orders -- resilient nation mirrors the spending on the hard aspects of defence.
Until the resilience planning is focusing on the nation being prepared to face new threats domestically but not before the mid-2030s, I fear that in this area as well, the no money spending tale is working the threat response dog. -- tail. Can the Minister comment on strengthening our national resilience? Of course, plans can be accelerated when it comes to resilience to threats at home. What justification can there be for not increasing our capability at home and abroad until the mid-1930s? Are not alone in believing that it's more likely that following some form of ceasefire in Ukraine in the coming months that Vladimir Putin with his Armed Forces reconstructed through the clear focus of his war economy and defence industry will be in a position to test NATO's resolve in two or three years time, perhaps less.
Certainly before the 19 -- less. Certainly before the 19 -- certainly before the mid- 2030s. Would be fight for Estonia by two what consequences at home or abroad? More to the point, with the United States fight for Estonia? Vladimir Putin, would love nothing better than to shatter NATO. When a minister said earlier in the year that he was ready and willing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, he may have been willing, but can the Minister tell the House when we will be ready.
I submit that not until the mid- 2030s will be too late and represent a huge risk to our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cherished way of life. I congratulate my noble friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robertson and his colleagues on the report we are debating today. I congratulate Lord MacKay in his
The risk of further repetition by myself, I would remind your Lordships to figures relating to the 1930s, are period in history with worrying analogies today. In 1935, we are spending less than 3% on defence and failed either to deter or appease Hitler. In 1939 when the war broke out, that figure jumped up to 19%. The figure was a staggering 46% later. That is the cost of having to fight a war. The Minister would agree that it is better to pay the correct premium for capable Armed Forces now and ensure ourselves against future war.
Deterrence must be our strategic objective. So, funding is the big issue, but so is our agility to respond quickly to new circumstances. If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it is that war drives the pace of innovation in an ever accelerating cycle. -- In ever accelerating cycles. Changes on or off the battlefield, changes at C and changes in the face of new threats are highly dynamic. Do not only amount to embracing new technologies but also realising that mass matters.
Whether it is masses of drones or soldiers on the ground. As the bloody frontlines of Ukraine testified, quantity has a quality of testified, quantity has a quality of its own. We must produce more and do it quickly. An aspect of the SDR that is particularly to be welcomed is the emphasis on national preparedness and resilience, not just as a response to direct confrontation but to the kaleidoscope of threats in the grey zone. But, as president and founding chairman of the National Emergencies Trust, I'm alarmed to hear that the timetable for delivering orders -- resilient nation mirrors the spending on the hard aspects of defence.
Until the resilience planning is focusing on the nation being prepared to face new threats domestically but not before the mid-2030s, I fear that in this area as well, the no money spending tale is working the threat response dog. -- tail. Can the Minister comment on strengthening our national resilience? Of course, plans can be accelerated when it comes to resilience to threats at home. What justification can there be for not increasing our capability at home and abroad until the mid-1930s? Are not alone in believing that it's more likely that following some form of ceasefire in Ukraine in the coming months that Vladimir Putin with his Armed Forces reconstructed through the clear focus of his war economy and defence industry will be in a position to test NATO's resolve in two or three years time, perhaps less.
Certainly before the 19 -- less. Certainly before the 19 -- certainly before the mid- 2030s. Would be fight for Estonia by two what consequences at home or abroad? More to the point, with the United States fight for Estonia? Vladimir Putin, would love nothing better than to shatter NATO. When a minister said earlier in the year that he was ready and willing to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, he may have been willing, but can the Minister tell the House when we will be ready.
I submit that not until the mid- 2030s will be too late and represent a huge risk to our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cherished way of life. I congratulate my noble friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robertson and his colleagues on the report we are debating today. I congratulate Lord MacKay in his
12:22
12:24
12:24
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
to see Lord Hennessy back again in his place. He always brings poetry to proceedings. In some ways, I to proceedings. In some ways, I think this is difficult to grasp the changes we are living through but the SDR is nothing if not a wake-up the SDR is nothing if not a wake-up call, and must be the start of the sustained debate within this sustained debate within this country, and I support the whole of society approach. I belong to the generation born after the Second World War.
All my life I have lived World War. All my life I have lived under the broad protective umbrella of the United States and the post- of the United States and the post- war international order which is now changing before our very eyes. Everything is less certain than it Everything is less certain than it was and that includes article 5. I'm also all too conscious of the sacrifices made by the generation above me that has made possible the security. My uncle was an RAF security.
My uncle was an RAF fighter pilot who was killed shortly after D-Day and increase, my grandfather who was the air grandfather who was the air Commodore and a member of this house, was driven to join RAF operations as a rear gunner until he was discovered and stopped. Of course, there had been many wars and conflicts in the decades since. My conflicts in the decades since. My first political memory is the Cuban missile crisis. I think it is a very old-fashioned view that nuclear weapons do not still remain an extremely grave threat.
The situation we face now is different. For the first time in my lifetime, we face the possibility of what is called state on state war with a peer adversary. May I say that were that to occur, I don't think people generally, and I include myself, would have any real idea what that would be like. Not the doll. It certainly would not be a rerun of words we have seen in the past. The next war is not going to be won by bullets.
I think it's going to be one by data, and that's why I think things like the targeting digital World Wide Web, the cyber electromagnetic command and even secret cloud are going to be so vital. At the beginning of this, when I was still a member of the joint committee, we agreed to conduct an enquiry into undersea cables. As my noble friend and others have remarked, an enormous proportion, up to 95% of the world's financial data, gets sent by undersea cables. We know about the attacks, which are sometimes daily, and the tables being cut and the cyber warfare that is being conducted against us.
However, a real war would be absolutely catastrophic. A major attack would destroy our energy capacity, financial capacity, communications, not to mention inflicting damage of a kind unlike anything we have seen before. Social cohesion would be at serious risk of collapse. The capacity for an enemy to spread disinformation could utterly undercut the nation's ability or willingness to carry on. If people could not communicate with each other or use their phone to get money out of machines or pay for anything by bank or credit cards, what would happen and how would people react? I have a number of specific questions relating to the RAF, which my noble friend probably won't have time to cover in his reply, but we are to acquire new F- 35A planes with UK capability.
How will they be resource? How will they change RAF approach to basing? Do we have enough early warning aircraft, given the legendary Ukrainian attacks on Russian airbases by Ukrainian drones. We have enough bases to ensure we can distribute forces evenly and operate effectively? I want to raise the question of space which my noble friend over there has already raised. I attended a briefing recently with the air Chief Marshal and he said that we cannot assume we will have control over our airspace in any future conflict and this applies even more to control of space itself.
In any future war, it would be the role of space were a war could be fought and won. Although we are not primarily looking at the military aspects, we have learnt a great deal. I'm now of the view that together with cyberspace, they are the key domains if we were to engage in a state on state war. And if my noble friend can comment further on this, I would be very grateful. We have seen the effect on this -- of this in Ukraine.
Perhaps my noble friend could also give the house any official view from the government on how integrated the new space command are going to be, and whether we need a sovereign hunting capacity? I ran out of time but eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. This debate and the SDR debate are very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
worthwhile. His point on data are extremely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
His point on data are extremely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
His point on data are extremely well made and I endorse them. My point I will restrict to the subject of health because Britain does not defence absolutely relies upon the defence absolutely relies upon the health of its people. That's not just from a recruitment point of view. We remember in the Boer War, view. We remember in the Boer War, the First World War and the Second World War, we struggled to recruit because people were not just healthy because people were not just healthy enough.
Healthcare is now a key component of national resilience and competence. Adversaries realise that competence. Adversaries realise that destroying a nation's healthcare is a way to break the purpose and a way to break the purpose and ability of different countries to support themselves. Russia made this support themselves. Russia made this point very clear in its war in Chechnya, in Syria and Ukraine where Chechnya, in Syria and Ukraine where hospitals are targeted twice a day by Russian drones. Hamas embeds its fighters and hospitals, making the fighters and hospitals, making the battlegrounds.
In the future, in future conflict, health very much will be as decisive as weaponry. We have several vulnerabilities. First, fitness to serve. The health of the reputable population has declined to crisis levels. One third of young adults are overweight. Rising chronic disease and mental health conditions are now the leading cause of army rejections. Many young people, many more young people are required to care for themselves then are able to serve for the nation. Secondly, the fragility of the healthcare system.
Student's ransomware attack was not simply an IT issue in a pathology lab. It very nearly brought the NHS to its knees. Thirdly, it is by 1/3. -- Thirdly,
All my life I have lived World War. All my life I have lived under the broad protective umbrella of the United States and the post- of the United States and the post- war international order which is now changing before our very eyes. Everything is less certain than it Everything is less certain than it was and that includes article 5. I'm also all too conscious of the sacrifices made by the generation above me that has made possible the security. My uncle was an RAF security.
My uncle was an RAF fighter pilot who was killed shortly after D-Day and increase, my grandfather who was the air grandfather who was the air Commodore and a member of this house, was driven to join RAF operations as a rear gunner until he was discovered and stopped. Of course, there had been many wars and conflicts in the decades since. My conflicts in the decades since. My first political memory is the Cuban missile crisis. I think it is a very old-fashioned view that nuclear weapons do not still remain an extremely grave threat.
The situation we face now is different. For the first time in my lifetime, we face the possibility of what is called state on state war with a peer adversary. May I say that were that to occur, I don't think people generally, and I include myself, would have any real idea what that would be like. Not the doll. It certainly would not be a rerun of words we have seen in the past. The next war is not going to be won by bullets.
I think it's going to be one by data, and that's why I think things like the targeting digital World Wide Web, the cyber electromagnetic command and even secret cloud are going to be so vital. At the beginning of this, when I was still a member of the joint committee, we agreed to conduct an enquiry into undersea cables. As my noble friend and others have remarked, an enormous proportion, up to 95% of the world's financial data, gets sent by undersea cables. We know about the attacks, which are sometimes daily, and the tables being cut and the cyber warfare that is being conducted against us.
However, a real war would be absolutely catastrophic. A major attack would destroy our energy capacity, financial capacity, communications, not to mention inflicting damage of a kind unlike anything we have seen before. Social cohesion would be at serious risk of collapse. The capacity for an enemy to spread disinformation could utterly undercut the nation's ability or willingness to carry on. If people could not communicate with each other or use their phone to get money out of machines or pay for anything by bank or credit cards, what would happen and how would people react? I have a number of specific questions relating to the RAF, which my noble friend probably won't have time to cover in his reply, but we are to acquire new F- 35A planes with UK capability.
How will they be resource? How will they change RAF approach to basing? Do we have enough early warning aircraft, given the legendary Ukrainian attacks on Russian airbases by Ukrainian drones. We have enough bases to ensure we can distribute forces evenly and operate effectively? I want to raise the question of space which my noble friend over there has already raised. I attended a briefing recently with the air Chief Marshal and he said that we cannot assume we will have control over our airspace in any future conflict and this applies even more to control of space itself.
In any future war, it would be the role of space were a war could be fought and won. Although we are not primarily looking at the military aspects, we have learnt a great deal. I'm now of the view that together with cyberspace, they are the key domains if we were to engage in a state on state war. And if my noble friend can comment further on this, I would be very grateful. We have seen the effect on this -- of this in Ukraine.
Perhaps my noble friend could also give the house any official view from the government on how integrated the new space command are going to be, and whether we need a sovereign hunting capacity? I ran out of time but eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. This debate and the SDR debate are very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
worthwhile. His point on data are extremely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
His point on data are extremely
**** Possible New Speaker ****
His point on data are extremely well made and I endorse them. My point I will restrict to the subject of health because Britain does not defence absolutely relies upon the defence absolutely relies upon the health of its people. That's not just from a recruitment point of view. We remember in the Boer War, view. We remember in the Boer War, the First World War and the Second World War, we struggled to recruit because people were not just healthy because people were not just healthy enough.
Healthcare is now a key component of national resilience and competence. Adversaries realise that competence. Adversaries realise that destroying a nation's healthcare is a way to break the purpose and a way to break the purpose and ability of different countries to support themselves. Russia made this support themselves. Russia made this point very clear in its war in Chechnya, in Syria and Ukraine where Chechnya, in Syria and Ukraine where hospitals are targeted twice a day by Russian drones. Hamas embeds its fighters and hospitals, making the fighters and hospitals, making the battlegrounds.
In the future, in future conflict, health very much will be as decisive as weaponry. We have several vulnerabilities. First, fitness to serve. The health of the reputable population has declined to crisis levels. One third of young adults are overweight. Rising chronic disease and mental health conditions are now the leading cause of army rejections. Many young people, many more young people are required to care for themselves then are able to serve for the nation. Secondly, the fragility of the healthcare system.
Student's ransomware attack was not simply an IT issue in a pathology lab. It very nearly brought the NHS to its knees. Thirdly, it is by 1/3. -- Thirdly,
12:31
Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bethell (Conservative)
it is bop-threat. There is a global it is bop-threat. There is a global trend towards biowarfare capacity. We live in an age of gene and cell We live in an age of gene and cell editing but it is easier than ever to make biological weapons but despite that, the UK biological despite that, the UK biological security strategy access budget, lab maintenance and surveillance systems are being cut. Thirdly is medical supply chains. The review points out supply chains.
The review points out that the pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of relying on international just-in-time supply international just-in-time supply international just-in-time supply I know from the front line how terrifying it is when you can't get your hands on the medical supplies your hands on the medical supplies that you need. I asked the Minister for action. Firstly, that we established UTG reserves of established UTG reserves of militants, secondly that we set up a biological threat surveillance to keep pace with adversities.
We talk of a whole of society defence as the Noble Lord very quickly laid out in his introductory remarks. It cannot be meaningful unless a society can actually heal its wounded, maintain its health infrastructure, and supported health system. Medicine is as essential as ammunition. Hospitals must be as resilient as Hospitals must be as resilient as the armies. The lesson is visible internationally, Taiwan, for instance, coordinate health security across factors, Finland makes healthier priority and Israel integrates its health with its security.
Without comparable focus and investment, the UK remains vulnerable not just to muscles but to the cascading effect of failing health, appalling and the structure and weed prevention. Modern warfare is not just one almost on the battlefield. But in clinics, supply warehouses, and in health and potential increase. I urge the Noble Lord the Minister to address these specifics to make the health security and urgent and fully proponent of our national defence and there is a diminishing time to close the gap and the national- security is not just on missiles, aircraft, and ships competent every well-maintained hospital bed, strategic medicine reserve, and healthy young person deserves.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I congratulate my Noble Friend Lord Robinson and as he is well aware economic concession challenge is that military is immense and a brief comparison with the 1930s may help to bring these into focus. 90 years ago we started to rearm from a defence baseline which was a lower proportion as GDP which was a lower proportion as GDP today and with a debt to GDP ratio is high, even higher. End today we is high, even higher.
End today we spend far more on the other services, making it that much higher to raise defence spending without to raise defence spending without swamping the economy. Tough choices highlighted by the Noble Lord cannot be ducked. In the 1930s, high employment made feasible policies employment made feasible policies and spending, but today we do not and spending, but today we do not have a lot of spare capacity. Even our recent barely visible economic
The review points out that the pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of relying on international just-in-time supply international just-in-time supply international just-in-time supply I know from the front line how terrifying it is when you can't get your hands on the medical supplies your hands on the medical supplies that you need. I asked the Minister for action. Firstly, that we established UTG reserves of established UTG reserves of militants, secondly that we set up a biological threat surveillance to keep pace with adversities.
We talk of a whole of society defence as the Noble Lord very quickly laid out in his introductory remarks. It cannot be meaningful unless a society can actually heal its wounded, maintain its health infrastructure, and supported health system. Medicine is as essential as ammunition. Hospitals must be as resilient as Hospitals must be as resilient as the armies. The lesson is visible internationally, Taiwan, for instance, coordinate health security across factors, Finland makes healthier priority and Israel integrates its health with its security.
Without comparable focus and investment, the UK remains vulnerable not just to muscles but to the cascading effect of failing health, appalling and the structure and weed prevention. Modern warfare is not just one almost on the battlefield. But in clinics, supply warehouses, and in health and potential increase. I urge the Noble Lord the Minister to address these specifics to make the health security and urgent and fully proponent of our national defence and there is a diminishing time to close the gap and the national- security is not just on missiles, aircraft, and ships competent every well-maintained hospital bed, strategic medicine reserve, and healthy young person deserves.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I congratulate my Noble Friend Lord Robinson and as he is well aware economic concession challenge is that military is immense and a brief comparison with the 1930s may help to bring these into focus. 90 years ago we started to rearm from a defence baseline which was a lower proportion as GDP which was a lower proportion as GDP today and with a debt to GDP ratio is high, even higher. End today we is high, even higher.
End today we spend far more on the other services, making it that much higher to raise defence spending without to raise defence spending without swamping the economy. Tough choices highlighted by the Noble Lord cannot be ducked. In the 1930s, high employment made feasible policies employment made feasible policies and spending, but today we do not and spending, but today we do not have a lot of spare capacity. Even our recent barely visible economic
12:33
Baroness Hogg (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Hogg (Crossbench)
our recent barely visible economic growth has been achieved only by sucking in hundreds of thousands of migrants. Of course, nuclear power, advanced weaponry and AI have shifted defence some way from a human numbers game to a technological one, but there are already serious shortages in the Armed Forces, while our defence industries all stem from qualified entrants and in our relatively tightlipped market, despite rising rates, filling those gaps will not be cheap. That is how labour markets work. Unless the defence review points out recruitment faces a cultural challenge also.
In so many parts of our country, any link with the Armed Forces is simply forgotten. Fortunately, not in all parts, in Lincolnshire we retain a broader connection with the Royal Air Force than any other county, and we work hard to maintain it. Over the last 10 years with the help of such generous people as the Noble Lord denim boo-hoo I sorry to learn is retiring from this House we developed a £60 million digital museum, on a hill just south of Lincoln, this commemorates 58,000 men and women who died in the, command during World War II.
A higher mortality rate than any other British force. And despite opening just before COVID, the memorial museum which I am on it to be a trustee of has tracked over 600,000 visitors. Many more schools want to visit than we can accommodate, so we are now seeking support for a dedicated education sector and for the balanced remembrance, recognition, and reconciliation, a recent school visit, for example, came simultaneously from the home of the dambusters and from the Miller area of Germany where there killed so many, not for nothing, as the international command.
We are also developing step programs, we reached deep into primary schools with the battle to engage children in stem subjects that are so often lost. Mathematics is much more enticing when related to flight patterns or aircraft design. And just this year we have installed 10 giant silhouettes of iconic World War II equipment, honouring not just their contribution, but their successes, now all Armed Forces roads are open. And among today's female leaders in Armed Forces and business who came to the launch of this with the chairs of our three biggest defence companies all currently chaired by women.
They brought female apprentices with them and the RAF cast with the first ever all-female flypast. I strongly believe it is by such events that we can engage in people, women and men, with the defence of the realm, to add what my honourable friend Lord Hennessy so rightly called a poetry to the plumbing, and attract what we will need, most of all, the talent to put this review into effect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I recognise Lord Robinson's much more dangerous and difficult world. And that is particularly difficult as well, just at a time when the nuclear non- at a time when the nuclear non- proliferation Treaty is just at its weakest. My intervention, really, is weakest. My intervention, really, is to ask the Minister just exactly to ask the Minister just exactly what is the Government going to do for next year's non-proliferation treaty to reinvigorate the treaty? And as Lord Bates pointed out, we actually, as one of the P5, are in a actually, as one of the P5, are in a particularly good position to do that.
The relevance of this question was underlined last week by the event at the Royal Society that
In so many parts of our country, any link with the Armed Forces is simply forgotten. Fortunately, not in all parts, in Lincolnshire we retain a broader connection with the Royal Air Force than any other county, and we work hard to maintain it. Over the last 10 years with the help of such generous people as the Noble Lord denim boo-hoo I sorry to learn is retiring from this House we developed a £60 million digital museum, on a hill just south of Lincoln, this commemorates 58,000 men and women who died in the, command during World War II.
A higher mortality rate than any other British force. And despite opening just before COVID, the memorial museum which I am on it to be a trustee of has tracked over 600,000 visitors. Many more schools want to visit than we can accommodate, so we are now seeking support for a dedicated education sector and for the balanced remembrance, recognition, and reconciliation, a recent school visit, for example, came simultaneously from the home of the dambusters and from the Miller area of Germany where there killed so many, not for nothing, as the international command.
We are also developing step programs, we reached deep into primary schools with the battle to engage children in stem subjects that are so often lost. Mathematics is much more enticing when related to flight patterns or aircraft design. And just this year we have installed 10 giant silhouettes of iconic World War II equipment, honouring not just their contribution, but their successes, now all Armed Forces roads are open. And among today's female leaders in Armed Forces and business who came to the launch of this with the chairs of our three biggest defence companies all currently chaired by women.
They brought female apprentices with them and the RAF cast with the first ever all-female flypast. I strongly believe it is by such events that we can engage in people, women and men, with the defence of the realm, to add what my honourable friend Lord Hennessy so rightly called a poetry to the plumbing, and attract what we will need, most of all, the talent to put this review into effect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I recognise Lord Robinson's much more dangerous and difficult world. And that is particularly difficult as well, just at a time when the nuclear non- at a time when the nuclear non- proliferation Treaty is just at its weakest. My intervention, really, is weakest. My intervention, really, is to ask the Minister just exactly to ask the Minister just exactly what is the Government going to do for next year's non-proliferation treaty to reinvigorate the treaty? And as Lord Bates pointed out, we actually, as one of the P5, are in a actually, as one of the P5, are in a particularly good position to do that.
The relevance of this question was underlined last week by the event at the Royal Society that
12:38
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
event at the Royal Society that marked the 70 years since the manifesto mentioned bite my Noble Friend Lord Alderdice. The manifesto says we have found that men who know says we have found that men who know the most are the most gloomy. Well, of course one of the men who knows the most of this House about nuclear non-proliferation is Lord Browne of Ladyton, and I am certainly not saying he's gloomy, but his address at the Royal Society reflected progress that can be made on proliferation, given the leadership proliferation, given the leadership and the political will.
The UK was energising in the agenda in the late 2,000 and some real material advances on verification, and I thought that Lord Bates came out with a very good question when he asked the Minister with a would consider using all that expertise and experience that Lord Browne has two address the very real issues that the NPT is facing next year. And we also have a particular responsibility to do that, not only as one of the P5 put in his Strategic Defence Review we have changed the posture of nuclear- weapons, and they are playing a more important role for us.
The Government is thinking of reintroducing an error launch nuclear capability, but at the same time the UK seems to be burying its head in the sand about the effects of nuclear war and I do not think that is helpful. The UK was one of only three countries in November last year to vote against creating a UN scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war. The UN scientific study, the UN said, and I quote, will deliver a stronger evidence- based that would inform the world and contribute to constructive dialogue with a view to convergence in work on nuclear disarmament and arms control.
Well, my Lords, that is exerted what we need, the Noble Lord pointed out powerfully in his speech the dangers, the current dangers of nuclear non- proliferation. There are states with nuclear-weapons with whom we trade who do not belong to the nuclear proliferation treaty. And there are now deep divisions in the world against the nuclear-weapons states and other countries. And the other countries have felt deep frustration in the frustration to put rest in the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and that has led them to create that United Nations treaty on the prohibition of the appeal weapons which has been signed by 94 countries, and ratified by 73.
The last Government refused to engage with the treaty, but I ask the Minister will this Government he'd the wise words of your mod chips committee on international relations in their report which was entitled rising nuclear risk, disarmament, and the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. When they said that the dissatisfaction of the treaty's components with the status quo under some movement should be taken seriously, we therefore recommend that this Government adopts a less aggressive tone on the treaty and seeks opportunities to work with supporters towards the aims of article 6 in the non-proliferation treaty.
Briefly in the time left, what does failure look like? Well, of course, it looks absolutely terrifying, and in the recent Booker nuclear warfare, Annie Jacobsen who interviewed 47 of the top US trust for her conclusion discovered that in minute nought, North Korea launched a weapon, by one minute 92, the northern hemisphere was a wasteland, and the rest of the world was facing slow death. We need the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
NPT to succeed, my Lords. My Lords, I very much welcome the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I very much welcome the deep analysis of the barrenness and hard-hitting contents of this review. Many have made speeches here review. Many have made speeches here and elsewhere over the years, raising concerns about the depleted raising concerns about the depleted state of our defence abilities and, increasingly, volatile world. But if this report can reinforce the need this report can reinforce the need for Governments now and in the future to act upon it to find what is required the Noble Lord Robertson is required the Noble Lord Robertson and his co-authors could have done a great service.
I would like to dwell great service. I would like to dwell great service. I would like to dwell on an aspect of chapter 4.3 entitled one defence. People training and education. And particularly to the education. And particularly to the crucial matter of reserves. The Strategic Defence Review acknowledges the essential role of acknowledges the essential role of the reserves, as of course it does the regulators and it highlights the the regulators and it highlights the theme, and I quote outcomes and skill based.
For several years, I skill based. For several years, I was either a member of the National employer Liaison Committee and chairman of its successor body, the advisory for the reserves under the acronym NIAB. Our job was how to win and maintain the support of employers for whom deployment of
The UK was energising in the agenda in the late 2,000 and some real material advances on verification, and I thought that Lord Bates came out with a very good question when he asked the Minister with a would consider using all that expertise and experience that Lord Browne has two address the very real issues that the NPT is facing next year. And we also have a particular responsibility to do that, not only as one of the P5 put in his Strategic Defence Review we have changed the posture of nuclear- weapons, and they are playing a more important role for us.
The Government is thinking of reintroducing an error launch nuclear capability, but at the same time the UK seems to be burying its head in the sand about the effects of nuclear war and I do not think that is helpful. The UK was one of only three countries in November last year to vote against creating a UN scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war. The UN scientific study, the UN said, and I quote, will deliver a stronger evidence- based that would inform the world and contribute to constructive dialogue with a view to convergence in work on nuclear disarmament and arms control.
Well, my Lords, that is exerted what we need, the Noble Lord pointed out powerfully in his speech the dangers, the current dangers of nuclear non- proliferation. There are states with nuclear-weapons with whom we trade who do not belong to the nuclear proliferation treaty. And there are now deep divisions in the world against the nuclear-weapons states and other countries. And the other countries have felt deep frustration in the frustration to put rest in the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and that has led them to create that United Nations treaty on the prohibition of the appeal weapons which has been signed by 94 countries, and ratified by 73.
The last Government refused to engage with the treaty, but I ask the Minister will this Government he'd the wise words of your mod chips committee on international relations in their report which was entitled rising nuclear risk, disarmament, and the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. When they said that the dissatisfaction of the treaty's components with the status quo under some movement should be taken seriously, we therefore recommend that this Government adopts a less aggressive tone on the treaty and seeks opportunities to work with supporters towards the aims of article 6 in the non-proliferation treaty.
Briefly in the time left, what does failure look like? Well, of course, it looks absolutely terrifying, and in the recent Booker nuclear warfare, Annie Jacobsen who interviewed 47 of the top US trust for her conclusion discovered that in minute nought, North Korea launched a weapon, by one minute 92, the northern hemisphere was a wasteland, and the rest of the world was facing slow death. We need the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
NPT to succeed, my Lords. My Lords, I very much welcome the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I very much welcome the deep analysis of the barrenness and hard-hitting contents of this review. Many have made speeches here review. Many have made speeches here and elsewhere over the years, raising concerns about the depleted raising concerns about the depleted state of our defence abilities and, increasingly, volatile world. But if this report can reinforce the need this report can reinforce the need for Governments now and in the future to act upon it to find what is required the Noble Lord Robertson is required the Noble Lord Robertson and his co-authors could have done a great service.
I would like to dwell great service. I would like to dwell great service. I would like to dwell on an aspect of chapter 4.3 entitled one defence. People training and education. And particularly to the education. And particularly to the crucial matter of reserves. The Strategic Defence Review acknowledges the essential role of acknowledges the essential role of the reserves, as of course it does the regulators and it highlights the the regulators and it highlights the theme, and I quote outcomes and skill based.
For several years, I skill based. For several years, I was either a member of the National employer Liaison Committee and chairman of its successor body, the advisory for the reserves under the acronym NIAB. Our job was how to win and maintain the support of employers for whom deployment of
12:45
Lord Glenarthur (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Glenarthur (Conservative)
their employees operations was required. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, these operations could mean an employee might be away from mean an employee might be away from their civilian application for almost up to one year and that, of course, was very often to the employers economic disadvantage. And employers economic disadvantage. And who worked closely with a body of marketing and other very skilled marketing and other very skilled individuals under the acronym of individuals under the acronym of supporting Britain's reservists and employers and they, in turn, worked very closely with the reserve forces in the cadets Association which in the cadets Association which might Noble Friend Lord Morrow and indeed my Noble Friend love sub's indeed my Noble Friend love sub's have highlighted.
Both acronyms both no longer exist. But this review indicates to me that in Duke of Somerset organisations will need to be reinvented. During the Iraq and be reinvented. During the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, about 10% of those deployed were reservists. Some those deployed were reservists. Some of them in very niche roles. As a former honorary Commodore of the Royal oximetry Air Force medical unit, and as honorary colonel of an Army reserve medical unit, I can give personal testament from visits I made to them in the field to the amazing fortitude and skills medical experts brought to bear on casualties in those campaigns and how the skills that they acquired were highly relevant to their peacetime work in the NHS, and so that organisation could benefit from their experience.
In our very delicate economic climate, we must find ways of constantly bringing the enduring employer aspect into the enduring employer aspect into the Whether within the public or private sectors, it is they who help generate the funds for or sustain the skills reservists provide. My advisory board at the time developed the concept of defence career partnering. It aimed to achieve a partnering. It aimed to achieve a much more flexible, some might even say radical, route for individuals to move between being an employee, reservist and even into regular service, together with the support and understanding of employers, as well as of the regular reservist chains of command.
Something imaginative along those lines might now be a fruitful and enterprising way of developing, helping to find the personnel necessary to source some of the necessary roles to fulfil our military manpower requirements. I have no doubt whatever as I and my colleagues have seen with our own eyes within deployed reserves abroad how much their employers gained from skills developed in operations. But we must recognise that their sacrifice in terms of their day-to-day work was also marked.
The recommendations in chapter 4. The recommendations in chapter 4.3 goes some way towards this, certainly in the necessity of the whole force concept or indeed has has been described by Lord Robertson, the whole society concept. Whilst again congratulating the authors of this excellent report, I believe there may be even more imaginative ways of developing what is recommended in the people, training, education aspect, which this excellent review highlights and which the government should consider.
Both acronyms both no longer exist. But this review indicates to me that in Duke of Somerset organisations will need to be reinvented. During the Iraq and be reinvented. During the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, about 10% of those deployed were reservists. Some those deployed were reservists. Some of them in very niche roles. As a former honorary Commodore of the Royal oximetry Air Force medical unit, and as honorary colonel of an Army reserve medical unit, I can give personal testament from visits I made to them in the field to the amazing fortitude and skills medical experts brought to bear on casualties in those campaigns and how the skills that they acquired were highly relevant to their peacetime work in the NHS, and so that organisation could benefit from their experience.
In our very delicate economic climate, we must find ways of constantly bringing the enduring employer aspect into the enduring employer aspect into the Whether within the public or private sectors, it is they who help generate the funds for or sustain the skills reservists provide. My advisory board at the time developed the concept of defence career partnering. It aimed to achieve a partnering. It aimed to achieve a much more flexible, some might even say radical, route for individuals to move between being an employee, reservist and even into regular service, together with the support and understanding of employers, as well as of the regular reservist chains of command.
Something imaginative along those lines might now be a fruitful and enterprising way of developing, helping to find the personnel necessary to source some of the necessary roles to fulfil our military manpower requirements. I have no doubt whatever as I and my colleagues have seen with our own eyes within deployed reserves abroad how much their employers gained from skills developed in operations. But we must recognise that their sacrifice in terms of their day-to-day work was also marked.
The recommendations in chapter 4. The recommendations in chapter 4.3 goes some way towards this, certainly in the necessity of the whole force concept or indeed has has been described by Lord Robertson, the whole society concept. Whilst again congratulating the authors of this excellent report, I believe there may be even more imaginative ways of developing what is recommended in the people, training, education aspect, which this excellent review highlights and which the government should consider.
12:47
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
If we were holding this debate in normal times, I suspect it would be something... Lord Robertson introduced this debate in such an masterly manner. It spells out so convincingly why we need a new hardheaded approach to defence and security, one that requires not only a major intellectual shift but also one that will change the resources we devote to these matters, not only in words but in deeds. If our own national security is not to be put at increasing risk.
The times are not normal. They are volatile at the extreme. Words are being waged in Ukraine and across the Middle East and could be waged in the far east, which have brushed aside impunity, international order which was so laboriously and necessarily put together after the two world wars of the 20th century. Not least the UN charter itself. The speed of change is being accelerated with the policies of Russia, United States and China, and by a chaotic class of long-term foes in the Middle East whose facilities are expanding rather than diminishing.
So my rather than diminishing. So my remarks are not a criticism of the adequacy of the review but merely recognition that we are being -- moving at speed, resembling the period before the First World War. Since the Cold War ended, we fell into the trap of treating soft power as a substitute for soft -- hard power. Now we are reversing in the other direction, shrinking the elements of soft power in order to finance the resources for our hard power.
That category I would place the decision to finance most of Britain's necessary hard power. It makes no sense to load the cost of the BBC's World Service, unique contribution to countering the tidal waves of misinformation and disinformation into the's world onto our progressive tax on the licence fee holder, rather than onto the taxpayer. It is time to reverse that lamentable decision. The world leading role of higher education institutions risks being hamstrung by misleading affairs linking overseas students with illegal immigration.
It is long past time that we stop treating overseas students as immigrants and scaring ourselves stiff with the result on net migration figures. We really need to take another look at the hard power-soft power balance, recognising that we need them both. Second point, we risk failing to understand, and several noble Lords have mentioned this, how close we are to the collapse of the nuclear non-provision -- nuclear non- proliferation Treaty. We are not talking about our own decision to join other European members of NATO and returning to a tactical role which has no proliferation risks and which could play a valuable role in strengthening deterrence against a resurgent imperialist Russia.
But if Iran were to follow North Korea and acquire weapons, it would be a global catastrophe. Hence the need for the E3 to resume their efforts to avoid that outcome by peaceful negotiating means. At some point, and I do agree with those who mentioned the P5, at some point the dialogue on strategic stability between recognised nuclear powers broken off quite correctly at the time of Russia's aggression against Ukraine will need to be resumed. Thirdly, we do need to proceed with determination initiative on initiative to strengthen the European pillar of NATO, on which the government has so laudably about.
This is not just a matter of responding to legitimate pressure from successive US presidents but the simple recognition of the need to react to Russian aggression by strengthened deterrence so that hostilities can be avoided as they were throughout the Cold War. That's why the review quite rightly chose " NATO first" As its motto. All three points I raised require that essential role of soft diplomacy, soft power diplomacy. So, we really do need to ensure that our diplomacy is also properly resourced and does not fall short, as it is at some risk of doing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to congratulate my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mackay and his noble friend Lord Mackay and his excellent maiden speech today. I am also pleased to see Lord Hennessy here. I'd like to congratulate Lord
The times are not normal. They are volatile at the extreme. Words are being waged in Ukraine and across the Middle East and could be waged in the far east, which have brushed aside impunity, international order which was so laboriously and necessarily put together after the two world wars of the 20th century. Not least the UN charter itself. The speed of change is being accelerated with the policies of Russia, United States and China, and by a chaotic class of long-term foes in the Middle East whose facilities are expanding rather than diminishing.
So my rather than diminishing. So my remarks are not a criticism of the adequacy of the review but merely recognition that we are being -- moving at speed, resembling the period before the First World War. Since the Cold War ended, we fell into the trap of treating soft power as a substitute for soft -- hard power. Now we are reversing in the other direction, shrinking the elements of soft power in order to finance the resources for our hard power.
That category I would place the decision to finance most of Britain's necessary hard power. It makes no sense to load the cost of the BBC's World Service, unique contribution to countering the tidal waves of misinformation and disinformation into the's world onto our progressive tax on the licence fee holder, rather than onto the taxpayer. It is time to reverse that lamentable decision. The world leading role of higher education institutions risks being hamstrung by misleading affairs linking overseas students with illegal immigration.
It is long past time that we stop treating overseas students as immigrants and scaring ourselves stiff with the result on net migration figures. We really need to take another look at the hard power-soft power balance, recognising that we need them both. Second point, we risk failing to understand, and several noble Lords have mentioned this, how close we are to the collapse of the nuclear non-provision -- nuclear non- proliferation Treaty. We are not talking about our own decision to join other European members of NATO and returning to a tactical role which has no proliferation risks and which could play a valuable role in strengthening deterrence against a resurgent imperialist Russia.
But if Iran were to follow North Korea and acquire weapons, it would be a global catastrophe. Hence the need for the E3 to resume their efforts to avoid that outcome by peaceful negotiating means. At some point, and I do agree with those who mentioned the P5, at some point the dialogue on strategic stability between recognised nuclear powers broken off quite correctly at the time of Russia's aggression against Ukraine will need to be resumed. Thirdly, we do need to proceed with determination initiative on initiative to strengthen the European pillar of NATO, on which the government has so laudably about.
This is not just a matter of responding to legitimate pressure from successive US presidents but the simple recognition of the need to react to Russian aggression by strengthened deterrence so that hostilities can be avoided as they were throughout the Cold War. That's why the review quite rightly chose " NATO first" As its motto. All three points I raised require that essential role of soft diplomacy, soft power diplomacy. So, we really do need to ensure that our diplomacy is also properly resourced and does not fall short, as it is at some risk of doing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to congratulate my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mackay and his noble friend Lord Mackay and his excellent maiden speech today. I am also pleased to see Lord Hennessy here. I'd like to congratulate Lord
12:53
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
here. I'd like to congratulate Lord Robertson on his leadership of the Strategic Defence Review, arguably the most consequential reassessment of our national security in a generation. It is a document of ambition and urgency. Defines the threats and sets out the bold rearrangement plan for 76,000 troops, submarines, drone warfare capabilities, digital targeting web and even a new command for cyber electronic operations. But amid this and the ambition, I must ask where are the women? Where is the commitment to women peace and security agenda? An agenda which this country proudly helped shape.
We have seen time and time again the exclusion of women from peace process does not lead to stability. It leads to a relapse. Yet the review is silent on this role of women in conflict, building peace and securing human dignity. In 2000, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1325 reaffirming the crucial role of women in conflict prevention, resolution and peacekeeping. Empowered the importance of the equal participation in full -- and full involvement in all efforts to promote peace and security.
As the international community increasingly recognises the value of evaluating women's participation in these processes, I recall that the United Kingdom was among the first to reaffirm the commit went under Foreign Secretary William Hague alongside the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Britain took a leading role in placing the issue firmly on the global agenda. It is where leading, and I would very much like to see is undertaking today, that Britain would continue the lead and advise other governments on this front.
That is why it is so important that women are at a very table in every room and in every place where peace and security are being discussed. Yet this review does not mention gender at all. Not a single reference to sexual violence in conflict, in which Britain was and should remain a global leader in stamping out. I refer to colleagues -- I refer colleagues to the House of Commons report Sexual Violence in Conflict which remains highly relevant today. Nor is there any mention of the UK's plan with regards to women and security.
This stands in contrast to security. This stands in contrast to previous reviews. In 2015, SDR, and 2022 integration review, both of which mentioned security and gender-based violence and the inclusion of women in peacekeeping. We know from the UN data that when women are involved in peace processes, agreements and 33% more likely to last 15 years. Yet women still make up fewer than 13% of negotiators in major peace processes worldwide. We know that when women participate in peacekeeping forces, there is a greater trust between peacekeepers and local communities with reduced incidence of abuse and improved intelligence gathering outcomes, which injure not just human security but operational effectiveness.
In Libya, Northern Ireland and Colombia, the involvement of women not only help to secure fragile ceasefires but also shaped post-conflict recovery of these recovery policies and land rights, justice and education, which directly address the causes of instability. As we know, from our Armed Forces, thanks to the work of Rachel Grimes and the development of the Joint Services Publication Unit, there was greater security. And running out of time. I would just like to say we must not only be like to say we must not only be And to draw on the full strength of our society.
Women and men working together at home and abroad.
We have seen time and time again the exclusion of women from peace process does not lead to stability. It leads to a relapse. Yet the review is silent on this role of women in conflict, building peace and securing human dignity. In 2000, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1325 reaffirming the crucial role of women in conflict prevention, resolution and peacekeeping. Empowered the importance of the equal participation in full -- and full involvement in all efforts to promote peace and security.
As the international community increasingly recognises the value of evaluating women's participation in these processes, I recall that the United Kingdom was among the first to reaffirm the commit went under Foreign Secretary William Hague alongside the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Britain took a leading role in placing the issue firmly on the global agenda. It is where leading, and I would very much like to see is undertaking today, that Britain would continue the lead and advise other governments on this front.
That is why it is so important that women are at a very table in every room and in every place where peace and security are being discussed. Yet this review does not mention gender at all. Not a single reference to sexual violence in conflict, in which Britain was and should remain a global leader in stamping out. I refer to colleagues -- I refer colleagues to the House of Commons report Sexual Violence in Conflict which remains highly relevant today. Nor is there any mention of the UK's plan with regards to women and security.
This stands in contrast to security. This stands in contrast to previous reviews. In 2015, SDR, and 2022 integration review, both of which mentioned security and gender-based violence and the inclusion of women in peacekeeping. We know from the UN data that when women are involved in peace processes, agreements and 33% more likely to last 15 years. Yet women still make up fewer than 13% of negotiators in major peace processes worldwide. We know that when women participate in peacekeeping forces, there is a greater trust between peacekeepers and local communities with reduced incidence of abuse and improved intelligence gathering outcomes, which injure not just human security but operational effectiveness.
In Libya, Northern Ireland and Colombia, the involvement of women not only help to secure fragile ceasefires but also shaped post-conflict recovery of these recovery policies and land rights, justice and education, which directly address the causes of instability. As we know, from our Armed Forces, thanks to the work of Rachel Grimes and the development of the Joint Services Publication Unit, there was greater security. And running out of time. I would just like to say we must not only be like to say we must not only be And to draw on the full strength of our society.
Women and men working together at home and abroad.
12:58
Lord Sarfraz (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sarfraz (Conservative)
I welcome the review. I read the whole document and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. The countries very lucky to have his expertise and leadership. While I, like many noble Lords, support increased defence spending, I cannot get my head around why the budget was the only place we could find the money. It's hard to get around the fact that the optics remain very poor and this is not going to go away. That all is now. The new news is our new slogan.
NATO first. That is pretty catchy. I think it's a communications mistake. There are 32 NATO member countries and none of them, not a single one, are using a slogan like " NATO first". Why just as? It sends the completely wrong message that we are de-prioritising other theatres in the Pacific, Middle East, North Africa. We were talking about the Indo-Pacific felt, and now it is NATO first. Of course, NATO is a priority, of course Russia is a thread.
Why couldn't we stick to something like UK first? Nobody would have minded that. Even if we accept the new branding, my single biggest concern is that we have not reduced a single defence industry unicorn in this country yet. At a company with a valuation of at least a billion... We've had many in the US, several in Germany, even in Portugal. Whenever we talk about increased defence spending is, we end up fattening the primes. We need hardware, not just software, which is not from the primes.
We need money to go to the smaller, money to go to the smaller, Going to production and the Going to production and the fact Going to production and the fact is that spending money leads to advances across the whole of the UK, if we had not invested in the mid- 20th century in semiconductors for defence we would not have had any of their consumer technologies that we have today. And, finally, by that is wonderful to see a renewed focus on tech innovation you cannot run a world-class defence force from a base where the Wi-Fi does not work and the plumbing is leaking.
Let us please bring our bases into the 21st-century. I have been to maybe a dozen in the last 18 months and almost all of them have from restaurants and social areas, need a giant base Association and I would love to hear the Noble Lord the Ministers views on that and I sure he would agree that our soldiers deserve to come home to places that them.
NATO first. That is pretty catchy. I think it's a communications mistake. There are 32 NATO member countries and none of them, not a single one, are using a slogan like " NATO first". Why just as? It sends the completely wrong message that we are de-prioritising other theatres in the Pacific, Middle East, North Africa. We were talking about the Indo-Pacific felt, and now it is NATO first. Of course, NATO is a priority, of course Russia is a thread.
Why couldn't we stick to something like UK first? Nobody would have minded that. Even if we accept the new branding, my single biggest concern is that we have not reduced a single defence industry unicorn in this country yet. At a company with a valuation of at least a billion... We've had many in the US, several in Germany, even in Portugal. Whenever we talk about increased defence spending is, we end up fattening the primes. We need hardware, not just software, which is not from the primes.
We need money to go to the smaller, money to go to the smaller, Going to production and the Going to production and the fact Going to production and the fact is that spending money leads to advances across the whole of the UK, if we had not invested in the mid- 20th century in semiconductors for defence we would not have had any of their consumer technologies that we have today. And, finally, by that is wonderful to see a renewed focus on tech innovation you cannot run a world-class defence force from a base where the Wi-Fi does not work and the plumbing is leaking.
Let us please bring our bases into the 21st-century. I have been to maybe a dozen in the last 18 months and almost all of them have from restaurants and social areas, need a giant base Association and I would love to hear the Noble Lord the Ministers views on that and I sure he would agree that our soldiers deserve to come home to places that them.
13:02
Lord Skidelsky (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Skidelsky (Crossbench)
I have a long-standing respect, in the early 2,000 and we were trying to build better relations which is Russian, he is Chair of NATO Russian counsel, myself as founder of the UK Russia roundtable, whose efforts were then openly encouraged by the Prime Minister Tony Blair. Since then our paths have diverged and I have huge reservations about the report which Lord Robertson so ably presented earlier. Reservations mainly because it greatly exaggerates the threats that we actually face.
And I believe I am the only person in the House, perhaps the only person in the House that takes this view, but I am happy to say that complete unanimity is not a requirement for membership of our assembly. On one thing we can all agree we should spend more on our own defence if only because the United States is no longer a reliable guarantee of our security. reliable guarantee of our security. However, this credential note is overwhelmed by the reports concentration on the need to guard against supposedly in imminent and potentially lethal Russian danger.
SDR states the full-scale invasion of Ukraine into thousand and 22 irrefutable illustrates the threat to state war returning to Europe. It goes on to say that the UK and its allies are under daily attack from Russia. Daily, notice the word daily, with aggressive acts of espionage, cyber attacks, and manipulation of information. And Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use military force to inflict on civilians and threaten the use of nuclear-weapons. So, the conclusion from all of that argument is that Britain must rearm to deter, and if necessary fight to win a war against Russia.
As NATO's secretary-general put it, the British had better rearm or learn to speak Russian. I think that this is widely overwrought, this sort of view of the matter. Then the report argues that since Russia has intentionally blurred the line between nuclear and conventional and sub- state author, and integrating British response should combine both convention and hybrid reforms of reparation because of great stress is placed on the need for a resilient home defence to guard against in Spain are, and these are the terms that have been used.
Espionage, political interference, sabotage and assassination, poisoning, electrical interference, disinformation, propaganda, intellectual threats, all these weapons by our adversaries. Daily news, OK. Right, to my mind, this is dangerously over the top. Let me point to two specific D defects. First, the SDR wants to prepare the UK for high intensity war, but it says nothing about its possible duration. The Cold War ended with a data but there is no peaceful end in these pages, only a continuous state of armed alertness, as the Bishop of London asked where is the peace strategy.
Secondly, to keep our country in a constant state of alertness requires, as the Prime Minister admitted, a radical shift in mindset, a transformation of culture, the eradication of unacceptable behaviour. In short, acceptance of defence and security as the organising principle of Government. And the authors of the SDR stop to consider the Orwellian implications of gearing up the nation for permanent preparation? Now, the SDR rightly draws attention to the increase and on the subterranean threats of harm opened up by rapidly accelerating technology and innovation, but I draw the opposite conclusion.
The multiplication of technological threats provides a compelling argument, not for a nuclear or AI arms race but for global cooperation to limit the malign use of technology. It is the joint responsibility of leaders of all the great powers to act as adults and not as children playing around with their lethal toys. It is the duty of those with the greatest power for good or ill to behave in such a way as to maximise the chances of a peaceful future for all of us.
peaceful future for all of us.
And I believe I am the only person in the House, perhaps the only person in the House that takes this view, but I am happy to say that complete unanimity is not a requirement for membership of our assembly. On one thing we can all agree we should spend more on our own defence if only because the United States is no longer a reliable guarantee of our security. reliable guarantee of our security. However, this credential note is overwhelmed by the reports concentration on the need to guard against supposedly in imminent and potentially lethal Russian danger.
SDR states the full-scale invasion of Ukraine into thousand and 22 irrefutable illustrates the threat to state war returning to Europe. It goes on to say that the UK and its allies are under daily attack from Russia. Daily, notice the word daily, with aggressive acts of espionage, cyber attacks, and manipulation of information. And Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use military force to inflict on civilians and threaten the use of nuclear-weapons. So, the conclusion from all of that argument is that Britain must rearm to deter, and if necessary fight to win a war against Russia.
As NATO's secretary-general put it, the British had better rearm or learn to speak Russian. I think that this is widely overwrought, this sort of view of the matter. Then the report argues that since Russia has intentionally blurred the line between nuclear and conventional and sub- state author, and integrating British response should combine both convention and hybrid reforms of reparation because of great stress is placed on the need for a resilient home defence to guard against in Spain are, and these are the terms that have been used.
Espionage, political interference, sabotage and assassination, poisoning, electrical interference, disinformation, propaganda, intellectual threats, all these weapons by our adversaries. Daily news, OK. Right, to my mind, this is dangerously over the top. Let me point to two specific D defects. First, the SDR wants to prepare the UK for high intensity war, but it says nothing about its possible duration. The Cold War ended with a data but there is no peaceful end in these pages, only a continuous state of armed alertness, as the Bishop of London asked where is the peace strategy.
Secondly, to keep our country in a constant state of alertness requires, as the Prime Minister admitted, a radical shift in mindset, a transformation of culture, the eradication of unacceptable behaviour. In short, acceptance of defence and security as the organising principle of Government. And the authors of the SDR stop to consider the Orwellian implications of gearing up the nation for permanent preparation? Now, the SDR rightly draws attention to the increase and on the subterranean threats of harm opened up by rapidly accelerating technology and innovation, but I draw the opposite conclusion.
The multiplication of technological threats provides a compelling argument, not for a nuclear or AI arms race but for global cooperation to limit the malign use of technology. It is the joint responsibility of leaders of all the great powers to act as adults and not as children playing around with their lethal toys. It is the duty of those with the greatest power for good or ill to behave in such a way as to maximise the chances of a peaceful future for all of us.
peaceful future for all of us.
13:07
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I want to focus on two themes of the SDR. The commitment to NATO first and the concept of whole society defence and security. NATO first now means sharing your European leadership within NATO to keep the US committed, not standing half in and half out of Europe for our beloved special relationship with the United States. The UK security ties with the USA are vital and will face an increasingly transactional and not particularly friendly transaction and I spent nearly 4 years in the 1960s studying Government, international politics and defence and I was taught partly by professing who had been born then.
I met politicians and policymakers whose view of the war I realised was fighting in Allied armies across France or through Italy. They had deep affection for Britain and for European security. A generation, most of whom have grown up on America's eastern seaboard died long ago, policymakers now that we meet more often come from America's West Coast or Texas, Arizona, or Florida, looking across the Pacific or south to Latin America. There is no great special bond with Britain. They want to know how we can be useful and how much we are contributing to Europe's defence.
So, NATO's future rests on European leadership which has to come from the closest possible cooperation between the UK, France, and Germany. I welcome the latest UK German treaty, went on growing the UK France cooperation, but we cannot achieve all that we want through what is, inelegantly called in the SDR, many nationalism. We have to integrate back into European multilateralism, the EU as well as NATO. Putting NATO first also means putting dreams of becoming, again, the United States military partner in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea second.
The SDR mentally states in chapter 5, I quote, finite resources cannot everything to everyone a previous Labour Government withdrew 59 as a go. Boris Johnson dream that we could leave Europe and be a global power again, and I have observed a certain nostalgia for the South China Sea as well as for the affectionate special relationship of the past. The SDR clearly states that, and I quote, a renewed focus on home defence is vital to modern deterrence, its first priority defence role is, indeed, to defend, protect, and enhance the resilience of the UK, including providing civil defence and improving the resilience of our critical national.
The concept of the whole society response with the multiple threats we now face with international crime and terrorism, pandemics, Climate Change Committee is one state threats, requires engaging in the wider topic with local Government, voluntary groups, and newly trained reserve bodies. So, I looked at the UK Government resilience action plan to learn how well this has been integrated and I found it very disappointing. A whole society response has to grow from the ground up rather than to be imposed from the drop-down.
The resilience action plan is then on how to mobilise civil society and says almost nothing about the value and role of local Government. Meanwhile, the Government had just published it English Devolution Bill which takes power from local Government and gives it to elected mayors remote from Britain's towns, villages, and local communities. As to mobilising civil society to respond to our insecure environment, we are promised only a national conversation. In terms of mobilising the more public spirited and patriotic it cautiously suggests that, I quote, it will become necessary to increase the U.K.'s acting reserve forces by at least 20%.
Think that is about 10,000 soldiers. When funding allows, most likely in the 2030s. There is a great deal more work to be done here to engage the public in improving our national-security and resilience. So far, it looks to me much more like the traditional Labour assumption that things are Labour assumption that things are best left to the experts to organise for passed society rather than the liberal view that democracy and security are guaranteed best by encouraging all citizens to play an active part in the common endeavour in communities throughout the country.
I met politicians and policymakers whose view of the war I realised was fighting in Allied armies across France or through Italy. They had deep affection for Britain and for European security. A generation, most of whom have grown up on America's eastern seaboard died long ago, policymakers now that we meet more often come from America's West Coast or Texas, Arizona, or Florida, looking across the Pacific or south to Latin America. There is no great special bond with Britain. They want to know how we can be useful and how much we are contributing to Europe's defence.
So, NATO's future rests on European leadership which has to come from the closest possible cooperation between the UK, France, and Germany. I welcome the latest UK German treaty, went on growing the UK France cooperation, but we cannot achieve all that we want through what is, inelegantly called in the SDR, many nationalism. We have to integrate back into European multilateralism, the EU as well as NATO. Putting NATO first also means putting dreams of becoming, again, the United States military partner in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea second.
The SDR mentally states in chapter 5, I quote, finite resources cannot everything to everyone a previous Labour Government withdrew 59 as a go. Boris Johnson dream that we could leave Europe and be a global power again, and I have observed a certain nostalgia for the South China Sea as well as for the affectionate special relationship of the past. The SDR clearly states that, and I quote, a renewed focus on home defence is vital to modern deterrence, its first priority defence role is, indeed, to defend, protect, and enhance the resilience of the UK, including providing civil defence and improving the resilience of our critical national.
The concept of the whole society response with the multiple threats we now face with international crime and terrorism, pandemics, Climate Change Committee is one state threats, requires engaging in the wider topic with local Government, voluntary groups, and newly trained reserve bodies. So, I looked at the UK Government resilience action plan to learn how well this has been integrated and I found it very disappointing. A whole society response has to grow from the ground up rather than to be imposed from the drop-down.
The resilience action plan is then on how to mobilise civil society and says almost nothing about the value and role of local Government. Meanwhile, the Government had just published it English Devolution Bill which takes power from local Government and gives it to elected mayors remote from Britain's towns, villages, and local communities. As to mobilising civil society to respond to our insecure environment, we are promised only a national conversation. In terms of mobilising the more public spirited and patriotic it cautiously suggests that, I quote, it will become necessary to increase the U.K.'s acting reserve forces by at least 20%.
Think that is about 10,000 soldiers. When funding allows, most likely in the 2030s. There is a great deal more work to be done here to engage the public in improving our national-security and resilience. So far, it looks to me much more like the traditional Labour assumption that things are Labour assumption that things are best left to the experts to organise for passed society rather than the liberal view that democracy and security are guaranteed best by encouraging all citizens to play an active part in the common endeavour in communities throughout the country.
13:13
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
My Lords, I declare my interest as stated on the register and I, too, congratulate the Noble Lord on his interesting Maiden speech. I thank the Noble Lord Robinson for giving us the opportunity to debate the most thorough defence review for a long time and I congratulate the Noble Lord and Fiona Hill on their work. They have had to conduct their work against a constantly evolving defence landscape, with a lack of clarity and consistency showed by the US administration, the continuing conflict in Ukraine, and the enlargement of the conflict in Israel and Gaza and the Middle East, the Noble Lord and his colleagues were also hampered by the government's pre-verification on the proportion of GDP that will be spent on defence and the timings of the increases.
It is true that under pressure from President Trump the Government has committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% by April 2027. And has made a further commitment to increase the 3% during the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, as stated on page 10 and repeated on page 13. on page 10 and repeated on page 13. So worryingly it remains only an ambition I am a little surprised that the Secretary of State has been so dismissive of the reforms introduced by the Noble Lord Levine.
I remember that he also proposed that the defence must continue to take the opportunity a joint approach can offer to enhance operational effectiveness and administrative efficiency. It seems to me that the SDR does not refute delivery reforms but develops them firmly and brings them up to date to reflect today's needs. The SDR announced MOD's intention to old six new energetic and mid munitions factories during the parliament at a cost of £1.5 million. Given that the depletion of omniscient stocks as a result of the Ukraine war, this is welcome news.
Cut the Noble Lord the Minister tell your Lordships house without these will be Government owned and operated factories, or whether the able be outsourced to the private sector or to public and private partnerships. There is the defence investment plan which will maximise the benefits of defence spending to grow the economy. But how can there be a plan before the MoD knows when it will receive 3% of GDP which remains simply an aspiration. A review informs the reader that one million people in the Euro-Atlantic area sleep easily at night, protected by article 5 of the North Atlantic, but does the Minister think that article 5 can be relied on? Having heard the speech of the Noble Lord Robertson and of the Noble Lord Robertson and It is good that the review recognises the importance of working with partners other than NATO, in both the Middle East and the Indo- Pacific regions.
Perhaps more thought should be given to the development of organisation similar to NATO in both these regions? Certainly, a Japanese friends are most interested in this. Especially as they are somewhat sceptical that we remain completely committed to the Indo-Pacific tilt, given that much of the talk is now about an EU reset. Can I ask the Minister if he thinks it likely that consideration will be given to including Japan in both the five Powers defence arrangements and the five Powers intelligence act? The review includes the word lethality 25 times and lethal a further 10 times.
It strengthens the need for Armed Forces to increase their lethality. I always thought the word lethal means capable of killing. I think it now has a new meaning, which means capable of total destruction. Indeed, a huge benefit of the introduction of advanced precision weapons is that theoretically at least less people are killed through collateral damage. As the honorary air Commodore of London's Air Force reserve Squadron, I'm interested in what the review has to say about reserves. I agree with what my noble friends have said about the reserves and new ways must be found to encourage employers to support them.
Whereas discussion in recent years within the reserves has suggested a blurring of the line between regulars and reserves, and a gradual move towards a regular to reserve move towards a regular to reserve ratio of 121 -- 1-1 as in the United States. The review should be increased to 25% when funding allows. In addition, more reserves very much assist the building of society's understanding of what the Armed Forces due and provides increased visibility of the funds.
That should help us. To answer Lord Robathan's call to persuade the public that we must prioritise defence in order to make our country safe. safe.
It is true that under pressure from President Trump the Government has committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% by April 2027. And has made a further commitment to increase the 3% during the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, as stated on page 10 and repeated on page 13. on page 10 and repeated on page 13. So worryingly it remains only an ambition I am a little surprised that the Secretary of State has been so dismissive of the reforms introduced by the Noble Lord Levine.
I remember that he also proposed that the defence must continue to take the opportunity a joint approach can offer to enhance operational effectiveness and administrative efficiency. It seems to me that the SDR does not refute delivery reforms but develops them firmly and brings them up to date to reflect today's needs. The SDR announced MOD's intention to old six new energetic and mid munitions factories during the parliament at a cost of £1.5 million. Given that the depletion of omniscient stocks as a result of the Ukraine war, this is welcome news.
Cut the Noble Lord the Minister tell your Lordships house without these will be Government owned and operated factories, or whether the able be outsourced to the private sector or to public and private partnerships. There is the defence investment plan which will maximise the benefits of defence spending to grow the economy. But how can there be a plan before the MoD knows when it will receive 3% of GDP which remains simply an aspiration. A review informs the reader that one million people in the Euro-Atlantic area sleep easily at night, protected by article 5 of the North Atlantic, but does the Minister think that article 5 can be relied on? Having heard the speech of the Noble Lord Robertson and of the Noble Lord Robertson and It is good that the review recognises the importance of working with partners other than NATO, in both the Middle East and the Indo- Pacific regions.
Perhaps more thought should be given to the development of organisation similar to NATO in both these regions? Certainly, a Japanese friends are most interested in this. Especially as they are somewhat sceptical that we remain completely committed to the Indo-Pacific tilt, given that much of the talk is now about an EU reset. Can I ask the Minister if he thinks it likely that consideration will be given to including Japan in both the five Powers defence arrangements and the five Powers intelligence act? The review includes the word lethality 25 times and lethal a further 10 times.
It strengthens the need for Armed Forces to increase their lethality. I always thought the word lethal means capable of killing. I think it now has a new meaning, which means capable of total destruction. Indeed, a huge benefit of the introduction of advanced precision weapons is that theoretically at least less people are killed through collateral damage. As the honorary air Commodore of London's Air Force reserve Squadron, I'm interested in what the review has to say about reserves. I agree with what my noble friends have said about the reserves and new ways must be found to encourage employers to support them.
Whereas discussion in recent years within the reserves has suggested a blurring of the line between regulars and reserves, and a gradual move towards a regular to reserve move towards a regular to reserve ratio of 121 -- 1-1 as in the United States. The review should be increased to 25% when funding allows. In addition, more reserves very much assist the building of society's understanding of what the Armed Forces due and provides increased visibility of the funds.
That should help us. To answer Lord Robathan's call to persuade the public that we must prioritise defence in order to make our country safe. safe.
13:18
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
My Lords, if trying to debate two summarises the debate so far, I would suggest roughly speaking that the sentiment of the house is a huge support for the Strategic Defence Review but with a big? Of " We Review but with a big? Of " We really need it? Those --". The claims that we have made in recent times about the capabilities we were declaring, we knew they were essentially phony. Our adversaries knew that they were phony.
The only people we were not straight with were the British people. The defence review is straight with British people. In order for that to happen, we have been having a significant debate about what the phasing of the extra resourcing will look like. I took the commitments that the Prime Minister made at the NATO summit to be watertight. And picking up on Baroness Goldie's question. I wonder whether the government could be clear with us as to what is the incremental spend we are talking about.
I think they are saying that by 2027 we will be spending 2.6% of GDP Encore defence spending and 4.1% on security. That implies that by 2027, we will already be spending 1.5% on the non-defence infrastructure of security spending, and therefore implies that we've got 0.9% to add to core defence spending between 2027 and 2035. The question for the government is when will they show their workings on that? Will be see it in the autumn what the incremental sequencing of that 0.9% is going to look like, certainly for the next three years over the balance of this Parliament? Without that, quite obviously, as the debate has revealed, we are quite unlikely to make progress.
Can I also just take the opportunity to ask whether the government are intending clarifying the United Kingdom's nuclear defence doctrine in the light of the announcements made alongside President Macron last week, updating the 1995 Chequers decoration around greater operational strategy. Will understand that nuclear deterrence is a subtle combination of explicit signalling and studied ambiguity but are the government planning to do more than simply these incremental announcements and actually set the pace as Rome accept this as the new K -- set this as the new UK doctrine? How well we manage the permeable membrane between active- duty and reserve members of the Armed Forces Roman how will we manage? -- how will we manage? Are we going to see that the statutory framework brought before us in the next King's Speech? And then finally in terms of the execution capability required to get the SDR done, there has been some mild criticism that there is a degree of ambiguity about when some of these things could happen.
I would just point out to noble Lords that actually there are two extremely ambitious commit and is apparently nailed in for next year and the year after. One of them being the digital underpinning of the integration, which is now supposed to be happening between different branches of the armed forces. The digital targeting web and so forth. This is going to be an MVP next year and is going to be in place by 2027. I think it has taken Americans 20 years of effort in this space and they have still not got to a situation where a US naval vessel can communicate in real-time with all the U.S.
Air Force jets that might be in the same data space, let alone planes being able to communicate with others in the air force. The idea that we would have a light version of this sometime next year is truly a laudable goal but I would like to know how we will get that done. Like others, I strongly support the direction set out by Lord Robertson and welcome the government was my commitment to it. It's all about execution a band with, whether that is money, whether that is long, whether that is the sheer implementation of muscle that is required across the military.
The only people we were not straight with were the British people. The defence review is straight with British people. In order for that to happen, we have been having a significant debate about what the phasing of the extra resourcing will look like. I took the commitments that the Prime Minister made at the NATO summit to be watertight. And picking up on Baroness Goldie's question. I wonder whether the government could be clear with us as to what is the incremental spend we are talking about.
I think they are saying that by 2027 we will be spending 2.6% of GDP Encore defence spending and 4.1% on security. That implies that by 2027, we will already be spending 1.5% on the non-defence infrastructure of security spending, and therefore implies that we've got 0.9% to add to core defence spending between 2027 and 2035. The question for the government is when will they show their workings on that? Will be see it in the autumn what the incremental sequencing of that 0.9% is going to look like, certainly for the next three years over the balance of this Parliament? Without that, quite obviously, as the debate has revealed, we are quite unlikely to make progress.
Can I also just take the opportunity to ask whether the government are intending clarifying the United Kingdom's nuclear defence doctrine in the light of the announcements made alongside President Macron last week, updating the 1995 Chequers decoration around greater operational strategy. Will understand that nuclear deterrence is a subtle combination of explicit signalling and studied ambiguity but are the government planning to do more than simply these incremental announcements and actually set the pace as Rome accept this as the new K -- set this as the new UK doctrine? How well we manage the permeable membrane between active- duty and reserve members of the Armed Forces Roman how will we manage? -- how will we manage? Are we going to see that the statutory framework brought before us in the next King's Speech? And then finally in terms of the execution capability required to get the SDR done, there has been some mild criticism that there is a degree of ambiguity about when some of these things could happen.
I would just point out to noble Lords that actually there are two extremely ambitious commit and is apparently nailed in for next year and the year after. One of them being the digital underpinning of the integration, which is now supposed to be happening between different branches of the armed forces. The digital targeting web and so forth. This is going to be an MVP next year and is going to be in place by 2027. I think it has taken Americans 20 years of effort in this space and they have still not got to a situation where a US naval vessel can communicate in real-time with all the U.S.
Air Force jets that might be in the same data space, let alone planes being able to communicate with others in the air force. The idea that we would have a light version of this sometime next year is truly a laudable goal but I would like to know how we will get that done. Like others, I strongly support the direction set out by Lord Robertson and welcome the government was my commitment to it. It's all about execution a band with, whether that is money, whether that is long, whether that is the sheer implementation of muscle that is required across the military.
13:23
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
I welcome the timely publication of the Strategic Defence Review and I agree with his analysis that the UK faces generational defence and security challenges, whether it be from Russia, Iran, China or nonstate actors like terrorist organisations. The Strategic Defence Review rightly recognises that we need to engage our wider society to deal with threats that -- to keep our country safe. However, it is alarming that recent polling by source -- IPSOS revealed that the majority of Britons said that there are no circumstances under which they would be willing to take arms to defend their country.
Could the Minister tell me how we're going to change the way in which the country and its history and its Armed Forces are spoken about in order to make them feel like this country is a place worth defending? As some of you may know, I'm a proud colonel cadet. Supporting the movement means a great deal to me and I'd like to recognise the positive impact that the cadets and the courses that they study and undertake have on our society.
I therefore would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those arms can -- army cadets and Royal Air Force cadets who recently graduated from the programme held at the London Stock Exchange. It is particularly welcome that the Strategic Defence Review has concluded that we need to reconnect defence with wider society. It should be a cornerstone of our whole defence and resilience strategy. Which could be achieved in part, and I quote, " Exceeding -- expanding the cadet force by 30% by 2030 with an ambition to reach 250,000 total cadets in the longer term and working with the Department of education will develop an understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools.
Expanding cadet force will provide the skills and qualifications for young people to support economic growth." Minister should heed the comment from Mr Michael Martins from the British Foreign Policy Group who stressed the need for different strategy to engage with the rest of society come arguing that, and I quote, " Without a compelling narrative, when that builds cross- party and public consensus while also bringing business a long, the Strategic Defence Review runs the risk of being viewed as a technocratic exercise, not a national priority." I hope that the government 's whole society report -- approach comes through.
I would be willing to work with them in any way to help them achieve this number and also hold them to account should they fall short. By the publication of the review is a step in the right direction, I share Mr Martin's concerns and believe the government will need to do more than merely review the recommendations. Rather, they will need to exceed them and should make the civic engagement and pride in our Armed Forces and indeed our country. Many young people feel like they cannot be involved in supporting this country and its defence because of the way this country are spoken about by many people.
If you talk to people, in my community in general, they will tell you about institutional racism which makes them feel separate to this nation full stop the station which has closed and housed them -- clothed. How can we turn around public discourse and encourage public discourse and encourage It will help us keep our nation and communities safer and provide an opportunity for young people to be exposed to people who man our Armed Forces, some of the most dedicated, intelligent and committed people in the world.
It would be an awful shame for young people not to be exposed to that level of patriarchy -- sorry, patriotic fervour and the pure technical care they have for this country. It would be very useful to expose our communities to that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd like to begin by thanking, congratulating my noble friend on his maiden speech. If a Glaswegian can become a Brummie, then can become a Brummie, then everything is possible. I'd like to thank the Minister for his efforts thank the Minister for his efforts in ensuring that armaments business in ensuring that armaments business is regionally recognised and his colleagues did a lot in the last colleagues did a lot in the last months to ensure that companies in the armament sector were allowed to the armament sector were allowed to survive and indeed, I'm pleased to say that the involvement of the say that the involvement of the Spanish company, armaments are now investing heavily in preparing for the solid support vessels.
I'd like the solid support vessels. I'd like to thank the Minister for his work in that department. In a very un- in that department. In a very un- Scottish introduction, Lord Scottish introduction, Lord Robertson... I think many Scottish Presbyterian ministers would find it a bit challenging in the past, but he did however make the point that we don't, of course, want to see our
Could the Minister tell me how we're going to change the way in which the country and its history and its Armed Forces are spoken about in order to make them feel like this country is a place worth defending? As some of you may know, I'm a proud colonel cadet. Supporting the movement means a great deal to me and I'd like to recognise the positive impact that the cadets and the courses that they study and undertake have on our society.
I therefore would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those arms can -- army cadets and Royal Air Force cadets who recently graduated from the programme held at the London Stock Exchange. It is particularly welcome that the Strategic Defence Review has concluded that we need to reconnect defence with wider society. It should be a cornerstone of our whole defence and resilience strategy. Which could be achieved in part, and I quote, " Exceeding -- expanding the cadet force by 30% by 2030 with an ambition to reach 250,000 total cadets in the longer term and working with the Department of education will develop an understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools.
Expanding cadet force will provide the skills and qualifications for young people to support economic growth." Minister should heed the comment from Mr Michael Martins from the British Foreign Policy Group who stressed the need for different strategy to engage with the rest of society come arguing that, and I quote, " Without a compelling narrative, when that builds cross- party and public consensus while also bringing business a long, the Strategic Defence Review runs the risk of being viewed as a technocratic exercise, not a national priority." I hope that the government 's whole society report -- approach comes through.
I would be willing to work with them in any way to help them achieve this number and also hold them to account should they fall short. By the publication of the review is a step in the right direction, I share Mr Martin's concerns and believe the government will need to do more than merely review the recommendations. Rather, they will need to exceed them and should make the civic engagement and pride in our Armed Forces and indeed our country. Many young people feel like they cannot be involved in supporting this country and its defence because of the way this country are spoken about by many people.
If you talk to people, in my community in general, they will tell you about institutional racism which makes them feel separate to this nation full stop the station which has closed and housed them -- clothed. How can we turn around public discourse and encourage public discourse and encourage It will help us keep our nation and communities safer and provide an opportunity for young people to be exposed to people who man our Armed Forces, some of the most dedicated, intelligent and committed people in the world.
It would be an awful shame for young people not to be exposed to that level of patriarchy -- sorry, patriotic fervour and the pure technical care they have for this country. It would be very useful to expose our communities to that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd like to begin by thanking, congratulating my noble friend on his maiden speech. If a Glaswegian can become a Brummie, then can become a Brummie, then everything is possible. I'd like to thank the Minister for his efforts thank the Minister for his efforts in ensuring that armaments business in ensuring that armaments business is regionally recognised and his colleagues did a lot in the last colleagues did a lot in the last months to ensure that companies in the armament sector were allowed to the armament sector were allowed to survive and indeed, I'm pleased to say that the involvement of the say that the involvement of the Spanish company, armaments are now investing heavily in preparing for the solid support vessels.
I'd like the solid support vessels. I'd like to thank the Minister for his work in that department. In a very un- in that department. In a very un- Scottish introduction, Lord Scottish introduction, Lord Robertson... I think many Scottish Presbyterian ministers would find it a bit challenging in the past, but he did however make the point that we don't, of course, want to see our
13:31
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
country in a constant state of war readiness and we can sometimes talk ourselves into a problem. Equally, ourselves into a problem. Equally, we cannot ignore what is going on. My noble friend and his remarks My noble friend and his remarks pointed out that the post-war international order and international law is largely now ignored by all the major countries, including the United States. They including the United States. They just pay absolutely no attention to just pay absolutely no attention to it.
They indeed, I would say, hold it to contempt in many cases. it to contempt in many cases. it to contempt in many cases. Ramekin contempt. -- Hold it in Ramekin contempt. -- Hold it in Best armaments are the ones that I Best armaments are the ones that I never used, such as this conundrum and my concern is that our society and my concern is that our society is not necessarily reaching that that Lord Bailey made the point, how we deport ourselves of country we we deport ourselves of country we are not regarded by people like the are not regarded by people like the Russian state as a serious threat, they hold us in contempt can we can't even control about one borders, were held to ransom by gangsters and thugs and in those circumstances I think the point that circumstances I think the point that was made since the introduction is getting society we have to have a conversation, we have to get our younger people to realise the threats, those of us that grow up in the post-war generation have lived a life of luxury and peace very largely and while my part of the country has seen at least how things could go wrong, the vast majority, thank God, have not.
Let's keep it that way, but we have cut the hazard Government and Houses of Parliament to concentrate on ensuring that society, as a whole, is part of this and we have got to discuss it, we have got to talk about it, whether it is to condense, exclude, as we have got to stop the round and work up stop and think that would be our best defence.
They indeed, I would say, hold it to contempt in many cases. it to contempt in many cases. it to contempt in many cases. Ramekin contempt. -- Hold it in Ramekin contempt. -- Hold it in Best armaments are the ones that I Best armaments are the ones that I never used, such as this conundrum and my concern is that our society and my concern is that our society is not necessarily reaching that that Lord Bailey made the point, how we deport ourselves of country we we deport ourselves of country we are not regarded by people like the are not regarded by people like the Russian state as a serious threat, they hold us in contempt can we can't even control about one borders, were held to ransom by gangsters and thugs and in those circumstances I think the point that circumstances I think the point that was made since the introduction is getting society we have to have a conversation, we have to get our younger people to realise the threats, those of us that grow up in the post-war generation have lived a life of luxury and peace very largely and while my part of the country has seen at least how things could go wrong, the vast majority, thank God, have not.
Let's keep it that way, but we have cut the hazard Government and Houses of Parliament to concentrate on ensuring that society, as a whole, is part of this and we have got to discuss it, we have got to talk about it, whether it is to condense, exclude, as we have got to stop the round and work up stop and think that would be our best defence.
13:32
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
-
-
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I declare some previous experience than the review board, I went to Iraq, I went to Coniston, and I have seen how people have to operate on the ground with different issues, I certainly learned a lot and I would like to congratulate the Noble Lord for his Maiden speech. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and IM sure they will make a contribution in the future.
As a trade union official if I was looking at what the Government is doing to improve the conditions I often look to the Secretary of State and I thought it was very impressive, so we have announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the Cold War, stepped up support for Ukraine, looked at the service personnel and awarded in the biggest pay rise in over 20 years. Signed the historic Trinity House agreement with Germany, brought back over 36,000 military homes to improve housing from families and save UK taxpayers millions, saving targets to tackling the recruitment crisis permitted easier for veterans to access essential care and support under the new system and asked to Parliament the Armed Forces commissioned Bill to improve service life.
That is not a bad track record of commitment to improving conditions in my view. To come on, we have also paid tribute to my Noble Friend Lord Robertson, I think it is fascinating as a Strategic Defence Review. I do not know, like me, how many people have sat through 95% of the contributions today and, of course, we are not going to get absolute agreement on it, and I thoroughly enjoyed the noble Lords contributing because I think he was right to challenge basic premises that it makes people think about it but I did not agree with it, but I nevertheless thought it was an important contribution, and I certainly welcomed the Noble Lord Hennessy's tribute to standing on the shoulders of giants to any Bevan and also to a bit of poetry, I think that is a valuable bit of advice.
There were some other contributions that I come as next governor of the BBC, I certainly appreciate the noble Baroness cousins reminding us that the BBC's role in soft power, it was emphasised by others, I think that was an important reminder and I sort of was thinking about the question of language skills as I struggled to keep up the challenge of doable lingo, but actually on a more serious point, language skills are being automated, in a way, and she is shaking her head, so we are not going to reach agreement on this, but I not think you can say that the only way to teach language in 2025 is in the traditional way, but there is no doubt it is something that we can discuss over a cup of tea or whatever, but I still think it is an important point and I also wanted to congratulate my Noble Friend on what I thought was a stunning contribution on the role of women.
I want to declare an interest because I am nearly finished, I and The Chair of the advisory for the sustainable and repairable manufacturing and in the SDR plant it says the engine for growth, driving jobs across a new partnership with industry, medical reviews backing UK business.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry, speakers in the gap have four minutes. Please wound up. Thank you. So, I hope that the Noble Lord is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So, I hope that the Noble Lord is going to give me an assurance that there will be jobs in the closing there will be jobs in the closing industry, in the British clothing industry.
As a trade union official if I was looking at what the Government is doing to improve the conditions I often look to the Secretary of State and I thought it was very impressive, so we have announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the Cold War, stepped up support for Ukraine, looked at the service personnel and awarded in the biggest pay rise in over 20 years. Signed the historic Trinity House agreement with Germany, brought back over 36,000 military homes to improve housing from families and save UK taxpayers millions, saving targets to tackling the recruitment crisis permitted easier for veterans to access essential care and support under the new system and asked to Parliament the Armed Forces commissioned Bill to improve service life.
That is not a bad track record of commitment to improving conditions in my view. To come on, we have also paid tribute to my Noble Friend Lord Robertson, I think it is fascinating as a Strategic Defence Review. I do not know, like me, how many people have sat through 95% of the contributions today and, of course, we are not going to get absolute agreement on it, and I thoroughly enjoyed the noble Lords contributing because I think he was right to challenge basic premises that it makes people think about it but I did not agree with it, but I nevertheless thought it was an important contribution, and I certainly welcomed the Noble Lord Hennessy's tribute to standing on the shoulders of giants to any Bevan and also to a bit of poetry, I think that is a valuable bit of advice.
There were some other contributions that I come as next governor of the BBC, I certainly appreciate the noble Baroness cousins reminding us that the BBC's role in soft power, it was emphasised by others, I think that was an important reminder and I sort of was thinking about the question of language skills as I struggled to keep up the challenge of doable lingo, but actually on a more serious point, language skills are being automated, in a way, and she is shaking her head, so we are not going to reach agreement on this, but I not think you can say that the only way to teach language in 2025 is in the traditional way, but there is no doubt it is something that we can discuss over a cup of tea or whatever, but I still think it is an important point and I also wanted to congratulate my Noble Friend on what I thought was a stunning contribution on the role of women.
I want to declare an interest because I am nearly finished, I and The Chair of the advisory for the sustainable and repairable manufacturing and in the SDR plant it says the engine for growth, driving jobs across a new partnership with industry, medical reviews backing UK business.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sorry, speakers in the gap have four minutes. Please wound up. Thank you. So, I hope that the Noble Lord is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So, I hope that the Noble Lord is going to give me an assurance that there will be jobs in the closing there will be jobs in the closing industry, in the British clothing industry.
13:37
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
industry. My Lords, sorry, I was led to believe there were three speakers in believe there were three speakers in the. So, I rise slightly abruptly to welcome the SDR. Like the vast majority of speakers from these benches who feel that work of the Noble Lord Robertson and his team, particularly Fiona Hill and British barons has been a remarkable work that it really does give us an integrated defence review in a way that perhaps recent iterations of the so-called integrated security and defence review must have around seem to be a little more fragmented and strategic than might have been desirable, so, as I say, from these benches, we echo the sense from around the chamber that this SDR has understood the context of the challenges that we, as the United kingdom, and partners and allies face and I think we also agree with the sentiment in the review and across the chamber that we are at daily risk through cyber attacks and other points from Russia and other potential hostile actors, so although the Noble Lord thinks perhaps the dangers have been overstated, I think it is vital that this SDR has understood the challenges of the postcode war.
Because, as several speakers have pointed out, we have, for too long, been rather complacent as the West. We took the Cold War peace dividend and we stayed until the point where Russia would look and say actually, the West is not prepared, and we heard from the Noble Lord and the Noble Lady Ernest about the night he referred to the defence expenditure plant and we are in a similar situation, so like the Noble Lady baroness mentioned, I would like to ask the Noble Lord the Minister a little bit about how his majesties Government envisions the expenditure because what we are hearing through the election and all the way through to the NATO summit was that the commitment was going to be 2.7% and then 3% if the financial circumstances allowed, or when the financial circumstances allowed, and the current wording of the SDR reflects that, the review team were told assume to end 1/2% was in the remit.
And the review team pointed out, as I understand it, that no money was needed, but then the mid- term commitments to 3 1/2% of GDP on the hard defence expenditure, and one and 1/2% on critical infrastructure and resilience, suddenly changes the dynamics, to some extent, but as we have heard from the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord there is a question of what do we do with the money and how are we planning to spend it and when? Because the numbers are one thing, the commitment is important, and that since certain signals, not just our allies on our investments, but is potentially also serves signals to the defence industrial base and it sends signals to the prime and also the sub-prime that they may be needed to build and to increase production, but unless there is certainty in terms of letting the contracts, unless there is actually some clarity about what has happened between now and 2025, those are not going to stop letting production, and in particular the situation for the sub primes and for a very small companies, new innovation is going to be very difficult, so can the noble of the Minister explain to the House a little bit about the Treasury and the emoji vision about expenditure? My Lords, the discussion of resilience is something that several noble Lords have talked about the whole of society approach is one that would indeed be vital.
The review, in particular, talks about the importance of having that national social and does his majesties Government have any idea about how the national conversation should be initiated? We have heard today that it needs to be led from the top. From the Prime Minister. Maybe I have not been listening may be a bit like waiting for the third speaker in the gap that did not exist, maybe I have just missing the Prime Minister when he has been trying to negotiate this conversation.
But have people in Paddington, in the Noble Lord Baileys patch, been hearing the Prime Minister going out and saying it is vital that we begin to look at our own critical infrastructure? It is vital that we rebuild defence, despite all that we spend money on defence because, as we heard earlier with the much welcome return of the Noble Lord Hennessy, pointed out that Denis Healey if you cut expense spinach up to further our no houses, no hospitals, no schools.
But I have not heard either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister saying that. Saying I were going to. And in terms of examples I think the Noble Lady baroness was actually beginning to give some ideas of encouraging children and young people to find out about defence. We have heard from various noble Lords, including the Noble Lord about cadets. Cadets are part of the way in to the recruiting of young people, although, obviously, it is not meant to be a direct route to being a full-time military reservist.
And yet as the funding for cadet forces has been cut, so is his majesties Government delivering what it is promising and what is needed? What is needed in terms of thinking through the positions of the cadets. And, in particular, then, commitment to the reserves, because as my Noble Friend Lord Wallace pointed out, the phrasing in the SDR says that we need to increase the size of the reserves by 20%. And it also says when funding allows.
And so far the commitments apart from the commitment of the NATO summit, are still incremental, and increasing the size of the reserves in the 2030s does not suggest any sense of real urgency. So, is the Government really committed to increasing the size of the reserves also doing what the Noble Lord Hunt pointed out and making sure that there is equality of treatment for the reserves? That they have the same kit and the same training as the regulars. And in terms of the parity of esteem and quality, the Noble Lord Stevens mentioned the fact that next year we will have a new Armed Forces Act in the five year cycle, so given that the SDR is talking about the need to have a much more interoperability between services, will we see that reflected in policy, but also through the Armed Forces Act? Or is there some other way in which his majesties Government is envisaging making sure that interoperability will come out? Linking, then, took wider aspects, NATO first is a very clear message and it is also always followed by the Ministers of defence saying NATO first but not only.
I think that the moves to bilateral and defence agreements with Germany and with France have been extremely welcome. My Noble Friend Lord Wallace did not like the term mini L is, but for many of us, it explains precisely what the Government wants to do and if it is done in a joint away as part of strategy, as reflecting the languages used by Lord McCabe in his welcome Maiden speech. He talked about the importance of joint policy. Yes bilateral as and many L is intended to be part of the trend of strategy? To enable the UK to play a role as To enable the UK to play a role as But also to ensure that we have an effective arm of eat -- NATO.
I don't expect the Minister to see anything other than the relationship with the United States is as close as it's ever been and as it needs to be. Are we making sure that we are strengthening the European arm of NATO? Whether the United States is with us or whether we are having to... Finally, to short point. My noble friend could not be with us today so he sent me many questions. The questions were about autonomous weapons.
One specific question is what thinking has his Gavin remark His Majesty's Government done -- what thinking has His Majesty's Government done about the fact that there is always a human in the chain? Also, we spoke about the non-provision -- non- proliferation Treaty. This country must do everything it can to look to deescalation and to moving down the ladder of nuclear capabilities. What is His Majesty's Government doing to ensure that in 2026, this country plays a key role in the non- proliferation Treaty review? proliferation Treaty review?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
industry. My Lords, sorry, I was led to believe there were three speakers in believe there were three speakers in the. So, I rise slightly abruptly to welcome the SDR. Like the vast majority of speakers from these benches who feel that work of the Noble Lord Robertson and his team, particularly Fiona Hill and British barons has been a remarkable work that it really does give us an integrated defence review in a way that perhaps recent iterations of the so-called integrated security and defence review must have around seem to be a little more fragmented and strategic than might have been desirable, so, as I say, from these benches, we echo the sense from around the chamber that this SDR has understood the context of the challenges that we, as the United kingdom, and partners and allies face and I think we also agree with the sentiment in the review and across the chamber that we are at daily risk through cyber attacks and other points from Russia and other potential hostile actors, so although the Noble Lord thinks perhaps the dangers have been overstated, I think it is vital that this SDR has understood the challenges of the postcode war.
Because, as several speakers have pointed out, we have, for too long, been rather complacent as the West. We took the Cold War peace dividend and we stayed until the point where Russia would look and say actually, the West is not prepared, and we heard from the Noble Lord and the Noble Lady Ernest about the night he referred to the defence expenditure plant and we are in a similar situation, so like the Noble Lady baroness mentioned, I would like to ask the Noble Lord the Minister a little bit about how his majesties Government envisions the expenditure because what we are hearing through the election and all the way through to the NATO summit was that the commitment was going to be 2.7% and then 3% if the financial circumstances allowed, or when the financial circumstances allowed, and the current wording of the SDR reflects that, the review team were told assume to end 1/2% was in the remit.
And the review team pointed out, as I understand it, that no money was needed, but then the mid- term commitments to 3 1/2% of GDP on the hard defence expenditure, and one and 1/2% on critical infrastructure and resilience, suddenly changes the dynamics, to some extent, but as we have heard from the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord there is a question of what do we do with the money and how are we planning to spend it and when? Because the numbers are one thing, the commitment is important, and that since certain signals, not just our allies on our investments, but is potentially also serves signals to the defence industrial base and it sends signals to the prime and also the sub-prime that they may be needed to build and to increase production, but unless there is certainty in terms of letting the contracts, unless there is actually some clarity about what has happened between now and 2025, those are not going to stop letting production, and in particular the situation for the sub primes and for a very small companies, new innovation is going to be very difficult, so can the noble of the Minister explain to the House a little bit about the Treasury and the emoji vision about expenditure? My Lords, the discussion of resilience is something that several noble Lords have talked about the whole of society approach is one that would indeed be vital.
The review, in particular, talks about the importance of having that national social and does his majesties Government have any idea about how the national conversation should be initiated? We have heard today that it needs to be led from the top. From the Prime Minister. Maybe I have not been listening may be a bit like waiting for the third speaker in the gap that did not exist, maybe I have just missing the Prime Minister when he has been trying to negotiate this conversation.
But have people in Paddington, in the Noble Lord Baileys patch, been hearing the Prime Minister going out and saying it is vital that we begin to look at our own critical infrastructure? It is vital that we rebuild defence, despite all that we spend money on defence because, as we heard earlier with the much welcome return of the Noble Lord Hennessy, pointed out that Denis Healey if you cut expense spinach up to further our no houses, no hospitals, no schools.
But I have not heard either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister saying that. Saying I were going to. And in terms of examples I think the Noble Lady baroness was actually beginning to give some ideas of encouraging children and young people to find out about defence. We have heard from various noble Lords, including the Noble Lord about cadets. Cadets are part of the way in to the recruiting of young people, although, obviously, it is not meant to be a direct route to being a full-time military reservist.
And yet as the funding for cadet forces has been cut, so is his majesties Government delivering what it is promising and what is needed? What is needed in terms of thinking through the positions of the cadets. And, in particular, then, commitment to the reserves, because as my Noble Friend Lord Wallace pointed out, the phrasing in the SDR says that we need to increase the size of the reserves by 20%. And it also says when funding allows.
And so far the commitments apart from the commitment of the NATO summit, are still incremental, and increasing the size of the reserves in the 2030s does not suggest any sense of real urgency. So, is the Government really committed to increasing the size of the reserves also doing what the Noble Lord Hunt pointed out and making sure that there is equality of treatment for the reserves? That they have the same kit and the same training as the regulars. And in terms of the parity of esteem and quality, the Noble Lord Stevens mentioned the fact that next year we will have a new Armed Forces Act in the five year cycle, so given that the SDR is talking about the need to have a much more interoperability between services, will we see that reflected in policy, but also through the Armed Forces Act? Or is there some other way in which his majesties Government is envisaging making sure that interoperability will come out? Linking, then, took wider aspects, NATO first is a very clear message and it is also always followed by the Ministers of defence saying NATO first but not only.
I think that the moves to bilateral and defence agreements with Germany and with France have been extremely welcome. My Noble Friend Lord Wallace did not like the term mini L is, but for many of us, it explains precisely what the Government wants to do and if it is done in a joint away as part of strategy, as reflecting the languages used by Lord McCabe in his welcome Maiden speech. He talked about the importance of joint policy. Yes bilateral as and many L is intended to be part of the trend of strategy? To enable the UK to play a role as To enable the UK to play a role as But also to ensure that we have an effective arm of eat -- NATO.
I don't expect the Minister to see anything other than the relationship with the United States is as close as it's ever been and as it needs to be. Are we making sure that we are strengthening the European arm of NATO? Whether the United States is with us or whether we are having to... Finally, to short point. My noble friend could not be with us today so he sent me many questions. The questions were about autonomous weapons.
One specific question is what thinking has his Gavin remark His Majesty's Government done -- what thinking has His Majesty's Government done about the fact that there is always a human in the chain? Also, we spoke about the non-provision -- non- proliferation Treaty. This country must do everything it can to look to deescalation and to moving down the ladder of nuclear capabilities. What is His Majesty's Government doing to ensure that in 2026, this country plays a key role in the non- proliferation Treaty review? proliferation Treaty review?
13:48
The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
As other noble Lords have said, this has been a highly informative and fascinating debate, wide-ranging I I praise I praise the I praise the Lord I praise the Lord Robertson I praise the Lord Robertson for facilitating this to be. I also thank the other reviewers. The review they have produced is clearly review they have produced is clearly very thorough oh and -- very sorrow. -- thorough. In particular, it is welcome that the Government have accepted all these recommendations.
This review is just the start. The reviews have delivered the report and recommendations. The ball now lies firmly in the government's court. It is their actions on implementation, as mentioned by many other Lords, that will be key to developing and meeting the challenges of the future. It is on the practicalities and resource implications that I would therefore like to direct my focus. My noble friend the Earl of Minto raised the issue of naval assets. The review mentions this on only three occasions.
The government scrapped HMS Albion last year, meaning that we currently only have three bay class ships that can, when called up, conduct such operations. This is an unprecedented capability shortage and leaves us -- cut and leaves us behind other nations. Italy has three Saint Giorgio class. Britain is therefore currently falling behind both France and Italy. I understand why the government took the decision dated to scrap these ships. We are now faced with the fact that we do not possess these capabilities and it seems we don't have a plan to replace them.
The nature of naval warfare is changing, as the review acknowledges. It's not outside the realms of possibility that we might need to possess the ability to launch complex and amphibious operations in the future. Furthermore, the review states that the Royal Navy will need to move forward a so-called hybrid carrier air wing, incorporated Crewe fighters, unmanned systems. Throughout the review, it also speaks of greater integration of UAVs. The UK falls behind our peers and our adoption of drones.
Last year, the government scrapped the watch keeper drones used by the army. In his statement in the other place announcing that last year, the Secretary of State for Defence said, " Following the retirement of Watch keeper, the army will rapidly switch to an advanced capability, drawing on the most recent operational lessons and technological developments." How will the government rapidly switch to a new Joan capability? Have they begun the procurement process for expanding our joint capabilities? The government must purchase one way attack drones and unmanned combat aircraft as a matter of urgency.
Putin's illegal war in Ukraine has mistreated a rapidly changing or fighting dynamic. As things stand, fighting dynamic. As things stand, the UK has been left behind. Furthermore, there is a significant issue with Typhoon. It was reported last year that the production of Typhoon aircraft was ground to a halt due to a lack of orders. The BA report -- according to the BAE report, there are some in the works. This is a concern given the Air Force does not possess any of these fighters.
Again, this is an example of us falling behind. The recent MoD press release stated that Typhoons were going to be the backbone of the RAF for the next decade. If this is so, than our current fleet of Typhoons will soon become outdated. Consortium has released other aircraft, purchasing the latest Typhoons is crucial. If the factory does not receive any new orders imminently, risk the possibility of job losses on the site. These are incredibly skilled individuals who will be central to our ability to build a global combat air programme fighters in the future.
We must maintain a sovereign manufacturing capability. The new Typhoon orders would not only show -- ensure the factory in Wharton but other factories in the future. Baroness Goldie mentioned the role of the space debate. I would like to pick up on one point. Footnote 90 of the review notes that the last government established the National Space Council recognising the importance of space in our defence but this is not reconstituted after the 2024 election. Then recommends that there should be a reinvigorated Cabinet subcommittee to set the strategic approach to space.
Will the government follow the through orders and if so, when? Is always, this has been an invigorating debate on a really important report. I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a great privilege to wind up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a great privilege to wind up this debate, which has been, as this debate, which has been, as usual, very high in standard and very interesting. Can I start, however, just by saying to my noble friend Lord McCabe, we came into the other place at the same time and we have followed each other through... I did slightly smile when he said he found it quite sedating in here. found it quite sedating in here. It's not been my experience.
Our pats have finally diverged. It was
This review is just the start. The reviews have delivered the report and recommendations. The ball now lies firmly in the government's court. It is their actions on implementation, as mentioned by many other Lords, that will be key to developing and meeting the challenges of the future. It is on the practicalities and resource implications that I would therefore like to direct my focus. My noble friend the Earl of Minto raised the issue of naval assets. The review mentions this on only three occasions.
The government scrapped HMS Albion last year, meaning that we currently only have three bay class ships that can, when called up, conduct such operations. This is an unprecedented capability shortage and leaves us -- cut and leaves us behind other nations. Italy has three Saint Giorgio class. Britain is therefore currently falling behind both France and Italy. I understand why the government took the decision dated to scrap these ships. We are now faced with the fact that we do not possess these capabilities and it seems we don't have a plan to replace them.
The nature of naval warfare is changing, as the review acknowledges. It's not outside the realms of possibility that we might need to possess the ability to launch complex and amphibious operations in the future. Furthermore, the review states that the Royal Navy will need to move forward a so-called hybrid carrier air wing, incorporated Crewe fighters, unmanned systems. Throughout the review, it also speaks of greater integration of UAVs. The UK falls behind our peers and our adoption of drones.
Last year, the government scrapped the watch keeper drones used by the army. In his statement in the other place announcing that last year, the Secretary of State for Defence said, " Following the retirement of Watch keeper, the army will rapidly switch to an advanced capability, drawing on the most recent operational lessons and technological developments." How will the government rapidly switch to a new Joan capability? Have they begun the procurement process for expanding our joint capabilities? The government must purchase one way attack drones and unmanned combat aircraft as a matter of urgency.
Putin's illegal war in Ukraine has mistreated a rapidly changing or fighting dynamic. As things stand, fighting dynamic. As things stand, the UK has been left behind. Furthermore, there is a significant issue with Typhoon. It was reported last year that the production of Typhoon aircraft was ground to a halt due to a lack of orders. The BA report -- according to the BAE report, there are some in the works. This is a concern given the Air Force does not possess any of these fighters.
Again, this is an example of us falling behind. The recent MoD press release stated that Typhoons were going to be the backbone of the RAF for the next decade. If this is so, than our current fleet of Typhoons will soon become outdated. Consortium has released other aircraft, purchasing the latest Typhoons is crucial. If the factory does not receive any new orders imminently, risk the possibility of job losses on the site. These are incredibly skilled individuals who will be central to our ability to build a global combat air programme fighters in the future.
We must maintain a sovereign manufacturing capability. The new Typhoon orders would not only show -- ensure the factory in Wharton but other factories in the future. Baroness Goldie mentioned the role of the space debate. I would like to pick up on one point. Footnote 90 of the review notes that the last government established the National Space Council recognising the importance of space in our defence but this is not reconstituted after the 2024 election. Then recommends that there should be a reinvigorated Cabinet subcommittee to set the strategic approach to space.
Will the government follow the through orders and if so, when? Is always, this has been an invigorating debate on a really important report. I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a great privilege to wind up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a great privilege to wind up this debate, which has been, as this debate, which has been, as usual, very high in standard and very interesting. Can I start, however, just by saying to my noble friend Lord McCabe, we came into the other place at the same time and we have followed each other through... I did slightly smile when he said he found it quite sedating in here. found it quite sedating in here. It's not been my experience.
Our pats have finally diverged. It was
13:55
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
pats have finally diverged. It was an excellent maiden speech and we both enjoyed it. I thought it was particularly powerful at the ending when he spoke about British values and the importance of those to a debate today. I welcome him to this place. Can I also say to Lord Robertson, it would be remiss not to Robertson, it would be remiss not to thank him and the others for the work that they did, plus all the other people that Lord Robertson mentioned.
It's a hugely important report. Challenges the government, challenges the country, challenges our alliances as to how we look forward. As such, the parliamentary scrutiny in here, whilst accepting the premise of the report, the challenge for the government is how it takes forward the recommendations that it has accepted in full and how it makes them a reality, which is the important task for all of us. Can I also say that the truth of it is as well, as Baroness Goldie said and Lord Prevacid, and all of us recognise -- Lord Price -- Lord Purvis...
It is written now. With all the challenges we see, with the stresses and strains in the Indo- Pacific, and with the changing nature of warfare, with cyber warfare, with homeland resilience, which I will come to in a minute, all of those among other things been of crucial importance, one things I have said and noble Lords have said in this chamber is we are debating things now. Let alone the Cold War legacy with respect of money. We are debating things we never thought we would be debating again about war in
It's a hugely important report. Challenges the government, challenges the country, challenges our alliances as to how we look forward. As such, the parliamentary scrutiny in here, whilst accepting the premise of the report, the challenge for the government is how it takes forward the recommendations that it has accepted in full and how it makes them a reality, which is the important task for all of us. Can I also say that the truth of it is as well, as Baroness Goldie said and Lord Prevacid, and all of us recognise -- Lord Price -- Lord Purvis...
It is written now. With all the challenges we see, with the stresses and strains in the Indo- Pacific, and with the changing nature of warfare, with cyber warfare, with homeland resilience, which I will come to in a minute, all of those among other things been of crucial importance, one things I have said and noble Lords have said in this chamber is we are debating things now. Let alone the Cold War legacy with respect of money. We are debating things we never thought we would be debating again about war in