Lords Chamber

Thursday 21st May 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:06
11:07
11:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of individuals earning more than £100,000 per annum who left the country in 2025 Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-

taxpayers are required to notify HMRC when they leave the country. As such, the government does not hold comprehensive data on the
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:49
11:50
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I want to make clear that our sanctions regime against Russia is tougher today than it was Russia is tougher today than it was last week. It is categorically not the case that we are waiving or easing sanctions on the 19th of May, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office laid the Russia sanctions, EU Exit Amendment regulations to legislate for several key measures to continue to tighten our pressure on Putin's regime. These regulations include a new maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which will restrict Russia's access to the UK's world leading shipping and insurance services, disrupting their ability to transport Russian LNG.

It will further includes export prohibitions against Russia, as well as new import prohibitions to restrict the transfer of any refined oil products derived from Russian crude oil and of the import of Russian uranium. As has regularly been the case for sanctions on Russia for several years, targeted short term licences have been introduced for LNG maritime services banned and refined oil import ban to support flexibility in UK supply and global markets. We have made it clear here my. The Minister for trade made it clear in the House yesterday these licences are temporary.

They will be reviewed regularly and they are not intended to protect Russian interests. So the the sanctions regime today is tougher than it was last week. In respect of the lessons of this crisis for energy security and for the UK's reliance on foreign fossil fuels. The lesson that we are taking is that we need more home grown renewable energy, nuclear energy. We need to continue the decarbonisation so that, for example, with the transition to electric vehicles, we are less reliant on overseas imports of energy.
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
12:00
None Portrait Debate on the Address: Foreign affairs, international relations and defence Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-

It's time for this question has concluded. Motion for debate. The King's Speech Baroness Chapman of Darlington. >> My Lords, on behalf of your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships House, I. I. Lordships House, I. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down with the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's always good to get the nod from the speaker. My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships House, I behalf of your Lordships House, I thank His Majesty the King for delivering the gracious speech. I'm grateful for the privilege of grateful for the privilege of opening today's debate on the motion for Humble Address, as this is a King's Speech debate, let me is a King's Speech debate, let me begin by uniting us all in praise of Their Majesties incredibly successful state visit to the United States just a few weeks ago, a visit which saw the words of His Majesty the King bring members of the House of Representatives to their feet again and again, where his wife's words, sharp humour and powerful messages resonated across political divides.

I'll use this occasion to set out how the government will continue to drive forward the UK's national interests, tackling pressing global challenges to make Britain safer and more prosperous. And the only way that we do that is by bringing all of the tools at our disposal to bear. We have to be truly integrated from diplomacy, development, defence, soft power and economic strength. The crisis in the Middle East is just the latest example of why the government is taking this approach. Families and businesses across the UK and countries across the world are grappling with the fallout from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and we're working tirelessly across all fronts, leading efforts for a lasting diplomatic breakthrough to restore freedom of navigation without tolls and to get the global.

We've urged Iran to allow shipping to flow freely through the Strait and to progress a diplomatic pathway. As my friend the Foreign Secretary did in a call with Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi on 8th of May. We have used our convening power to bring together more than 40 countries to channel collective pressure to reopen the strait, engaging intensively with the US, our partners in the Gulf and with European capitals. We have bolstered our defensive capabilities in the region as part of coordinated regional defensive operations in line with international law, and we're working internationally to respond to the impacts of the crisis on the world's poorest.

That includes in the at the Global Partnerships Conference that we co-hosted this week, where we gathered developing countries around a new approach to international partnerships and discussed how to alleviate the impacts of the crisis on food, fertiliser and fuel. Because our efforts must be integrated and the effects of these crises around the world are connected to what we're doing at home. And my Lords, sadly, this approach is essential given we face a world more ridden by conflicts than at any time since the Second World War, where tools of economic integration are being used as weapons of geopolitical conflict, and where competition between the US and China shapes our world.

We see that with the threat posed by Russia to the UK and wider European security, an aggressive, expansionist Russia that deploys hybrid threats and information warfare against us and our allies and exports interference and instability. Just as in the previous Parliament, this government has taken every opportunity to stand with Ukraine and apply pressure on Kremlins war machine. The UK's total military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine amounts to £21.8 billion and the UK has sanctioned over 3000 individuals and entities since Russia's full scale invasion.

So in this Parliament, we will remain stronger than ever in our support to Ukraine, confident in the cross-party commitment that Ukraine's fight is our fight and steadfast in putting pressure on Russia, sustaining our international leadership that has brought together partners and unlocked practical commitments through the coalition of the willing, including for the future deployment of the multinational force. Ukraine. Faced with Russia's aggression and growing global security threats last year, the government committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War.

To do that, we took the decision to reduce the development budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, but we remain just as committed to tackling global challenges just in a new and modernised way, which I will return to shortly. Turning to other pressing conflicts, Palestinians and Israelis desperately need peace. We need to deliver phase two of the 20 point plan, prevent Gaza getting stuck between peace and war, and stop Israeli settlement expansion and settler violence, which is at an all time high and in fragrant, flagrant breach of international law.

Last year, this government took the historic step of recognising the state of Palestine to help keep the two state solution alive, and we will continue to ensure our international work is consistent with Israel's lasting security, with Palestinian self-determination and with achieving peace in Lebanon. These are messages we delivered through the UK's presidency of the UN Security Council in February, a presidency we also use to put the spotlight on Sudan as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, including the women and girls who've endured unimaginable ordeals of sexual violence.

We will sustain our focus on Sudan. Building on the Berlin Communiqué that followed the international conference we co-hosted in April, which brought together 55 states, secured £1.3 billion of funding to save lives and renewed the diplomatic push for a ceasefire and political resolution of the conflict. But sadly, my Lords, Sudan is not the only example of a conflict overlooked. In March, I visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo and saw the consequences of years of conflict, including on survivors of sexual violence, the desperate need for clean water, emergency health care and food and nutrition assistance.

But I also saw the courage of those delivering front line services, the expertise of local health professionals and the ingenuity of Congolese entrepreneurs to break the cycle of conflict. The world must get behind those people, and that means providing humanitarian and peace building support. The UK is delivering life saving care from trauma surgery and support for survivors of sexual and gender based violence to clean water and emergency food. This means calling for those responsible for the violence to stop, and supporting multilateral efforts towards sustainable peace.

And crucially, it means supporting long term opportunity for people in DRC through strengthening business links and supporting investments, whether that's setting up a new UK, DRC Chamber of Commerce, which I launched in March, or expanding access to finance for SMEs through British International Investments. $55 million commitments to DRC's banking sector. But my Lords, have we just discussed in a question earlier, Ebola in eastern DRC is a major threat, and we're working with the World Health Organisation and Africa CDC.

We have allocated up to £21 million so far to the region, and I'll be going to Congo next week. My Lords, this government is putting into practice a new modernised approach to international development, one that reflects the scale of the global challenges that we face today and the very different geopolitics compared to 2 or 3 decades ago. International systems are threatened and humanitarian responses, already strained are being stretched to the limit. And while some are turning away with our partners, the UK is doing things differently.

The countries that we work with want modern, respectful partnerships rooted in shared interests as the consultation. My noble friend Lord Collins led on Africa last year, set out so clearly. All of this means we need to forge new alliances and work with developing countries in a different way. So we have a new approach, one that channels aid to a more focussed set of priorities over the next three years, and moves us beyond being a donor to focus on spurring new investment, providing the expertise that enables countries to build up their own capacities and helps countries and communities thrive.

Without aid. It is essential that we streamline and inefficient, insufficiently coordinated system that places an unnecessary burden on partner countries. And this was at the heart of this week's Global Partnerships conference, which brought together governments, international organisations and civil society, but also businesses, technology and philanthropy, because we must draw on these strengths that everyone has to offer, the richness of innovation that diverse coalitions bring to even the toughest problems. Working together collectively, respectfully, through mutually reinforcing partnerships.

That is the only way that we will tackle global challenges of today. And together we agreed a new compact, not a typical negotiated text, but a synthesis of what partners have told us across its themes of finance, technology and shifting the power. A shared commitment to working faster, more openly and in true partnership in the decades ahead that will provide the framework for us to deliver a new way of working, a more responsive international system and improved financing. This will better meet the priorities and aspirations of partner countries and tackle the shared challenges of a new era to forge new ties with growing economies and trading partners of the future.

My Lords, irregular migration is one such challenge, exacerbated by conflict, poverty and climate change. We have secured the return to France of over 600 migrants under the UK France Returns Treaty. We've reached agreement with six African partners on improved processes to return those with no right to be in the UK, and deployed our new sanctions regime to target 55 individuals and entities to help break the business model of criminal gangs. But we do need to go further together with others to raise our collective ambition on migration, to support the security of our borders, the fabric of our democracies, and protection for those who need it.

My Lords, across all the priorities that I've set out, there is one constant, and that is that we cannot meet any of these challenges alone. Our partnerships and alliances remain crucial to global growth and security, and to our own growth and security, too. So we'll work through groups like the G7 and the G20 to build and strengthen these alliances, collaborating to address issues of global importance that impact every household in the UK, whether that's working through the G7 to support Ukraine, keep the pressure on Russia and respond to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or promoting policies to support growth, jobs and productivity through the G20.

And as His Majesty the King outlined in his speech to Parliament, our G20 presidency in 2027 will place the UK at the forefront of driving global growth and stability, which is essential for the prosperity of working people across this country. My Lords, the world today is more fragile, contested and interconnected than ever. The breadth and complexity of the challenges we face underlines why we must bring to bear all the tools at our disposal, integrating our diplomacy work with our efforts on development, defence, soft power and economic resilience.

Only through this approach will we make progress. So over our new parliamentary session, the government will seize every opportunity to advance our interests and uphold our values using all the levers we have across government to strengthen our alliances, build new coalitions and shape solutions to the shared challenges we face. This is much for us to discuss, so I look forward to hearing your Lordships contributions and working with you to make the UK a stronger, safer, and more prosperous place for.
12:13
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. Let me start by expressing total agreement with the noble Lady on the fantastic success of His Majesty's visit to the United States. We saw a rare, increasingly rare moment of bipartisan support for his remarks in Congress, and it was a tremendous visit. And did the country great credit. I Lord Suri have had four long days now of debate on the shortcomings of the government's legislative agenda. So I would like to begin with one point of support.

In the King's Speech, there was no Chagos bill. The Chagos deal should be dead. That would be the right decision. And I know I speak for many local Lords when I say that the decision should stand for the rest of this Parliament. The concerted efforts of noble Lords across the House showed just how effective our scrutiny role can be. But sadly, my Lords, whilst that deal should be dead, we do know that the government's policy is still to transfer sovereign British territory to Mauritius.

That should change. That's the policy of the current government. We, of course, eagerly await the views on Chagos of the King of the North, perhaps electors in Macclesfield should ask him in some of the no doubt increasingly rare debates that might happen in that by election we wonder what the King of the North will have to say about Chagos in the South. So could the noble Lord, when he winds up reassure the House, perhaps, that the government will. No. Macclesfield is not part of the Chagos.

The last time I looked that the government will go back to the drawing board and consider all of their options afresh on this matter to be serious and can you confirm that the proposal to resettle the Chagos Islands, previously considered by both Conservative and Labour governments in the past, would in fact cost a great deal less than the 35 billion current Chagos surrender deal. Before the prorogation, when we debated this, I asked the noble Lord Lord Coaker to update the House on the status of those Chagossians who have returned to their homeland en Perros Banos.

I wonder if perhaps he could give us a further update. We were grateful to receive his letter of clarification, correcting the record on the right of settlement for Chagossians in the current treaty. But when we asked him about the provision of humanitarian supplies, he used a very peculiar form of wording. He kept saying that he had been assured by officials. I wonder if, since that debate, he's had the chance to check for himself whether the statements about whether the commissioner is in fact, withholding vital humanitarian supplies from those people.

When we've asked questions about this, we just keep getting an answer from the Foreign Office that it's it's a decision for the commissioner. And yet, when we write to the commissioner, we don't get much clarification either. It's unusual to see that Ministers seem to be a bit reticent of clarifying this matter. So I wonder if you could perhaps clear things up at the end of this debate. I should also congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Weir of Ballyholme, sadly, is not in his place in his success in the private member's bill ballots.

We have not yet seen the final text of his bill, but the British, the British Sovereignty Protection Chagos Islands Bill will be interesting to read and will enable us to show the government once again just how strongly we feel about protecting our interests in that region. My Lords, the Chagos Islands are just one part of the world where British sovereignty needs defending. We are also facing pressure in Gibraltar and in the Falkland Islands. The British people expect their government to stand up for their interests, both at home and abroad.

Gibraltarians and Falkland Islands As expected, British government stand up for them too. So I wonder if the noble Lord, again, when he winds up, could reassure the House that His Majesty's Government will continue to defend British sovereign territory and support our overseas territories whenever they are threatened. Indeed, the government made a manifesto commitment to this principle. They said in their manifesto I don't know if that still applies to Mr. Burnham or not, but nevertheless, they said in the manifesto defending the security also means protecting the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar.

The manifesto went on to say that Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination, a point sadly lacking on Chagos. But nevertheless that was the commitment that they made to the British people, and that is a promise that we expect them to keep on Gibraltar. Specifically, we are grateful to Ministers for making the draft EU UK agreement in respect of Gibraltar available. It is right that Parliament has the time to scrutinise a treaty as complex as this in full detail.

Again at the end of the debate, could the noble Lords confirm whether the final approved treaty will be laid before the House in June or July of this year? Because if it is laid in late July, there is, of course, a risk that we will not be able to satisfy the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, before the summer recess. So could the noble Lords say what the government's timetable is for ratification of the treaty, and can he also confirm whether or not the government believes that additional enabling legislation will be required in this case, or is Crag approval sufficient? Turning to the Falkland Islands, I think we were all concerned by Argentina's calls for talks on the future of the Falkland Islands some weeks ago, and very concerning corresponding reports of the United States reviewing their position on the Islands.

The US Secretary of State has since downplayed these reports. I'm pleased to say, and I know that the Foreign Secretary has recently met the US Secretary of State. So could the noble Lord say what discussions Ministers have had with our American partners and what reassurances they have been given? The Falkland Islands are British. Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly wish to remain British. Our allies and our government should respect that. I hope that the government and the official opposition are united on that matter, and if that is the case, then we will, of course, support the government in its work to defend British sovereignty both overseas and at home, carrying on to international threats to our security, the conflict in Ukraine we've just discussed.

It remains fundamental. An expansionist Russia is a threat to our European security, and I am proud of our record in support of Ukraine. And thus far we have been pleased to support the government in their policy of support of Ukraine, notwithstanding their latest decisions. Britain has rightly backed Ukraine throughout Putin's war, and we must continue that support until Russia's illegal invasion has been turned back. And there has been some encouraging signs recently. Britain also has an important role to play in helping Ukraine's recovery, and the response to atrocities committed in that conflict, and I don't wish to return to the debate we just had previously, but I was saddened that our excellent record on tough sanctions was blemished this week by the decision that we discussed to weaken restrictions on oil products originating in Russia.

I heard the Minister, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, on the radio this morning saying, as Baroness Lloyd did, that these are temporary licences, are will be short lived. And she used an expression that it could be only a number of months. I wonder if the noble Lord at the end could confirm whether they in fact, have a timescale for. Not for that those licences to be revoked. It flies in the face of the Minister's statement on support.

Turning to Iran. Of course, we can't discuss the energy crisis without addressing that terrible conflict, which has had a major destabilising effect on economies all over the world. And I suspect that we haven't yet seen the full effects of that in the UK. And we will see that in the months to come. We know that we are particularly exposed as a result of our failure to secure domestic oil and gas supplies, but the impacts of this conflict, in fact, go far beyond energy, and it is essential that the Foreign Office works at pace and in concert with other departments to secure our supply of essential goods, in particular fertilisers, something which has been not remarked on nearly as much as energy, but could be even more important.

We have also had questions all week about the risks of a super El Nino. Such a significant climatic event coinciding with oil and fertiliser supply issues, the Ebola outbreak and the conflict in Sudan is extremely concerning, and I am sure that Ministers will want to take all necessary steps to put mitigations in place to protect British citizens from any potential impacts. I think the House would also benefit from a broader update on the government's approach to these issues, on what is currently the world's greatest humanitarian crisis in Sudan, which the noble Lady referenced.

Could we please have a further update from the noble Lord on what steps Ministers are taking to engage with our regional partners to help bring that terrible conflict to an end in the Middle East? The Israel-Gaza ceasefire, uneasy although it is, represents a significant step towards peace. While we have not been central to those negotiations, Britain does still, I think, have an important role to play. His Majesty's Government must be unequivocal on Israel's right to self-defence while seeking a peaceful settlement in the region.

To that end, when the noble Lord winds up, will he take the opportunity to set out what difference? In fact, in the end, the UK's recognition of Palestine has in fact made, it was seen by many as an inappropriate step that only continue to give legitimacy to Hamas. So what? What steps have Ministers taken? What view do they now have? A few months after that sad decision, it excluded us from the negotiations. Israel reacted very negatively in any influence that we have with them was lost.

So I don't see what difference it has made on the ground. Perhaps the noble Lord could update us in the end. That conflict, of course, has had a profound impact in the UK on relationships between different groups, and we have seen quite appalling rise in anti-Semitism in recent months. I'm sure that the whole House will stand united against anti-Semitism. But words, of course, are not enough. My Lords, the rise in the hatred of Jews which led to the violent and bloody assault of our neighbours in Golders Green and the murder of our fellow countrymen in Manchester is appalling.

It is targeted, it is driven and sadly it is on the rise in our country. We must all, with one voice and one accord, act to eradicate this vile hatred in our land and reassert our true national boundaries, a tolerance and respect which have for so many years, indeed centuries now, made Britain a place where Jews feel safe. They can prosper and they can thrive. Of course, my Lords, domestic affairs, I fully accept that. Not the responsibility of the Foreign Office or indeed the MoD.

But we must never shy away from the relationship between that conflict and rising hatred in our own country. Finally, I would like to end on China. The Chinese state has engaged in espionage in the UK. We've seen a number of cases recently, even here in Parliament, and Chinese state actors have been responsible for numerous cases of intellectual property theft and serious cyber attacks. Indeed, China has even sanctioned members of your Lordships house. All the while continues in persecuting the Uyghur people in Xinjiang.

I would particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his tireless campaigning for justice and an end to the repression of the Uyghur people. I'm sure he will refer to it later in his remarks. We have constantly raised concerns about the establishment of a new Chinese embassy in the Royal Mint's site, in the heart of the City of London, and we continue to oppose that decision, and we will continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, who has been so appallingly treated by China.

Could the noble Lord, the Minister, provide us with an update on his case again when he responds to the debate? But while China poses such a significant threat to the UK, it represses its own people. It wrongfully imprisons. Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister continues to call for a thawing in our relationship. Of course, I completely accept that Britain must engage with China. That is clear. But the government's approach, in our view, is the wrong one. We need to treat China as the threat that it is our Lords.

We are facing many global threats and the world feels less stable than it has been for a very long time. We must give clear moral leadership and we must help to mitigate those threats. I have spoken about the approach that Britain must take towards the global challenges that we are facing, but at its core, we know that British foreign policy cannot succeed unless we have the tools to defend our interests. That is why defence spending is an essential priority for government.

And I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie, towards the end of the debate, will focus on defence in her remarks. We are at a time of great uncertainty. My Lords and Britain has a role to play in securing a more stable future. We need the right strategy and we need the right tools if we are to achieve that. So we, on this side of the House, will remain critical. Friends to His Majesty's Government willing Ministers on to increase our defence spending, to mitigate threats posed by foreign states and ultimately to stand up for Britain's interests on the world stage.
12:27
Baroness Suttie Portrait Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. Thank you. >> My Lords, one week ago, the day after the King's Speech, a Russian drone destroyed a nine storey apartment block in south east Kyiv. 24 people were killed, including three teenage girls aged 12 and 15. 18 apartments were destroyed and yet more lives shattered. Last Friday, my Lords, the Ukrainian flag was removed from outside Essex County Council's offices by the newly elected reform UK Administration and Chelmsford. I was pleased to see this roundly condemned by all other parties locally, including the Conservatives.

I believe it is vital to maintain the cross-party support against the war in Ukraine, including in your Lordships House. We need to maintain maximum pressure on the Putin war regime through all means possible, including an effective and punitive sanctions regime. In that regard, yesterday's announcement on sanctions is greatly to be regretted. As my noble friend Lord Purvis made so very clear last week, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported. In the first four months of this year, 80% of civilian deaths in Sudan were caused by drone attacks, killing at least 880 people.

26 civilians were reportedly killed in Kordofan region on the 8th of May alone on Monday. This week, Lebanon's health ministry reported that the number of people killed in Lebanon has passed 3020 400 of which have occurred since the ceasefire came into effect last month. I had the privilege of working in both Kyiv and Ukraine and in Khartoum in Sudan, and I have many friends and former colleagues in both countries. It is always important, I believe, my Lords, to remember that behind every statistic there is a human face.

We are having this debate today. As Lord Callanan has said, against the backdrop of tremendous uncertainty and instability with ongoing wars in Iran, Ukraine, Sudan and the Middle East, all of these are amplified by the profound challenges caused by climate change and rapid technological change. This week, we saw a greatly emboldened President Xi in China meeting President Putin and Beijing, declaring a strengthened alliance between the two countries. President Putin continues in Russia to clamp down on any credible opposition and free media.

He is perhaps at his very most dangerous when he feels under threat as he faces Ukrainian long distance drone attacks and a gradual, very gradual reversal of his advances in Ukraine at a horrendous and growing human cost. It is very hard to know the exact figures for the number of young Russian men killed. But The economist this week has estimated that it might be as many as half a million lives lost. Meanwhile, we are nearly 18 months into the second presidency of President Trump, which means that there are another two and a half years of his volatility and unpredictability to go.

I would like to add at this point, congratulations from these benches for the very successful visit of His Majesty the King. In the light of continued uncertainty about America's commitment to NATO's collective defence, our military needs urgent investment and renewal. The current government inherited an army at its smallest since the Napoleonic Wars and a navy at its smallest since the English Civil War. Yet the government has moved far too slowly and timidly to rectify this. I was very struck by the speech last Thursday by the noble Lord Lord Robertson of Port Ellen.

He made an incredibly powerful case for an all society approach to rapidly rearming, and reminded us that the UK is already under attack. As the current Prime Minister himself said at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only rearming when disaster is upon them. The government must act now to commit to reaching 3% of GDP spending on defence by 2030. Liberal Democrats have called for cross-party talks to agree a consensus on how to reach that level of spending within that time frame.

I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could respond to this suggestion in his closing remarks. Those of us who were privileged to hear the remarkable speech by President Zelensky to both houses a couple of months ago, could not help but be humbled by just how much we now have to learn from Ukraine in terms of drone and robotics technology. In that regard, does the Minister agree that borrowing to invest in defence could be supportive of innovation and indeed, economic growth? In my remaining time, my Lord, I would like to touch on two other key areas international development and our relations with the European Union.

A couple of weeks ago, I was on a train from Calais to Boulogne sur Mer in France. As I was getting on the train, I realised that everyone around me was carrying a polythene bag with a large orange object in it. I eventually realised that these were in fact life jackets, and that these 50 or so fellow passengers were people who had failed to get on a small boat that day, and so they were returning to their camp near Bologna to try the dangerous crossing on another day.

Now, I understand that this is an incredibly emotive and complicated issue. I live in Broadstairs on the Kent coast, and the reception camp for the migrants is incredibly near to where I live, and I believe the government is right to concentrate much of its efforts on stopping the appalling people smugglers and attempt to destroy their economic model. But two things struck me. Looking at these dejected passengers on that train to Boulogne sur Mer. The first was that they were desperate fellow human beings prepared to risk their lives.

Sitting opposite me was a young man from Syria with his baby strapped to his front. A boat ran aground and sank off the coast of Boulogne sur Mer that very morning, killing two women, I later learned on the BBC website. The second thing that struck me is that we are rightly talking a lot about the pull factors to the UK, and the people smugglers who benefit at the cost of human lives, but we talk rather less about the push factors that cause many to want to leave their countries in the first place.

The drought, the famine, the desperation and the wars. Wars, which are sometimes proxy wars started by far off countries. Not long ago, we were proud global leaders in the world on development assistance, with all mainstream parties jostling to claim the credit for the 0.7% reaching the 0.7% target on of GNI, including including the conservative government at that time. Our global assistance is currently, I believe, the Minister said in her opening remarks, 0.3%. But there are rumours that it would fall much further.

I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm in his closing remarks, what is the projected percentage by the end of this year and into next year? The removal of USAID is having a dramatic and awful impact on the prevention of diseases such as HIV, TB and currently and currently, Ebola. As has been said earlier in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere, the policies of President Trump have acted as a green light to other countries to follow in his slipstream. It is, I fear, short term populism which will have long term and disastrous consequences, consequences which will be felt by this country too.

We can hope that a future US government will change, and we will see a return to a world order based on a rules based approach and a generous approach to international development. But to quote from the much quoted speech by Mark Carney at Davos this year, hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy. The UK needs to think again now about our place in the world and our alliances. We need to prepare now for tomorrow's uncertainties, our economy, security and defence are inextricably linked to our European partners.

As Mark Carney and others have said, we should also reach out to those middle powers who share our values, such as Canada and Ukraine. And that brings me to my final point about the EU. It is my hope that one day we can reunite properly with our EU partners. But where I live in Kent, 68% voted to leave the EU in 2016. But I believe that was then and this is now, and it's increasingly hard to find anybody who can find anything positive to say about the decision of ten years ago.

Ten years on since the Brexit referendum, I believe it should be less a question of whether we were wrong in 2016, and more a question about what is in the national self-interest ten years from now, in 2036. Today I hope to become a great aunt for the first time. My my niece is about to give birth. I think as I speak, I would like to ask the question, what will make this a better country for that little boy being born today, the European Union ten years from now will be a very different place.

Nobody wants to repeat the stale old tired arguments of the referendum ten years ago, but I sincerely hope that a future UK, EU, with Ukraine at its eastern edge, west.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My Lords, in his speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, the Prime Minister warned of the dangerous time in which we live. He went on to say in the live. He went on to say in the 1930s, leaders were too slow to level with the public about the fundamental shift in mindset that fundamental shift in mindset that was required. So we must work harder to build consent for the decisions we must take to keep us decisions we must take to keep us safe.

Wise words. Which makes the deafening silence that has followed all the more astonishing. Where is the national conversation we were promised, and which is crucial to convincing people, most particularly the younger generation,
12:38
Lord Stirrup Portrait Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)
-
-
not to mention the Treasury of the need to face squarely the perils ahead. At the moment, it's nowhere, certainly not in the Gracious Speech. So perhaps I can help the noble Lord, the Minister who will noble Lord, the Minister who will be winding up by suggesting some key elements that should underpin key elements that should underpin such a conversation. The first is to remind people of what the Athenians taught the millions Athenians taught the millions during the Peloponnesian War. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

If we allow ourselves to become weak, our good intentions will count for nothing. The only intentions that will have any meaning will be those of the powerful. And if those intentions are malign, we'll just have to suffer them. The second point is that our strength is directed towards and essential to the deterrence of major conflict. Weakness makes war more, not less likely. Either that or abject surrender to the demands of an aggressor. Effective deterrence is expensive, but a failure of deterrence, far more so than the horrendous costs are then paid in blood as well as in treasure.

Effective deterrence occurs in the mind of a potential adversary. They must be convinced that malign action on their part will result in consequences that will be unacceptable to them. That conflict will result in their defeat. No matter what measures they pursue. They must therefore be clear that we have the full range of capabilities and the political will to ensure such an outcome. Now, strength is, of course, enhanced by acting in concert with others, which is why NATO remains crucial to our security.

But membership of an alliance does not absolve us of the need to pull our weight. And to our shame, we are slipping well down the weight scales within NATO. Moreover, it makes no sense for NATO to rely upon a single source supplier for crucial strategic capabilities, as we do upon the United States. This isn't just a matter of one unpredictable administration come the day they're needed, those capabilities may be unavailable or diminished for all sorts of reasons. NATO needs to be much more resilient to such uncertainties, and this means that European members must develop alternative sources of such strategic capability, most of which will be beyond the reach of any individual nation.

So European partnerships to fund, develop and operate those capabilities are urgently required. But the capabilities that are necessary for victory will not all be present at the start of any conflict, either in nature or in quantity. It's notable that many of the systems and methods that the Ukrainians are now employing so successfully against the Russians did not exist four years ago. The lesson here is that we need in Europe an agile, innovative and rapidly scalable industrial base not, I should note, just traditional defence companies that can rapidly adapt to the circumstances of a conflict and produce at large scale the technologies crucial to success.

The final point is that properly resourced military forces of appropriate size are essential, but not by themselves sufficient for effective deterrence. Our political system, social structure and domestic infrastructure need to be resilient to the attacks which they are already suffering, and which would increase many fold in the lead up to and during any conflict. Weakness in this area undermines our deterrent posture. As the government's own defence review made clear, we currently have shortfalls in many of the requirements for effective deterrence.

We must make good those deficiencies as a matter of urgency, not just articulate vague aspirations for the future. That means fiscal choices. That may be hard politically, but which are obvious in logic. It's a choice between pain now and a likelihood of catastrophe in the future. This is the message our political leaders must take to the country. These are the measures on which they must deliver. Yes, it will be a challenge, but it's one to which they must rise. It is time, indeed, beyond time, for them to lead the.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Singh. What the noble Lord. Lord Callanan said about the vile harm of increasing anti-Semitism in our nation. And I'm glad that widespread condemnation is being matched by condemnation is being matched by solidarity and community action. I also welcome what the noble Baroness Minister said about Baroness Minister said about working for and recognising a two state solution for Israel and
12:43
Lord Bishop of Southwark Portrait The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Bishops)
-
-
Palestine. But our urgent attention is given to the threat posed by the E1 developments in the West Bank, which would imperil such a solution. which would imperil such a solution. My Lords, we on these benches have lamented the retreat from the lamented the retreat from the commitment to 0.7% equivalent of GDP on development aid to 0.5%, and then further to 0.3% under successive governments. And the very real impact this has had around the world in the serious deterioration in health, education and nutrition, not to mention the significant diminution of our global reach.

I welcome the noble Baroness, the Minister's clarification of the government's intentions in what was said in the Gracious Speech about taking action to reduce humanitarian need and conflict around the world. Many in this House will have read of the report in The Times on Monday. Of 51 military veterans, including Field Marshal Lord Richards, a former chief of the Defence Staff, Major General James Cowan, who commanded the British Army's primary fighting division, and General Sir Nick Parker, former commander in chief of land forces, protesting this latest cut.

They argue with the considerable expertise and wisdom at their disposal that to force a choice between development aid and defence spending, the increased need for which I do not doubt is a false economy. My Lords, to live in a world where state and non-state actors are more aggressive, where one of our principal allies is ever more unpredictable, where water resources are contested, where climate change drives food insecurity and other states begin to fail, is a world that is increasingly more threatened with incipient and real conflict.

To cut aid contributes to instability and insecurity. It means a vast erosion of this country's soft power. In a new era, when having exited from a foundational political partnership, we increasingly find ourselves acting alone. The inescapable logic, my Lords of Brexit was that we needed to compensate by spending more on defence, more on aid, more on diplomatic representation, and more on the BBC to maintain our influence in the world. What we are doing is planning to increase the first while cutting all the rest.

Surely, my Lords, a lesson of history is that there is a complex interplay between power and influence. Neither should be neglected. I hope that His Majesty's Government will think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. My Lords, it's a privilege to speak in this debate, and this is speak in this debate, and this is the right reverend Prelate has just referenced some of our most experienced former military chiefs. experienced former military chiefs. Wrote, and I quote, when crises are left unaddressed, they do not stay distant for long. One of the most important lessons in foreign and security policy I learnt in my
12:47
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Portrait Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour)
-
-
years as the EU foreign policy chief, was the connection between what we call the three D's development, development, diplomacy and defence. When the leadership of Operation Atalanta to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia rested at NATO in Northwood, under British command, I would hear time and again that solutions to piracy and I quote, lie not at sea, but on the land. Military leaders push for greater efforts to rebuild Somalia, provide alternatives to teenage boys persuaded into piracy on the promise of $10,000 if they succeeded in capturing a vessel and engage in more effective diplomacy to get others to support our military and civilian missions.

They're determined. Highly effective military operations could only ultimately succeed if the range of foreign security, development and defence capabilities worked together. I hope that my noble friends share the assessment in their new, modernised approach that the three D's are not interchangeable, but part of the same comprehensive approach. My Lords, we can't spend what we don't have and streamlining and reviewing and modernising what we do is a vital part of good government. Massive effort is now needed to bring our defence capabilities to where they should be.

But necessary as that is, it is insufficient in tackling the crisis we face when crises are left unaddressed. They do not stay distant for long. If we seek an example, look no further than the Straits of Hormuz, a 104 mile stretch of water full of small coves, narrow in many places, and now the subject of one of the worst standoffs in my experience of foreign policy, my experience of negotiating with Iran over four years to reach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as chair and lead negotiator, gave me useful lessons not just for Iran.

The Iranians now engaged in negotiations are quite familiar figures, not least Abbas Araqchi, the foreign Minister there, probably now more constrained by hardliners who stand beside them or behind them. They have some experience. But, my Lords, so do we. I often describe the Iran deal as a jigsaw puzzle put together. It creates a picture. In 2015, the picture said we could be confident Iran was not building a bomb. It wasn't. The picture was made up of pieces covering different parts of the deal, from levels of enrichment, types of centrifuges, stockpiles and heavy water reactor capabilities, inspection and monitoring regimes, and more.

The deal began from knowing what our objectives were. The challenge now is that the reason for the war, and therefore the problems to be addressed, seems to fluctuate. Getting rid of an oppressive leadership, freeing the people, continuing to degrade and dispose of any nuclear weapon capability, or preventing support to proxies or some version of all of these. And a vital first jigsaw puzzle piece, the opening of the Straits of Hormuz, which requires a detailed hard negotiation, does not of itself settle any of these underlying issues.

So can I ask my noble friend to lay out what proposals we are making to the countries most concerned with the negotiations from the United States and, of course, Israel to Pakistan and the Gulf countries to Turkey, India, China and others. My Lords, I've worked with six Nations on behalf of the United Nations, but I engaged with 20 more in pursuit of the agreement. Thus much we could offer. So perhaps he could tell your Lordships' House what exactly we are doing.

Finally, my Lords, as my noble friend, the Minister said, there's nothing that we can deal with alone. Foreign policy is a domestic, not remote. We can't keep people safe, offer opportunities or grow our economy without collaboration. And the closer the collaboration, the like minded, the better. And that means Europe. Going back to the past is not an option. The world has moved on, but having a plan to get to a much better place is a must. I'm not arguing here for rejoining the EU, but perhaps, my Lords, the government could be a little bit more careful in talking about our red lines as if they somehow will prevent what I see as a tidal wave of anger and resentment, of being let down.

In so many communities. People want to see better living standards. That's impossible without better economic growth. They want to see a better life. I hope my noble friends will take these comments in the spirit of willing them on in the tough decisions that lie ahead. Government needs to be as clear as it can be. Why foreign policy is about domestic issues, and why engaging and showing leadership in taking tough decisions is more vital than ever.
12:52
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-
I Lord Watts it's a privilege to follow the noble Baroness who speaks on these matters with great authority, and I agree with what she has said about Iran Lords. I am not an expert on defence and I have very rarely troubled your Lordships with my views on defence. Indeed, I had hoped that all I needed to do today would be to get up to say how very much I agree with everything the noble Lord Lord Robertson of Port Ellen said in the debate on the Gracious Speech on Thursday, and promptly sit down again.

I do very much agree with what the noble Lord said, and indeed with what the noble Lord Hannan Lord Lord Stirrup has told us just a few moments ago last Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, we are underprepared, we are underinsured, we are under attack. We are not safe. I agree. So of course we must spend more money on defence. But the noble Lord, in his contribution on Thursday concentrated his fire on the Treasury. I have some sympathy with the Chancellor.

Her room for manoeuvre is very limited. So where is the extra money to come from? Of course, we are spending far too much on welfare, but the government has demonstrated that it is incapable of reducing our welfare Bill. So here is something that can be done. The Prime Minister and only the Prime Minister can do it. The Prime Minister today could ask every department to reduce its spending by 1% and in future years, within the planned period, by 1% off the current plans.

Now, that wouldn't be easy. It would involve painful decisions. But I've been a departmental Minister, and I know it could be done, and it would raise a substantial amount of money if that reduction were to be applied to the relevant departmental expenditure limits, it would raise 6.7 billion in the current year, rising to 7.5 billion in 20 3031, a total of 35.6 billion over the planned period. It would give some meaning to the oft repeated declarations by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that defence must be an overriding national priority.

It would give meaning to the Prime Minister's statement in his introduction to the Strategic Defence Review, that it was his first duty to keep the British people safe. But, my Lords, that is only half the answer. What is the money to be spent on? Three months ago I was in Ukraine with a number of colleagues from the other place. We learned of the extraordinary way in which Ukraine has transformed modern warfare. We were told about the robots, which can travel 20km and blow up Russian command posts.

We were told of the occasions when Russian troops have surrendered to these robots. And of course, we were told about drones a few weeks ago, my Lords, I was at a gathering when I had the temerity to suggest that I didn't see a great deal of evidence that the British Army was learning the lessons of the war in Ukraine. A very senior officer was present, and he berated me for my ignorance and told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

When. My Lords, I'm quite used to being berated for my ignorance, so I didn't take offence. But a few days later I was in the company of a less senior officer, but someone who was nevertheless in a position to answer two specific questions I put to him. Does the British Army have any robots of this kind? His answer was no. Do you know when the British army will have robots of this kind? His answer was no. Now the Lords.

In my ignorance, it seems to me that these different reactions are not entirely consistent with each other, so I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will put me out of my ignorance when he comes to reply to the debate, and explain how these different reactions can be reconciled with each other. I look interest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Very good. It was a pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was a pleasure to follow fellow patron, the noble Lord Howard of Lympne. In an almost Howard of Lympne. In an almost emollient mood, I felt Nick Thomas-symonds, the Minister for the Constitution and a fine the Constitution and a fine academic historian expert on England. As it happens, the last England. As it happens, the last native Prince of Wales. He told us last month that although the government wants to develop closer
12:57
Lord Thomas of Gresford Portrait Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
ties with the EU, any sort of deal that would lead to the UK and the that would lead to the UK and the EU entering even into the customs union was ruled out. Even a bespoke union was ruled out. Even a bespoke version, he said. Like the agreements the EU has with Turkey agreements the EU has with Turkey and Norway would be off the cards. You might call that the Starmer line a ticket for a day trip to Calais. Streeting wants to take us off on the Grand Tour, on the Brussels Express and the.

Burnham, on the other hand, is seriously Augustinian in his approach. Lord, make me a pure European. But not just yet. So where is the Labour Party going? The Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place. In an excoriating letter sent yesterday to Mr. Thomas-symonds, severely criticised the government as a secretive, piecemeal and disjointed approach to negotiations with the EU. The letter said that the lack of a clear and comprehensive vision for the EU relationship will continue to hamstring the government.

That was the letter signed by Emily Thornberry in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

notes to the European Partnership Bill Published.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last Wednesday. The government says. Businesses across the UK tell us that they're being held back by red that they're being held back by red tape when trading with Europe. Well, it's not red tape which is holding it's not red tape which is holding back businesses. It is the government's red inscribed in that medieval manuscript that would appeal to the historical interests of Mr. Thomas Symonds, the Cobwebbed Labour 2024 election manifesto. Say it out loud. The Brexit experiment has failed.

True, the Pied Piper that led the way to gold led us the way to go. But it's gold. Bitcoins for him. The man playing the alluring pipes. It's Nigel's gold. The government tells us in these notes to the bill that the loss to our gross domestic product could be as much as 8%. 8%. The trumpets last week sounded out fanfares for just 0.6% increase in growth in the last quarter, the highest rate they boasted in the G7. Well, that's only 2.4% in a year.

It doesn't begin to make up for 8% that we have lost already next month. There's my noble friend, Baroness Suttie reminded us it will be ten years since David Cameron's referendum. At that time, we were safe behind the bulwark of NATO. International trade was based upon the rule of law. Putin's ambitions on Ukraine still seemed limited to the Russian speaking borders in the Middle East was quietening down. Those who promoted Brexit relied upon our special relationship with the USA for security and for prosperous markets.

We would. They promised be free to cut unique special deals around the whole world. It hasn't happened. These assumptions have proved false. The world today is a very different place. Trump has torn up the rules with his stupid tariffs. He's pursuing military glory for his own vanity. He's weakened the American commitment to NATO and destroyed the capacity of the USA to give moral leadership to the world. The Liberty Bell is well and truly cracked and rings with a jangled sound.

And meanwhile, Putin and See have discovered eternal friendship in each other's arms. I say to whoever sits in whoever sits in number ten in a month's time, be bold. Go for the single market and the customs union, and follow the road once again to full partnership in Europe, with full participation in decision making and in the administration. Take the lead as we in Britain used to do. I England could have made a better case for it. It's back to the future time.
13:02
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah yeah yeah. to follow the noble Lord. Lord Thomas of Gresford and gracious address rightly notes anti-Semitism together with political fragmentation and alienation, are challenges that demand that we work far harder to renew our institutions and to put the national interest first. Two issues that I want the government to address are resilience and dependency. The most pressing challenge is the deadly quartette, as it's been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. That deadly quartette of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

Noting that I have some skin in the game as I've collected sanctions from each of them, my Lords, their. Their lethal challenge to the Liberal Democratic order represents one of the most severe threats since World War Two. Consider how that axis works. That axis utilises Hong Kong, for instance, or the shadow fleet of tankers selling oil to China, and for companies producing tech parts found in Iran's drones and ballistic missiles. The BBC reports that at least 11,000 North Korean soldiers have been sent to fight for Putin in Ukraine, and some have been used as human minesweepers.

Iran has provided Putin with weapons, ammunition and technology. In facing this axis, our national resilience undoubtedly needs to be bolstered by increased defence spending now and before it's too late. It needs to be bolstered by a coherent strategy to defend our citizens and our values in travelling through many dictatorships, including the former Soviet Union, Burma, North Korea and China. I've seen first hand an inspiring desire for the liberties that we often take for granted. That desire is courageously exhibited in Ukraine and vibrantly in Taiwan.

On Monday of this week, I co-chaired a meeting here in Parliament addressed by Tae Yong Ho. He was the deputy North Korean ambassador in the UK and defected in 2016, choosing democracy over dictatorship. We discussed a United Nations Commission of Inquiry report documenting North Korea as a state. I quote, that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world. That report called for crimes against humanity to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. It never has been. While in its political prison camps, hundreds of thousands of people continue to perish.

And this is a country where a 22 year old boy was publicly executed for listening to South Korean music. In China, I visited persecuted Christians witness for suppression in Tibet of Buddhists, and met Uyghur Muslims enduring genocide, referred to by the noble Lord Lord Callanan earlier in Hong Kong in 2019 as an international election monitor. I saw unprecedented turnout, with pro-democracy candidates gaining a landslide victory in the city's last fair and free elections. The CCP communist regime responded by destroying one country, two systems.

It disqualified elected legislators, enacted the national security law and imprisoned up to 1900 political prisoners in Hong Kong. And they included people like the young man Joshua Wong and the remarkable British citizen Jimmy Lai, who, unless released, will undoubtedly die in solitary confinement. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the privilege to chair in its report on transnational repression, has identified China as the greatest internal threat and called for it to be placed in the advanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.

In our report on supply chains and slave labour, we call for radical change to the Modern Slavery Act to prevent slavery in global supply chains. I'd like to hear from the government whether those recommendations will feature in forthcoming legislation for British industry to be able to provide jobs and to compete. There must be an end to unfair competition based on slave labour. Resilience demands that we address a trade deficit of £43.5 billion with China, and go on adding to it.

We must urgently wean ourselves away and trade instead with partners like Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India and other emerging democracies. Our ability to rebuild resilient manufacturing base, to compete fairly and to protect jobs against rising unemployment will always be compromised by states like China that use slave labour. As a Jr report on supply chain transparency, and my amendment to the Energy Act made clear national energy resilience cannot be dependent on solar panels made by Uyghur slave labour. The dangers at the moment, including prohibitive energy bills, also require us to open new gas fields and oil fields and responsibly utilise natural resources, like the challenge to AI currently being examined by the JSR.

We risk making the same mistake of the 1980s of too rapid de-industrialisation and using member's Bill on genocide determination. I hope that when those measures come forward, the government will demonstrate that it means what it says when, in the words of a gracious address, it will take measures which contribute to the UK's strength on the world stage.
13:08
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
Yes. speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech and to follow the noble Lord. I must congratulate him on his collection of sanctions. I think, my Lords, we live in a fragile world in which democracies and rights are being threatened. Currently, there are 116 million displaced people in the world, and that number will grow as a consequence of crises and climate change. It is a difficult, dangerous world in which the NATO summit in Ankara will be crucial. It comes at a time when America's commitment is uncertain and indeed, their troops on our continent are decreasing.

The other key conference is the EU Research Conference, and I associate myself wholeheartedly with everything that my noble friend Baroness, Baroness of. You know, Ashton about Holland, said, oh my goodness, oh my goodness gracious me, my Lords. Bilateral relationships are of the utmost importance and I am delighted to serve as co-chair of the British Spanish Tertulias, which were established in the 1980s when Spain joined the European Union. They strengthened ties between our countries, bringing together people from the worlds of politics, business, academia and civil society.

We share many challenges with Spain, and often we find common solutions. Both of our political systems are increasingly afflicted by populism. There are also notable policy differences, for example, on immigration, where I believe that there is a pressing need in this country for more coherent, joined up thinking across government departments. I struggle to believe that the FCDO was fully aligned with the Home Office's recent decision to ban visas for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, including those awarded scholarships. I ask my noble friend the Minister, how is this visa break which denies opportunity to individuals and humanitarian crises consistent with the government's stated commitment to support fragile and conflict affected states, and particularly its focus on women and girls? Scholarships are transformative not only for the brilliant students, but they're a powerful instrument of British soft power.

The FCDO has embarked upon a major restructuring programme. I fully recognise the need for decisions to be grounded in robust evidence for greater use of technologies and efficiency to deliver value for money, but I'm concerned that huge cuts risk inflicting long term damage on our diplomatic service, which commands global respect in an increasingly complex and unstable world. The skills of diplomacy are more important than ever. They must not be eroded, and I would be grateful for reassurance from my noble friend that diplomacy remains a core priority.

Some of the reductions stem from concerning cuts to development aid, and I to recognise the need for a new approach. But the figures are stark. The reduction to 0.3% of GNI by next year, in reality, means that 0.24% will only be spent internationally. I think it's imperative to increase defence spending spending to safeguard our national security, but international development and security are intrinsically linked. Aid is an essential tool of security and prevention, helping to stabilise fragile regions and address the root causes of conflict and irregular migration before they impact directly on the United Kingdom.

I thank my noble friend for her work in this area, including her efforts to secure increased UK funding for Ohchr. I'm proud of the Prime Minister's global leadership on Ukraine, including the initiative to establish the coalition of the willing, which is vital not only for Ukraine but for the security of our country and our continent. I commend his leadership on Iran in resisting calls for engagement in advance by the opposition. President Trump and his henchmen in this country, Nigel Farage.

Until recently, it would have been unthinkable for the United Kingdom to diverge so markedly from the United States, which is now, at best an unreliable partner and at worst increasingly hostile to the international order that it once helped to uphold. An order which, in Mark Carney's words, is not coming back. The special relationship is perhaps no longer so special, and our most important strategic relationship must increasingly be with the EU. NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence, but I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on progress on negotiations for the United Kingdom to participate in the EU's 90 billion loan facility for Ukraine.

Like everybody else, my Lords, I support an increase in defence expenditure and I'm rather dismayed that the national conversation proposed in the Strategic Defence Review, which is essential, has not yet been forthcoming. It is urgent and, my Lords, it is one of the few defence initiatives that can be delivered at little or no cost. I'm sure we would all want to contribute here.
13:14
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Portrait Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)
-
-
Hi Lawrence, I want to talk >> Hi Lawrence, I want to talk about the war in the Gulf. I don't often agree with Rachel Reeves, but often agree with Rachel Reeves, but I did have some sympathy with her when she told her opposite number in America that the war in Iran had made the world more dangerous. The Iranian regime is murderous, duplicitous criminal regime change is something profoundly to be wished for, but this is not the way it has to come from within.

The economic effects of the war could be far reaching. It's not just fuel, but as my friend Lord Callanan pointed out, it is also food. The Gulf is at the heart of the global fertiliser market, where many producers depend on gas as we approach the planting season. If that is delayed, we could see something more serious than just shortages. President Trump started a war. He doesn't know how to end. The war is justified. And two dubious claims. Firstly, there was no imminent threat to the US.

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Centre, made that crystal clear in his resignation speech. Equally, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national Intelligence, in her evidence to Congress, made clear that Iran had not restarted its nuclear weapons programme. As Baroness Ashton said, this war had no clear objectives when it started. Now the objective is to get back to where we were before it started. The president seems to see two options escalation or economic attrition.

It remains unclear whether the US blockade of Iran will force Iran to capitulate more quickly than Iran's blockade of the rest of the Gulf will hurt its neighbours. For the American blockade to succeed, it has not just to cause hurt, it has to bring the regime in Iran to its knees. A higher threshold on escalation. Of course, the US can reduce Iran to a pile of rubble, but the consequences could be as dangerous as it was in Iraq.

The last thing that the Middle East needs is another failed state. The CIA apparently has warned that bombing again would probably lead to a wider conflict and even worse, damage the infrastructure. More of the neighbouring Gulf countries. It's a grim situation, and it could all have been avoided. The tragedy is that we had, and I pay tribute to Baroness Ashton in 2015, a nuclear agreement which Iran observed submitted to rigorous international inspection and confined enrichment to low levels.

President Trump chose to tear up the deal. Why? For no reason, apparently, other than it was President Obama's deal. Unsurprisingly, the Iranians then reacted by enriching to much higher levels while emphasising that this policy was reversible. If the West came back to the negotiating table. It's a deal possible today. The JCPoA ought to provide the template for both sides. According to reports have dropped some red lines, according to some. America is now pressing not for a ban on enrichment, but for a number of years without enrichment.

The Iranians have sent proposals through Pakistan to negotiate in phases. A phased agreement is indeed a possibility, as it would give the opportunity to build some trust. Reports say that US intelligence agencies have been asked to analyse the effects of the president, simply declaring victory and withdrawing from the conflict. But no one wants to see America humiliated or Iran strengthened. But the alternative of restarting the war and the bombing is not the answer. It would be futile in the end.

After more fighting and more deaths, there would be no negotiation. Better to start now. Let diplomacy have its day. Better Jojo than war.
13:18
Lord Houghton of Richmond Portrait Lord Houghton of Richmond (Crossbench)
-
-
War may. Well done. >> War may. Well done. >> My Lords. It's a pleasure to follow Lord Lamont, now a fellow traveller on the International Relations and Defence Committee. I draw my attention of the House to the attention of the House, my relevant defence related commercial interests, and particularly my role as Chairman of Defence Holdings PLC and as European defence adviser to Blackstone. Unsurprisingly, I want to confine my comments on the Gracious Speech to defence related issues and with due humility, because whenever I stand to speak and look around this chamber, I still feel young.

I thought I might start by offering some thoughts on leadership amongst the many famous dictums on leadership since Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonaparte's view that a leader, when faced with a difficult or indeed potentially catastrophic situation, he had a duty to his army and his country to do two things. The first was to establish the truth and the second, and in the context of that truth, was to offer hope. Just to explain this a little more fully, the truth I am talking about is not some sort of confected delusion, not some exercise in self and public deception.

Rather, it's the ugly reality that only brutal honesty can lay bare. Only in the context of unvarnished truth is it possible to offer practical hope. Again, to explain. The hope I am talking about is not some passive form of wishful thinking akin to optimism, not some alchemy dreamt up by the authors of defence strategy publications. Rather, the military idea of hope is a combination of desire, positive expectation and some action. Hope is a motivating force that provides both strength and resilience in uncertain times.

In the context of defence, the Gracious Speech undoubtedly nodded in the direction of some truth. It talked of dangers and threats, but the narrative of peril was completely neutered because it so obviously sat in the wider context of government inaction on funding. The latest strategic defence review. We need to do much better. So let me offer some selective views on both truth and hope. The first truth the dangers we face are more complex, more active, and more potentially existential than we realise.

I say this because the threats are not only military ones, ones that can be identified and physically defeated. Rather, they are also threats to the resilience of our critical infrastructure, the integrity of our society, and to the values we hold dear and want to live by. The second truth our defence capability is in a mess. Not only are our armed forces woefully under-resourced, but they've been procured for a different world, a different age, a different mindset. We still remain the prisoners of our remarkable national story.

We cling to the totemic symbols of global authority, our nuclear deterrent aircraft carriers, fifth generation jet fighters, exotic platforms, the global projection of hard power. I'm not saying that some. Not much of this. These things are not needed. But by the time such things are paid for, there is little left over for the conventional combat readiness, which is the baseline requirement of credible deterrence on a localised basis. This leads to the third hard truth our pretensions to NATO leadership, a core aspiration of the last defence review.

They are frankly laughable, and the same is true of some of our other pretensions, for example, to the status of a technological superpower. In short, the British public has been subject to 25 years of delusion. And to quote my friend, he's oft quoted this morning, Lord Robertson, we now find ourselves under-prepared, underinsured, under attack, and we are not safe. That is the truth. In respect of hope, however, I can offer some more positive thoughts in respect of the threat.

I do not personally worry that Russian paratroopers are imminently going to land in Kent, or roll tanks up to the gates of Paris. The wars in both Ukraine and now Iran have demonstrated the inherent advantages of defence over attack. We can triage the threats of the moment and should prioritise our support to Ukraine and the desperate need to build national resilience and ameliorate the more critical risks to our societal integrity. Second, we do need to spend more on war fighting readiness in order to contribute to more credible deterrence, to help build back some international respect and to better justify our leadership credentials.

I do not accept this as being unaffordable. Affordability is a political choice. Moreover, if the future promises on defence funding are realised, our challenge is more one of timing than money. I am intimately aware that private equity recognises the need for a mutual benefit of investing in defence, and the stability it helps ensure. And it is keen to make that investment quickly. Finally, we should all continue to recognise that in human terms and despite the neglect we have subjected them to, we continue to have in our armed forces a most remarkable national asset.

We owe it to them to tell the truth and to offer them some hope, the hope that their service deserves. So I am not downhearted. I am not without hope, though I am mightily frustrated that the political elite of my nation to see seems to spend the majority of its time convulsed in wholly meaningless distractions. There is an urgent need to be honest with the nation about our predicament and offer it hope through practical action. This should now be the government's cohering purpose.

Know thyself.
13:25
Lord Anderson of Swansea Portrait Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
-
-
Was the. Message of the Oracle >> Was the. Message of the Oracle at Delphi, and it was good that Lord Houghton enabled us to puncture some of our national puncture some of our national illusions, and I follow him in that. It was unusual and significant that this Gracious Speech began with a sentence on the dangerous and volatile world in which we live, and indeed, the forward perspective is very bleak. Our hope for a peace dividend is gone and the.

It's been replaced by wars and rumours of wars, wars and dangers to the global South, including the danger of famine. It is no longer possible for international affairs to be considered self-contained for this. One day we saw, for example, in the local elections on May 7th the extent to which Gaza was a significant factor in the by election, in the local elections of that time that the old attempts to that time that the old attempts to isolate the.

The. The national international affairs are no longer. It is also so sad to see the rise of anti-Semitism in this country. My Lords, we should bless the contribution of our Jewish community to the position in this country of a very, very many years. The old certainties have gone, of course, and the post-war settlement is being undermined massively. Fundamental, of course, to that post-war settlement is the warmth of our transatlantic relations. Yes, there will remain areas of cooperation, intelligence and the massive cultural exchanges.

But the old warmth has indeed gone. That the US has questioned our role in the Falklands, which is the neuralgic issue for us in the UK, has threatened our armed force against a NATO ally, Denmark, in respect of Greenland, and is erect, erected tariff walls against its allies. Is it just President Trump? No. The likely successor, J.D. Vance, campaigned for the strong man Orban in Hungary, a country I know well, having served there for two years, that equally.

And the vice president, JD Vance, is quoted of Ukraine, I don't make really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other. The US, alas, is no longer a beacon on the Hill. If NATO is indeed, as President Trump has said, a fake paper tiger, we must question whether we can rely on the US in a way we did in the past. It must be extremely difficult, my Lord, for us ambassadors to follow the volatility of US foreign policy, US policy in Iraq, in Iran underlines this problem.

It is a war of choice. There was no consultation, was there? I ask any consultation when the US on Tuesday of this week was about to renew its war on Iran, that the blind support was needed in. In spite of the lack of consultation and. Against this background, what we forward is there for us. Surely the pivot should now not be to the Indian Indo-Pacific, but my judgement should be to the. To Europe, perhaps the broader Europe rather than just the European Union.

That is the challenge which faces us by. Lord. It is. We must find, seek words means of defending ourselves on defence. I will only say that, like a number of colleagues, I endorse. Adopt what my noble friend Lord Robertson said about our lack of preparation, that a safer haven, in my judgement, does beckon. That we do need a closer relationship with Europe and it is a much safer haven for us, and we need to reduce our dependence on the US.

But that will have to be done incrementally and over time. But we need to build our relationship with Europe so that we can face the world together. That I think also in terms of that relationship, we should my my Lords, be more bold and put the Ming vase back in the cupboard where it belongs.
13:30
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Portrait Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)
-
-
In our increasingly dangerous and volatile world, there is one conflict which doesn't get much attention from the media. The brutal conflict in Sudan is moving relentlessly into its fourth year, with little prospect of resolution for the world's worst humanitarian crisis this century. In April, the UNHCR representative in Sudan stated that 14 million people are now displaced and at severe risk of violence and food shortages. Every day, the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support forces, along with their respective coalitions, remain focussed on a military victory.

Control of Sudan remains divided between the South holding the north and east of the country. The SF are largely in command of the West. The key battlefronts continue to shift, with fighting now concentrated in the country's centre and south east. There is no sign, my Lords, that either side can fully defeat the other until the rains come in June to September, there is likely to be intensified fighting to make territorial advances. But when the rains do come and fighters are bogged down, there won't be any respite for civilians who will suffer indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure from the air by drones sourced from outside Sudan.

The UN fact finding mission in El Fasher recently described the events as being the hallmarks of genocide, including mass killings, ethnic targeting and systematic sexual violence against women, girls and children. My Lords, the noble Baroness, the Minister, Lady Chapman, who opened the debate, has been generous with her time in briefing peers, humanitarian organisations and members of the diaspora on the policies and actions of the UK government in their efforts to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis. My Lords, her work is appreciated, but there is a but.

There is so much more that needs to be done to bring a people of a period of recovery to the peoples of Sudan and security in that region. Security there is crucial to us all. My Lords, when the Foreign Secretary attended the third International Sudan Conference in Berlin in April, she pledged to preserve £146 million of UK aid to support frontline aid workers working, providing life saving support to Sudanese civilians. But my Lords, it's telling that the conference was criticised by the Sudan staff, aligned de facto government and faced objections from the RSS tacit, tacit coalition.

My Lords, the ministerial session at the conference failed to agree a joint communique and had to settle for a co-chair statement. Instead, the Lords regional interests in the Middle East, Horn of Africa and the Red sea continue to exert influence on Sudan's fighting groups. So, my Lords, what diplomatic progress has the government been able to make in discussions with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE, the latter often being accused of providing military material to the RSF? My Lords, Sudan has a troika, a quad and a quintet groupings which lack coordination.

What is the government's view about how to bring coherence to the discussions of those groupings? When the noble Baroness, the Minister, Lady Chapman, replied to one of the noble Lord Lord Alton questions for written answer in April this year, she supported the quintet's launch of an intra Sudanese political dialogue on the basis that it could pave the way to a civilian led transition in Sudan. Once a permanent ceasefire had been secured. Will the UK play any role in providing financial or diplomatic support for that process? My Lords, the UK has a very influential position as pen holder on Sudan, at the UN in New York and Geneva.

So can the Minister update the House today about the steps being taken by the UK diplomatically to support brave frontline responders, such as the emergency response rooms, for preventing further casualties, secure ceasefire and ultimately what appears to be at the moment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an impossibly secured peace. Yes. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Next year the UK will host the G20 as its president, and the Gracious Speech refers to the Gracious Speech refers to the government's aim to use it to, and I quote, reinforce global stability. I quote, reinforce global stability. Today I'll focus on the Middle East and the need to rein in the Israeli government. If we are to create government. If we are to create that stability. Along with the US, the Israeli government has has embarked on one of the most reckless, ill thought out wars in recent history, with dire consequences for the global economy, for the environment and for and for the security of the region.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, set out. But the Prime Minister was right in refusing to allow the use of British bases in mounting the attack on Iran. The Netanyahu government concomitantly started a war in Lebanon that has killed many civilians, and it has occupied the south of the country. The cease fire there, which the US eventually demanded, has been broken almost daily as the Israeli government acts with impunity. The ceasefire in Gaza is also in name only.

Since its announcement, more than 600 Palestinians, many women and children have been killed as 90% of the infrastructure has been destroyed. Most Gazans live in tents, denied sanitation, adequate food and water and medical supplies because there is still insufficient access for the convoys. Again, the Israeli government acts with impunity. It is horrifying that it has moved to deregister international NGOs from operating in Gaza, so that Gazans are denied the humanitarian services they so desperately need.

While Gaza remains an uninhabitable wasteland, no progress is being made in its reconstruction. What action is the UK government taking to try to get this started? Turning to the 60 year occupation of the West Bank, the UK government rightly accepts that it is illegal, as has been confirmed by the ICJ in 2024. Meanwhile, the Israeli government is pursuing a policy of annexation there, having encouraged over 100 new settlements with some 750,000 settlers on land which was owned by or is designated for Palestinians.

House demolitions and ethnic cleansing, the theft of water and other resources, and vicious and unpunished settler violence are all commonplace. Again, the Israeli government act with impunity, my Lords. Last year the UK recognised the state of Palestine as a first step towards its implementation. The Israeli government has announced its opposition and takes steps to prevent it. Despite widespread international support for a two state solution in which the rights of Palestinians to self-determination are recognised, it is surely hypocritical to back two states yet to stand by while this progress is blocked.

Can I ask the Minister what actions the UK is taking? Condemnation alone is not enough. While the Israeli security Cabinet, a registered Palestinian land as as Israeli state property annexation is a flagrant breach of international law. As the Bishop of Southwark touched on, the Israeli aim to bury the two state solution by building the E1 settlement is unacceptable. Taking land designated for a future Palestinian state and making it unviable must be challenged. So will the government warn that those companies which bid for construction contracts there will put at risk their commercial interests in the UK? The government also introduced a comprehensive ban on trade with illegal settlements, including services and investment as well as goods.

This trade prolongs unlawful occupation. Finally, will the government work with our EU partners in reconsidering the trade agreements with Israel, both the EU and the UK agreements have been breached by the Israeli government's failure to
13:40
13:40
13:41
Lord Razzall Portrait Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to people who've listened to me over the last few years that to me over the last few years that I would like to talk in this context about our relationship with the European Union, rather like Lord Thomas of Gresford, I could have spoken last week on the in the economic affairs debate, but I'm speaking today on foreign affairs as I believe that our relationship with the European Union is the biggest long term issue facing the United Kingdom.

It is not just an economic issue. Can we really, as the Brexiteers wanted, believe that we can cut ourselves off from Europe and rely on our special relationship with the United States? We have a president there who has threatened to invade Greenland. We have a president who has started a war in Iran without consulting his NATO allies. We have a president there who has threatened to kick out Spain from NATO when they objected to the Iran war. And we have.

President there who has said that the US should think again about UK sovereignty in the Falklands. Can we really rely on the special relationship any more now? It's now ten years since the referendum and there's various speakers have indicated from these benches. Brexit has clearly failed the limited economic advantages arising from our recent recent trade deals are more than offset, as Lord Thomas of Gresford indicated by the recent calculation admitted by the government of an 8% cost of Brexit to the UK, GDP.

Even the trade deals that have been done outside the framework of our membership of the European Union, including including the recent one announced yesterday with the Gulf states, are merely a pinprick in relation to the overall 8% cost of Brexit and in this context, the government's approach to Europe is too restrictive, as shown in the European legislation. In the King's Speech, a reset of our relationship bound by the rigid red lines on free movement and the customs union, are inadequate when Brexit is failing and the US, as I have indicated, is an.

Is unreliable as a strategic partner. Now. Baroness Suttie, in her opening remarks, echoed the call by the former leader of our party, Nick Clegg, for a ten year programme ending up in rejoining the European Union. His thesis is that first we should negotiate to join a bespoke customs union, then we should move on to join the single market and then ultimately, in ten years time, apply for full membership and the public. Of course, as we have seen recently, are on the side of this approach.

A recent poll showed that 55% of the electorate now want to rejoin the European Union, and to the surprise of many, 63% want to return to free movement. This is of course supported, as we know, by Lord Kinnock, unfortunately not now in his place, the argument that the European Union won't want us needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, as all rather indicated by the noble Baroness Suttie. Over the next ten years the European Union will see fundamental changes, particularly with the admission of the Ukraine, which they are pressing for one of the world's largest farming communities, and we can't yet foresee what the impact that will have on French and German farmers.

However, what we do know is that following the admission of Ukraine, Europe will be a complete. The EU will be a completely different entity to the one we left, and we will be not negotiating with the same institution. My Lords, now is the time for the government to be bold and not worry about the result of the Macclesfield by election. My Lords. As a response of the Humble Address, can I remind well,
13:45
Lord Sterling of Plaistow Portrait Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Conservative)
-
-
most of us, and I, my sister and I were around all the time on May the 8th, 1945, there was a massive noise outside our house. We lived in London. My sister and I did have the opportunity of going away, but the opportunity of going away, but we wanted to stay with our parents, and my parents came in with a glass and my parents came in with a glass of sherry and said, the war is over, we're safe.

I remember that so clearly. But what I hadn't realised is when my parents talked about we are safe. When we thought the Germans were going to take over the whole of Britain at a particular time, we then were told that we were particularly safe because being Jewish. Quite a number of our family finished up in Auschwitz. What I really wanted to say today, everybody here realises today's discussion is possibly one of the most important we have ever, ever had.

And I think it's worth just going back a wee bit. The words which we all say every year. And when I did military service away, we all said it then, and that is when it comes to October the 11th. We all stay standing to attention. Somebody always says we will remember them. Now this is to my mind, something which is so important to all of us to remember. And of course, there were so many people over the many wars who were slaughtered.

Now we use the words just war. What is a just war? My personal view is that the war we're having at the moment regarding Iran, etc. to my mind, is a just war. I think in actual fact, there was a moment of time in life when you have to make a decision as to when you go to war. Very large numbers of people are going to get hurt, died and wounded for life. What's happening in trying to get Trump out of this war, to my mind, is totally justified and Ukraine should be supported totally.

I also think that the attack regarding Iran, and as some of you may have just seen just now, literally came through a few minutes ago. But in actual fact, Iranians regime has totally refused to accept that they cannot control and have control of their nuclear capability. So when you look at what President Trump is doing, I know there's a lot of feeling against President Trump, sadly, but he's a great believer in trying to save lives.

He has said many times that nearly 2000 young people, young Russians, young Ukrainians 17 years of age are being killed every day, which goes past. And somehow or other, the aspect of that has to stop. So in practice, once again, that our support in that front, I think is totally, totally important. I just totally, totally important. I just wanted to finish by saying that our noble Ministers, Baroness Lord Coaker, everybody has heard many speeches today.

It's not for me to talk about how they feel or what they should have, but I'd like to feel that they would agree with the views I've expressed that in actual fact, to save life in the ultimate is what we all try to achieve. But sometimes war is justified.
13:50
Lord Tugendhat Portrait Lord Tugendhat (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thought last week when I read in the Times that the Prime Minister was going to announce an £18 billion increase in defence expenditure, that at last the government was going to put its money where its mouth is. But of course, I was disappointed. And once again, we are going to have to rely on words. And words mean that basically, Britain's reputation as a military power continues to go down the plughole, and not even the powerful and patriotic rhetoric of the noble Lord Lord Coaker can do anything about that.

The figures, my Lord, speak for themselves. NATO data shows that in a. On a proportional basis, the United Kingdom last year was the 12th biggest spender as against having been the third biggest in 2021 in terms of GDP, we are at present spending 2.4% on defence, way below the target we have set ourselves. And given how much the nuclear element takes up, that means that the proportion going on conventional forces is one point something small.

This not only means, as Lord Robertson has so forcefully, so forcefully put it, being unprepared for war and finding it difficult to deal with the cyber and other espionage threats that already are sailors. It also makes a mockery of the government's ambition to play a leading role in foreign policy and security deliberations with our European allies. It explains to our pitiful lack of resources in the Middle East. When the US and Israel attacked Iran. And of course, it explains President Trump's contempt for what we have to offer.

Now, my Lords, I do not blame this government alone for the predicament we are in. It is the culmination of a long retreat. In 1998, the former United States ambassador to London, Ray Seitz, who I hope others as well as myself remember with affection and admiration. Ray Seitz warned. He recites, called and I quote, the British miniaturisation of its own armed forces would lead to a reduction in British influence in Washington. Well, not only in Washington.

The same applies in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, all over the world. By militarising our military, we are throwing away an invaluable diplomatic card. This government is not the only one to blame for us being where we are, but it is to blame for not doing anything to reverse the process. Its failure to rebuild our defence preparedness is, of course, not the only way the government is failing to provide for this country's security. The failure fully to exploit our North Sea oil and gas reserves is another.

Now, many noble Lords have spoken about this during the course of the day of the week long debate on the Gracious Speech, so I won't labour the point, but whatever I. What I would say is that whatever the security benefits of green energy and renewables. In the long run, we shall never. We shall need fossil fuels for a long time to come, and it is in the interests of our own security that as much as possible of those fuels should come from our own resources in the North Sea, wood Mackenzie has estimated that by 2035 we will be importing 60% of our LNG needs from the United States versus 10% in 2026.

Now, my Lords, I hate to say it, but when one sees how casually President Trump interrupts or impedes trade flows or takes other actions, when an ally displeases him for some reason, how can we regard that as secure? Quite apart from all the other dangers that threaten the international trade in oil and gas.
13:55
Lord Campbell-Savours Portrait Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour)
-
-
Lord Campbell-Savours is taking part remotely. to speak. >> My Lords. >> I wish to raise three issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to raise three issues Israel, Ukraine and defence expenditure. Since 2022, I've been expenditure. Since 2022, I've been challenging in this House the billions being spent on the war with Russia, which I've repeatedly opposed in over 30 interventions, and debate our failures to hold in check American policy on NATO expansion, thereby breaching the neutrality of East European barrier states. Status so important to Russia. Our support for Ukraine. Membership of NATO only later qualified.

Our failure to press for early withdrawal of the Azov battalions following the Maidan revolution and, in my view, a complete misreading of events in Donetsk and Luhansk have all, again, in my view, contributed to the crisis. The consequences of this policy have not only been economic, but have also enabled a powerful UK defence lobby to mobilise and use the crisis to demand increases in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence expenditure. I Russia's brutal, aggressive, warmongering response and regrettable turn to the East and regrettable turn to the East and China to be a direct consequence of Western miscalculation. All avoidable. Unfortunately, my avoidable. Unfortunately, my government has found itself locked into this strategy. Moving to into this strategy. Moving to Israel, the war and the Palestinian question, the debate has unfortunately become submerged in discussion over anti-Semitism, thereby diverting us from the real debate. It's hard to know where to draw the line.

Thus, the dispute over the London marches. As a great admirer of Israel, which I first visited as a as a schoolboy in 1959. Like many of my friends, I'm torn. Trump's position has set out in James Kushner's paper vision for peace. He's at the heart of the problem. The plan proposes a Palestine without borders, landlocked inside a Greater Israel with Palestinian enclaves under Israeli control. The plan, opposed throughout the Middle East, is further deepening, aggravating the existing conflict.

And in my view, the government is right to keep out and the Prime Minister has stood firm. Moving to defence expenditure, my noble friend Lord Robertson of Ellon has proposed, I understand, a 5% target. My ten years on the Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, followed by my reading of Lord Levene's of Cohen's brilliant, brilliant exposé on waste in defence procurement, leaves me wary of any demands for substantial increased resources. Yes, some increase is needed and we're delivering.

However, I say cut the overcharging, the waste, the gold plating, the contract revisions and find another Peter Levine. And then we can talk. And before we accept the notion of an increased worldwide threat, which I reject, we need to reflect on whether we would be correctly. We would be credibly arguing for substantial increases if we were to settle the conflict in Ukraine. As per Trump, and then sought to influence Trump over Israel, seeking a more considered approach without our being accused of undermining Israel's need for security.

I strongly believe we can. We can, with careful diplomacy, reduce world tension. The question is, is the brilliance in diplomacy that characterised Foreign Office thinking over generations still there? In my view, our mistake has been to fail to support Trump over the Ukraine. But failure by the Western democracies, democracies in particular in Europe, has cost us dearly. Trump is now questioning and challenging not only our wider European policy agendas, but also the relationship between America and Europe.

The Little Englanders who keep us outside of Europe should keep that in mind. Their case. Their case is dying on the cross of American isolationism. We should have supported Trump's Ukraine initiative. If we'd done so, we could influence events over his war with Iran, and probably the future of trading relations with the United States. And furthermore, perhaps even as a consequence, curtail the opportunist relationship Russia is now developing with China, for which we bear some responsibility ourselves. When Russia finally implodes, the truth will no doubt come out.

I know my views are minority views, but I thank the House for its tolerance. Thank you.
14:01
Baroness Neville-Jones Portrait Baroness Neville-Jones (Conservative)
-
-
I have to say, I disagree with a great deal of what the previous speaker has just said, but I'm extraordinarily glad to live in a country where he has the right to say it. And I have the duty to listen. I want to talk a bit about defence. Like most members of the taken part in the debate today, starting, I have to say, with the powerful contribution to our debate on the King's Speech, which Lord Robertson of Port Ellen made, and he started by endorsing the Prime Minister's own comment in the introduction to The King's Speech, in which the Prime Minister said that the Iran conflict demonstrates the need for the UK to be the need for the UK to be stronger and we need to move with greater urgency, urgency.

But as Lord Robertson also pointed out, there's a bit of the speech which they should have been, which would have told us how much the government intended to spend on hard power appeared to be missing. Well, I hope the government is going to say something shortly. I do wish, you know, that it had among the 37 pieces of legislation on other subjects that had been able to give us more news than we've had so far. I am going to continue to assume, nevertheless, that the government is serious about defence, even if it's now becoming, I think, dangerously slow in getting active.

There is, I think, and I worry about this, there is a growing strand of opinion in the country which asserts that NATO is now a busted flush, that the US is no longer a reliable ally, and that we should look for our security for somewhere else. I think that's a line of argument, though, which we should be extraordinarily wary of and indeed should be countering strongly. It does not make sense. With an overbearing Russia on our doorstep, an underpowered Europeans can't afford a divorce.

And actually, the truth be told, the Americans need the facilities and the rights of passage they have with their European allies. They don't. They don't have an interest in the end of NATO. Divorce, I think would be quite painful from them. And I don't think, you know, as things stand, NATO is going to collapse. But that relatively reassuring state of affairs is not unconditional. It does depend on what we do next, and particularly what Europeans do next. The international landscape in which NATO was originally built has shifted materially, I think, since the start, and it was the start of the change that we were visible was with Obama.

And Mr. Trump's behaviour undoubtedly has made adjustment to the new situation harder on both sides of the Atlantic than it need be. We can't complain. I think about his exposure of the inadequacy of our defence efforts and our lack of of political pulling power that results from that which other Lords have also marked remarked on. So while NATO is not a busted flush, there is a mounting crisis of credibility. So I do, with some exasperation, ask the government, you know, how long it's going to go on without actually doing much, if anything, in the situation, as the Prime Minister has said, is urgent.

So the government tells us, you know, that national security is its primary duty. It's accepted the wide ranging and very insightful defence review conducted by Lord Robertson. But a year later, we still don't have the defence investment plan and the government hasn't joined the EU defence, Security and Resilience Bank and serious spending on defence by the UK is backed up to the end of the cycle. Now the important point is that our European neighbours are not actually waiting about.

They're moving faster than we are. Each day news comes of agreements on kit that they will build and the creation of bilateral corporate partnerships between them, which will fulfil contracts and many could turn out to be long term. The corporate structures there could be set in the defence market. Opportunities could be cleaned out before the UK is ready to get going and we risk, frankly, the risk of being shut out. And not only does this deprive us of the economic growth which the government advertises as defence, being capable of bringing to traditional defence building regions of this country which badly need the business, it will adversely and is adversely affecting our claims to political influence and leadership inside the alliance.

Our reputation took an embarrassing dent the other day with our pathetic performance in the Mediterranean. So my plea to the government is, please, we have the words can we now have the deeds?
14:06
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, the Gracious Speech said that His Majesty's Government will continue to pursue foreign policy based on a calm assessment of the national interest, and I hope the Minister, when he calmly sums up this debate, will confirm that our national interest includes giving support to the State of Israel. However strong our criticisms may be of some of the policies, perhaps many of the policies of the Netanyahu government, and it's in our national interest to oppose all those who seek to destroy the State of Israel.

My Lords, on Tuesday evening, I attended the opening of an exhibition in London which bears witness to the massacre of young people enjoying the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel on the 7th of October 2023. On that occasion, 6000 young people came to dance. But at 619 in the morning, the festival was overrun by pure hatred. Hamas supporters raped, tortured, murdered and mutilated hundreds of people. One of those murdered was a British citizen, 26 year old Jake Marlow from north London.

Anyone who thinks that it is progressive for so-called freedom fighters to rape and murder party goers, and anyone who doubts the atrocities committed that day should attend this exhibition in Shoreditch. I hope all members of the House will do so, if only for five minutes. Almost as painful as the reminder of the appalling events which occurred that day is the fact that in London, in London in 2026, a massive police presence is required to protect the exhibition and those attending from attack by antisemites.

I focus on the Nova Festival because it is a symbol of the true values which Israel shares with this country, and it is a symbol of the fragile nature of those values. In Israel. People of all ages and backgrounds, and of any sexual orientation attend and enjoy cultural events without discrimination. People in Israel read uncensored newspapers. They can freely discuss whatever they like without state interference. They can vote for politicians who govern them. Their disputes are determined by independent judges under the rule of law, they benefit, as do people around the world, from astonishing scientific and technological developments in cancer treatment, telecommunications, defence industries and so many other disciplines.

These are values of liberty, diversity, scholarship, which we find in very few other countries in this world and in no other country in the neighbourhood where Israel exists. Sadly, we have to acknowledge Israel currently has leaders and policies of which we strongly disagree. I strongly disagree, such as the Netanyahu government's toleration. Indeed, encouragement of violent conduct by settlers in the West Bank in their treatment of Palestinians. It is shameful. The reprehensible statements by some Ministers in the Netanyahu government and the failure of that government to accept that, as the Gracious Speech said, we must all work harder towards securing a two state solution.

But when we criticise those aspects of Israeli government policy and we are right to do so, we should bear in mind that many Israelis share and express the same concerns. Debate is necessary, but what is unacceptable is that there is a state, Iran, whose primary objective is to destroy Israel and which seeks to develop nuclear weapons, to implement that objective, and which funds organisations including Hamas and Hezbollah, whose raison d'etre is the pursuit of that goal. And there are so many misguided individuals who are prepared to carry out attacks in this country and in other countries against anyone they perceive to be a supporter of Israel, by which they mean Jews.

And there are all too many others who shrugged their shoulders or look the other way. So I ask this government to recognise the values which we share with the State of Israel, whatever our criticisms, and rightly so, of some of its policies. And I ask this government not to forget Jake Marlowe and all the other victims of the Nova Festival massacre.
14:12
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
In my Lord Oates. >> Speech was right to emphasise that we face an increasingly dangerous and volatile world. But dangerous and volatile world. But what is laid out, and is it a match for what is required? We are a divided country. We can trace that back, at the very least, to the financial crisis of 2008, when billions were pumped into the banking system to stabilise it, with the City of London particularly exposed. When people see their living standards suffer, they can be beguiled, beguiled by simple solutions.

Into that, played the Brexiteers. Our economy was seriously further damaged. A reduction in GDP of 8 to 11%. The UK became even less of a desired destination for investment. London, as a leading financial centre was eroded and now we see people reaching even further to the right and the left. And we know from history the risks of that, and we are in a divided world where the use of force is undermining any notion of the mutual benefit of a rules based order.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Trump attacking Iran theoretically to secure something better than the JCPoA without any line of sight on achieving that. And it took Baroness Ashton and others four years to do so, and without any seeming assessment of what the consequences might be. That makes crystal clear that we cannot simply sail on alone. We are indeed part of the European continent and best defend our interests by being part of the EU grouping. As my noble friends Baroness Suttie, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Razzall have said.

The government plan. The government's plan to move closer to Europe is therefore welcome, but far too limited. Like Lord Thomas, I note that the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has described as, quote, woefully inadequate the government's response to their own paper on seeking such a closer relationship. Hiding behind, as they put it, generalities with a lack of clear and comprehensive vision. I do welcome the government's recognition of Palestine, to which the noble Lady referred. I had a private member's bill on this in the last session, but I hope that we haven't reached a point of no return in terms of a contiguous Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Stability, security and prosperity in the region is desperately needed. The economic challenges the government faces poses problems for us all, and I come here to the cuts in development assistance, theoretically to help fund defence. And it is, of course, a false choice. As Baroness Ashton and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark, has said as we read in Monday's Times, our military leaders have written to the Prime Minister, emphasising that cutting foreign aid will compromise national security.

They rightly argue that foreign aid helps to prevent the instability, extremism and displacement that otherwise military force later has to confront a greater cost. What is the government's response to that? Letter to the Prime Minister? I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, and a reminder of how we can be directly affected by what happens elsewhere is encapsulated for me in the current Ebola outbreak. Back in 20 1415, we recognised the risks of the West African Ebola epidemic. The far sighted Chris Whitty harnessed anthropologists to assist in finding acceptable ways to mourn the dead that didn't then endanger the living.

He set up field diagnostic clinics and hospitals in Sierra Leone, with the US working in Liberia and France. In Guinea, an appalling disease was checked in its tracks, a disease that could in fact have had a terrible impact globally, including in the UK. Oda money went into vaccine research in the Jenner Institute in Oxford and elsewhere. That paved the way for our stellar performance in vaccine development in the pandemic, all that has gone by the wayside. The Americans now criticise W H O for moving slowly when they themselves cut their budget, which affected WHOS disease surveillance abilities.

And we have slashed our aid budget. The noble Lady noted that we are committing £21 million to the Ebola outbreak in 20 1415. We put in £420 million. Our contribution now is a mere 5% of that earlier effort. The government needs to be far more aware of when the left hand undermines the right. Cutting aid is one area, and now we have immigration restrictions which are throttling our universities. We are in danger of losing our our leading edge here.

The government is right to aim for UK's economic security and growth, but the measures we see here leave unanswered many of the areas which must be tackled if such growth is to be achieved.
14:17
Lord Howell of Guildford Portrait Lord Howell of Guildford (Conservative)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow. >> I believe long ago. >> We were once in the same government, but I can't quite recall which government it was. We've had some very fine speeches both this morning and in. Throughout the six days we've been debating the King's Speech and the one that sticks in my mind a couple Baroness Manningham-Buller reminding us we are all being. We're all under attack on all sides in in every way by Russia at all the time.

And she should know. And then Lord Hennessey's last words, last Lord Peach sadly last one, in which he warned against. Against us sinking into a vortex of pessimism and despair. How right he was, my Lord. At the end of the last century, many of us used to visit Japan a lot, and delegations and so on, and they always arrange for us to see the Prime Minister of the day. And we used to smile a bit, quite politely and privately, but it was always a different person, a constant rotation of prime Ministers.

Now, I suspect the Japanese are laughing a bit at us because we too are in this whirligig of instability and instability at the political centre affects everything else. The confidence in attitudes of investment and business and future prosperity. Why are we caught in it? Well, there are all sorts of explanations, but I just want to quickly add three in my five minutes first. Any government is facing now an electorate far more informed. Maybe for better, maybe for worse, I suspect mainly for worse, but in vastly greater quantities than ever before in history.

Every grievance. Grievance is becomes turbocharged. Every minor, really unfiltered and unedited view is promoted through a massive world system of electronic information. There are 37 million devices in the UK alone, which. That's not counting wired telephones that can be tuned in to any ministerial statement if they want to. So everything can, of course be challenged and is challenged. It becomes a permanent maelstrom of debate. We've created a an entirely new information network, and I'm not sure that some of the media or those in political circles have quite adjusted to this huge evolution and its effect on everybody.

Now, that, incidentally, is why some of us fought ten years ago to set up an international affairs committee, which didn't exist. We had to fight very hard indeed. Second, in this digital hyperconnected world, most of the root causes lie outside our national government reach. That's not a very popular view at all, but it is. So whether it's security and safety or cost of living or funding shortages all around, or trade or local government, or the bond on the local government and those potholes, of course, or interest rates and bond markets or energy independence, which is largely a crime area, I'm afraid these are all matters that are only partially under our home government control, and certainly not under the control of the root causes of them.

Then, third, in 1945, visionaries, liberally minded visionaries built a new world order out of the rubble of the Second World War. All the institutions they created then served us well. But they're all in trouble. And yet they're supposed to be the rule makers and the fora, where there are referees, without which chaos and a world without rules develops. And we need a new Bretton Woods. We need new trade rules. We need new new a new international monetary organisation.

I'm sorry, international Maritime Organisation, a new health organisation, and of course a new unblocked United Nations as well. So where are these visionaries today? They're certainly not in Washington. Where are the Trumans, the Marshall's, the Keynes's, the Dexter White's and the other figures who built this world order almost 100 years ago. And mentioning Keynes allows me just a few seconds to share the sadness that we're no longer have. Robert Skidelsky with us, who was a great biographer of Keynes.

Not, of course, that everyone agreed with him, but certainly not on Ukraine, where the robots are winning and not losing, but medals. All this is being ignored or barely reported in the press. We do. Indeed, the spirit of 1949 all over again, but many times over, and many times more ambitiously. Without that, we can all attack the nearest targets and have a bit of inter-party battle and so on. But. But still still remain the plaything of past economic fantasy theories being swept along in a rudderless craft, a world without rules absolutely fatal to a country like ours.

Now, Lords, I refuse to be a pessimist. We must listen to Lord Hennessey's warning. These facts are totally altered world. We ignore my Lords at our peril.
14:23
Baroness Rafferty Portrait Baroness Rafferty (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak as a >> My Lords, I rise to speak as a nurse on the health aspects of the Strategic Defence Review and some of the implications it holds for of the implications it holds for the National Health Service. I shall be brief as a review is admirably concise in its analysis, and as I was unable to speak in the health debate, I hope the Minister will indulge me and kindly pass on some key points to my noble friend, the Minister of Health.

Baroness Merron. The focus of my remarks is the need for close collaboration between the Defence Medical services and the NHS. The Gracious Speech sets out the ambition that the government, and I quote, will support our gallant armed forces and their families who make considerable personal sacrifices for the collective security and freedom of everyone in the UK. Defence medical services play a crucial role in retaining service personnel and boosting morale, so it is vital that they are fit for the future.

The Defence medical Services, though, do not act alone and renowned for their excellence of their rehabilitation services. It is nevertheless dependent on the NHS for secondary and tertiary care. The Covid pandemic taught us all the crucial role that defence services play in logistics, setting up of the Nightingale hospitals and rollout of the vaccination programme. The review, however, fires a warning shot in pointing to the fragmentation of services, the historic neglect and underfunding, arguing that the relationship with the NHS has been deprioritised in recent years.

My Lords, it is imperative that this relationship is repaired and boosted by securing close collaboration between the Mod and the DHSC to ensure that the defence, Medical services and the NHS have the capacity to meet defence medical needs, including in the most extreme circumstances. To achieve this, a sprint review was recommended to assess system wide capacity and capability. This was scheduled for completion in March of this year. Can the Minister confirm that such a sprint is planned or under way, and whether its findings will be accessible in the public domain? The adoption of a whole force plan, identifying workforce requirements as part of an enduring approach agreed with the NHS, also presents an opportunity for articulation, with the much anticipated NHS workforce Plan.

In closing, can the Minister assure us that he will work closely with his counterpart at his noble friend, the Minister of Health, in ensuring that these vital services are given the priority and are given the priority and attention they deserve? Hear, hear!
14:27
Baroness Helic Portrait Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
And I welcome the government's strong commitment to defence and improving relations with European improving relations with European partners as a vital step towards strengthening European security and upholding our unbreakable commitment to NATO and our allies. I pay tribute to our diplomats, the members of armed forces and intelligence agencies who keep us safe. My Lords, healthy defence spending, partnerships and alliances are cornerstone of our security and our ability to keep our citizens safe and country secure, but our defence and resilience cannot be measured solely in military or economic preparedness.

There are also question of moral clarity. While nations must have the capability to defend themselves, they must also seek to have the courage and consistency to defend fundamental values and the rule of law internationally. I fear that across much of the democratic world, what we might call our moral resilience is weakening, with serious consequences for our long term security. The scale of human suffering is immense in Sudan, Gaza, Myanmar, Lebanon, DRC and Ukraine. Was that being waged against civilian population without with impunity? It is difficult to claim that we uphold international law consistently, or that we value all human rights equally.

In any of these conflicts, with perhaps the sole exception of Ukraine. At the same time, global military spending has reached historic levels. There is logic in preparing for a more dangerous world, but arms alone will not make us or the world safer. Countries shape the world not only through the power they possess, but through the example they set. When democracy is applied, their value is selectively. They weaken themselves. Strategically, they make it easier for authoritarian states to argue that our principles are merely instruments of convenience.

In modern conflict, there are very few clean hands, even among democracies. Some democracies commit atrocities and deny that the world has seen what it did. Some provide diplomatic cover, often intelligence for actions they should condemn. Some remain silent because moral clarity has become politically inconvenient. After the Second World War, leaders built international institutions designed to prevent civilisation from sliding back to barbarism. Through the United Nations and NATO. The International Criminal Court, to mention just a few. They had seen how quickly peace could turn to war, how economic fear, extremism, propaganda and scapegoating could poison public life from within.

While history does not repeat itself exactly, there are echoes today that should concern us. Political fragmentation, distrust of institutions, anti-Semitism, ethnic nationalism, economic anxiety, contempt for democratic processes, and the normalisation of the humanising language and acts. Old ideas are returning because too many people have forgotten that they were once rejected and disregarded. I am not nostalgic for post-Cold war. I am not nostalgic for post-World war settlement. I know war. I think of Srebrenica. I think of the promises made by the international community and then disregarded, and of the price paid by innocent civilians who were told they were safe.

My concern is not that we have fallen from the imagined perfection. It is that we are losing even the aspiration to uphold our own standards. This is why I believe that moral authority and moral consistency must remain central to British foreign policy. This is being as clear about abuse of human rights with our friends as we are with our enemies. Sir John Major recently warned of the fortress generation, a society made fearful, more divided and less hopeful about the future. He was reminding us that public life carries an obligation to hand on something worth inheriting.

Many young people today are no longer certain that that will happen. They see wars streamed live, they hear politicians speak of war and humanity in one context while avoiding those same principles in another. They are losing faith not only in governments, but in the sincerity of politics itself. This is not a sentimental concern. Democracy, democratic legitimacy depends upon it. My Lord. Britain must, of course, be ready to defend her citizens and her territory. When the noble Lord, Lord Robinson, called out the Prime Minister and the Chancellor over their failure to re-arm the United Kingdom at speed in the face of growing threats, he spoke for many.

But military strength without moral authority is ultimately a hollow form of power. Our influence rests not only on what we can do or how well we are armed, but also on what we stand for.
14:32
Baroness Antrobus Portrait Baroness Antrobus (Labour)
-
-
My Lord. First, the noble and gallant Lord Lord Alton mentioned his due humility to those more senior than him in this house. I am but an infant in comparison, so I address you. With that in mind, I want to reflect on the brief time I have on national resilience, government progress, or lack of following the recommendations in the SDR and on the contribution that your Lordships House is making and can make in the immediate future. The noble Lord Lord Stirrup spoke of deterrence and resilience is part of deterrence, specifically in doctrine.

Deterrence by denial. My Lords colleagues who have visited Ukraine this spring have commented on the impact that the last horrific winter had on Ukrainian will to defy Russia's illegal invasion. They spoke of lives lived underground, under nets and under concrete. They talk of the worst winter ever, both because of the huge increase in Russian drone and missile strikes, but also because of the impact of attacks on energy infrastructure combined with bitterly cold weather. Yet it seems that if anything that has hardened resolve and resilience, a sense that if we can survive, that we can survive anything.

But in the UK, I worry about what the public could survive. Already we know that Russia is attacking us. I live in Salisbury and know well the impact that Russian murderous aggression has had on our soil. My fellow citizen Dawn Sturgess, lost her life due to that attack, and the city of Salisbury suffered severe physical and economic consequences over not just months, but years. The issue was not whether people have courage. Of course they have. It is whether government and institutions have given them the information, tools, trust and support to be resilient.

We need a clear path to improve national resilience, to have that national conversation that we know we need to have. Resilience does, of course, feature in the King's Speech and prominently in the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, but as expected, there was no defence readiness bill, which was recommended in the SDR. That leaves us without a clear path to improving national resilience. And I'm hoping my noble friend the Minister, can explain to the House later how that national conversation will be stimulated by the government in the coming months.

The need is urgent. In fact critical. The noble Lady Baroness Coussins, chair of the House of Lords Committee on National Resilience, wrote in the House magazine this month of the Nordic countries approach to preparing their citizens for emergencies. As she put it, those governments communicate candidly about risks. The result is not alarmist alarmism, but assurance. The Nordic example shows us that honesty about risk can be reassuring, empowering and mature. Assurance and information are what people need.

And this house I know cares about this topic. We recently debated civil preparedness for war in Grand Committee, and the overwhelming conclusion was that we need to make more time for this subject in this House. In conversation, I've become increasingly vocal, in my opinion, that this challenge cannot be answered by defence policy or strategy alone. Just as the SDR said a couple of weeks ago, me and some of my fellow Labour newbies or new joiners met to discuss defence issues because it's a subject we all care about.

It became so apparent to us that my fellow peers, with expertise from local and national government to insurance, from the emergency services to law, from housing to education. And that's just a small sample of the experience of my intake, have deep understanding across hugely important areas, diverse areas in the national resilience conversation. The answer does not just lie with those who live and breathe defence and security, though the experience of my noble and gallant Lords and other specialists in these areas is always needed.

Your Lordships' House contains exactly the range of experience. A serious resilience conversation requires. I look forward to the report from the Committee on National Resilience in November, and I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees that we all have our part to play now, today and tomorrow, not just in this House but outside it. Not just talking, but acting. And to reiterate, resilience is not about frightening people. It is about trusting them with honest information and giving them the part.
14:37
Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates (Conservative)
-
-
Gave you the. >> Gave you the. >> Privilege to follow the noble and gallant Baroness in this, and I believe very much the question of believe very much the question of actions, not just talking. The Gracious Speech promises. The United Kingdom will also take action to reduce humanitarian need and conflict around the world. The promise will carry immeasurably more weight if the government will not simultaneously imposing the deepest cuts ever seen in the UK aid budget, and this from a government who were elected on a manifesto to keep aid at 0.5%, and were now reducing it to 0.3% with devastating effects.

Now we all know why this policy changed because the government and its loyal opposition, I have to say. So focus group polling that showed that cutting overseas aid budgets, overseas aid budgets to fund defence at home might prove electorally popular. Well, that doesn't seem to have gone down too well, has it? But it's worse than that because Baroness Ashton and Baroness Northover have pointed out that some of Britain's most senior former military chiefs have now warned that cutting foreign aid to fund defence will compromise our national security.

So at a time when the Minister, Baroness Chapman, began this debate by reminding us that we live in a more fragile, contested and interconnected world, the policy of a A cuts leaves us less safe at home and less effective abroad. These cuts have real world effects, and nowhere more so than Sudan. As my old friend Baroness Finlay has already set out very eloquently, there are 19.5 million people in Sudan today in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. The World Food Programme can only reach 5 million, but because of cuts and the result of the conflict in Iran, which is driving up costs of delivery, that has had to be reduced to 3 million out of 20 million.

And individual rations are being cut by 50% in some areas. Despite the pledges made at last month's Berlin conference. As of today, the UN Sudan Humanitarian Response Plan of $2.87 billion remains only 20% funded. What does that say? In a world of unprecedented wealth and $3 trillion that were able to find for arms sales that we can't find $3 billion to save the lives of 20 million people? The prime responsibility, of course, for the human suffering in Sudan lies squarely on the warring parties who are perpetrating extraordinary acts of cruelty and sexual violence against their own people.

The use of drones means that there's nowhere no safe space for civilians. Hospitals are targeted, markets are targeted, waterholes and wells are targeted. Civilians are overwhelmingly the victims of this war, and as such, their voice needs to be heard to. The peace negotiations are supposed to be led by a quad of nations the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. But they've stalled, with three of the four supposed to be in charge of peace negotiations, actually supplying arms to one side or the other.

As Baroness Anelay said, we need to invest diplomatic capital in calling that out and reminding our friends of their responsibility to get their sides to the negotiating table, to stop feeding the conflict and to start feeding the people. We need a humanitarian ceasefire now. If they are not prepared to step up to the responsibility, then they should step aside and let others try. The United Kingdom is still a diplomatic superpower, widely respected around the world. We have some of the finest and most skilled diplomats on the planet.

The UK and London have enormous convening power, as we've seen this week at the Excellent Global Partnerships Conference in Woolwich. There is no there is no military solution to this problem. The need of the hour is for a diplomatic surge. I believe that the UK is uniquely placed to do that. We are the pen holder on Sudan. At the UN. We need no further authority to act and to get involved. But the need of the hour is not just for words, it's for actions too.

I began by quoting the Gracious Speech which said we should reduce humanitarian need and conflict around the world. That speech goes on to say Ministers will champion the rights of women and girls to live in a world free of violence. Fine words. But for the women and girls living alone in fear and hunger in Sudan this evening, they may respond in the immortal words of Eliza Doolittle. Words, words, words. I'm so sick of words. Sing me no song.

Read me no rhyme. Don't waste my time. Show me.
14:42
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> To say we live in a world of volatile and disrupted world. Is to state a truism. And truisms can get state a truism. And truisms can get tedious. Especially if too often repeated. But one ignores them at one's peril. And for no country is that truer than for Britain, a middle power in the Canadian Prime Minister's perceptive characterisation, which has sacrificed influence by deciding to leave the EU in 2016, and which, while still having worldwide interests, cannot hope to further them effectively on its own.

Add to that the fact that our closest ally for the last 80 plus years, the United States, can no longer be regarded as dependable in all circumstances. It's frequently said that we can no longer rely too on the rules based international order to whose development Britain contributed so much in the aftermath of two disastrous world wars, and that we must come to terms with the new systems which have succeeded that order. But the hard fact is there are no such new systems emerging, merely the modern equivalent of the law of the jungle, where might is right.

And that certainly does not suit our interests, and it does not suit our values, nor has the capacity of those rules, the rules based order, whether we're talking about the UN charter, about the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, about the convention on the law of the sea, but the European Convention on Human Rights, or about International trade rules of the World Trade Organisation to secure freer and fairer world trade. None of those, and many others have lost their value to us.

They are neither outdated, nor would it be in our interest to allow them to wither on the bow. Take nuclear weapons as an example. The nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, which has recently held its periodic review conference, remains a cornerstone of international security, without which there would be many more nuclear weapon states than there are now vying with each other in regional arms races. That treaty has ensured that only one of its signatories, North Korea, has flouted its obligations in recent decades.

Iran has come quite close to doing so, too. But that point was not imminent when Israel and the US attacked it at the end of February, and it is surely in our collective interest that Iran should never have a nuclear weapons capability. But achieving that can only be reached at the negotiating table and can only be sustained by a rigorous system of safeguards operated without interference by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That should surely be the aim, but little is being done to secure it.

Since President Trump destroyed the best attempt to do so. Take two. The dialogue on strategic stability between the recognised nuclear weapon states, which has been suspended since Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine. That, too, will need to be resumed at some future moment, together with agreements to limit the unlimited accumulation of those weapons. The world needs a rules based trading system too. If we are not to slip back into the protectionist tit for tat retaliation of the 1930s, tariffs unilaterally applied are simply a synonym for taxes, which in the end negatively affect one's own consumers and producers.

And there does need to be some international procedure for handling trade disputes, which is why the government's recent decision to join the interim procedure in Geneva was so welcome. Later this year, an important decision will be taken in New York on the appointment of the next Secretary general of the United Nations. The UN has taken some hard knocks in recent years, as it did in the 1970s and the early 1980s. But Britain, as a permanent member of its Security Council, should surely be doing all it can to secure the appointment of an effective reforming leader to take over its leadership.

And we should be working to consolidate and to strengthen the procedures introduced. When Secretary General Guterres was first appointed to open up the choice to more transparency and to ensure that there is no trace of gender discrimination allowed to interfere with that choice. The disruption we've seen, my Lords, in recent years to our international relations has already wrought some real damage to our ability to shape our own destiny. That destiny is, as a European middle state with most in common geographically, politically and economically with other European countries.
14:47
Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lord, I was born. In 1936, so I had the privilege of facing, when I had the privilege of facing, when I got to 18, the privilege of entering National service, I did two years, as we all had to do, because the act passed by the Labour government of Attlee and supported by the other political parties in April 1947, had decided two years was the ideal length. After much discussion, there had been considerable discussion whether it should be one year, and the RAF said no, that was hopeless.

18 months, and I think the Navy said that was hopeless and we ended up at two years. Now those two years were, for me, the experience of a lifetime. I had. Obviously I had a plate and obviously I had a place to go to at Cambridge, but that was put off and I joined a whole bunch of other young men from all walks of life. And my goodness, what a joy it turned out to be. You learn to mix, you learn most.

I had actually been a boarder at school, but most of them had lived at home. They never lived with anybody else. You had to learn to live initially with RAF Kirton Lindsey, the first thing we got was shown how to make a bed. I can still remember that because the the sergeant came round and ripped off most of the sheets because we hadn't done it properly, so we had three months there. Then I was privileged to be chosen to go to Canada to train with all other NATO countries that Canada was supporting.

There were ten different countries from the obvious ones like ourselves and Canada to the far less obvious ones like Turkey and others. But right the way through, NATO got my wings. And after that had hoped to carry on for the remaining six months. But that wasn't possible. Now, I believe we should seriously think about looking at a modern national service for all our young people. And when you look at the numbers at the moment that are either unemployed or unable to work altogether, but others that don't choose to work, there is a core sitting there doing nothing of our young people, and that's not good for them, not good for the economy.

So I believe that there is a huge opportunity. Now, I did take the trouble to find out what the rest of NATO were doing, and it's too complicated to cover. In a five minute speech today. But we in the UK and Belgium are the only two countries in NATO that have nothing. Now, that's not good enough. In my judgement, the the the enemy, if you like to put it that way, is ever increasing. It is hugely worrying. And against that background, I don't think we can just sit back and not do something now.

I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government on what they've done or tried to do to begin to build up the core, and 1 or 2 of the youth movements, etc. I respect that and welcome what they've done, but there is now the need to be more positive. Then the issue is how are we going to pay for it? Well, I can remember when I was a small boy in Pinner, Middlesex, outside the library was the Spitfire Fund, and they used to every week they'd had just how much it had gone up.

There's no reason why. Maybe Spitfire is not the right aircraft, but it was a fun. Why can't we have a nicer. Geared to defence matters? People will respond much more to that than many other issues. So my my, my, I say to your Lordships, please, and to the government in particular, can we please look hard at this opportunity? And I know that I am pleased to see the Senior Minister in his place. I know he will look hard at it, and I've written a book about national service.

It will save him a lot of work because I've been through. I've been through all the national service acts. And finally, may I just say that two other points, nothing to do with national service. One is the elder project. I do hope we're going to put real money behind that, because the Tomahawk situation doesn't seem to be as good as it should be. And finally, may I just say that there was an opening speech early on from somebody I know pretty well, the noble Lord Lord Swire, and say there was a lot of wisdom in your Lordships speech.
14:52
Lord Lee of Trafford Portrait Lord Lee of Trafford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I draw attention to my >> My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. Who is to blame for the parlous state of our blame for the parlous state of our armed forces, politicians, the media or the public? I would suggest all three. But the prime responsibility surely lies with our political leaders, successive Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer for underfunding our forces to the benefit of welfare. Welfare now represents five times five times defence spend.

If only the money we'd spent wasted on HS2 have been spent on defence. Just imagine the difference. Some in your Lordships House have argued and battled away for years for greater defence spend. Former military

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chiefs. On these benches, the late lamented Ming Campbell. Lord lamented Ming Campbell. Lord Campbell, my noble friend on the front bench, and indeed, when I was on the front bench in in 2008, I on the front bench in in 2008, I argued for an increase in the Army argued for an increase in the Army from 103,000 to 120 000, and of course, the noble Lord, Lord West, who was laughed at over the years who was laughed at over the years for continuously pressing for an increase in the Navy.

Well, no one is laughing today. Defence spending is an insurance, not an indulgence. Our allies have woken up Germany, Poland particularly, and others. But we are laggards. We live in an ever dangerous world. Can we ignore the threat from Russia? With a leader willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his people in a lunatic invasion of Ukraine? As General Sir Glyn Jones, the first Royal Marine to head the Navy, said recently, and I quote the need to rearm and improve this country's readiness for war has become an absolute necessity.

Just maintaining the, quote capable status quo is simply not good enough. We are at an inflection point. So how are we responding to the dire situation? The Prime Minister talks a good talk when overseas or with NATO allies, but little happens. Where is the defence investment plan that has been promised for months? Of course, the Treasury is being difficult. Difficult? It always is. But the Prime Minister is first Lord of the Treasury. Where is his leadership? We don't need Trump to tell us that he's no Winston Churchill.

But in his remaining weeks, could he not do right by this country and increase defence spend, and thus leave some legacy to be proud of? And of course, we now have Gordon Brown back as an adviser. So who knows? We might be lucky. We might get a third a third aircraft carrier, provided that's built in Scotland. Of course, MoD never admit to any problems to any black holes. Always the optimistic line that we can fulfil all our operational obligations.

The reality, of course, is that there is a huge black hole with near paralysis in procurement. So where is the new money for defence to come from? I reject more borrowing. We must tackle the bloated welfare budget. No party has the guts to scrap the triple lock, which? Which is viewed by virtually every commentator as totally unsustainable. I suggest we raise funds through what I term shock and awe tactics to shake the nation and waken up to the threat and the need to rebuild our deterrent capability.

Perhaps an increase in the standard rate of income tax, perhaps an increase in value added tax, or perhaps considering some form of capital gains tax or sales tax on the sacred cow in this country of principal residences, many so generated must be entirely hypothecated to defence, and we must avoid the understandable temptation to spend new monies solely within the United Kingdom. We must work with our allies to avoid duplication of spend. We waste so much if everyone focuses on their on their sovereign capability.

And let me say something about United States NATO relationships. Trump was right to insist on Europe raising its game on defence spend. But in the final analysis, I do not believe that the United States will leave NATO. Trump likes real estate. No way is he going to just walk away from valuable, heavily invested bases like Mildenhall and Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, Ramstein in Germany or in Italy, and his military know the benefits of these bases and our joint intelligence capabilities.

Can I conclude by just asking for questions of the Minister, and he may need to write to me. Firstly, is any inroads being made into the bloated number of civilians employed by MoD? Around 60,000. Our army is only 70,000. Secondly, on recruitment, where are we with regular and reserve recruiting? Thirdly, how justifiable is the rumoured Japanese alarm over the United Kingdom dragging its feet over the Global Combat Air programme? Our JV with Japan and Italy? And finally. And lastly, what plans are there, if any, to provide a cost effective deterrent to defend our vital infrastructure in this country from unmanned aerial vehicles, i.e.

drones?
14:58
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Portrait Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Conservative)
-
-
It is a very great pleasure to have a few moments to speak and comment on the Gracious Speech. I have a matter of concern that I put to the Ministers on the front bench, which is that, quite rightly, both His Majesty and our government have declared that we are in an extremely volatile world with enormous amount of challenges globally. Yet my question is to the Minister, the noble Ministers. Why is there no mention of our closest and infinitely most powerful ally, the USA? Nowhere is this commented on at all.

It's a very odd thing indeed. We're told that it's a pivotal moment, with the world more volatile and dangerous than ever before. Where is the USA? There is a comment on NATO, but it doesn't comment that NATO is largely financed by the United States of America. Our closest and deepest and most important partner. Where is Her Majesty's Government standing on this? I'm not quite convinced that using His Majesty the King's visit to cover your nakedness, to cover the government's nakedness in this matter will quite suffice.

Although His Majesty, as he pointed out in his speech to Congress, a real relationship with the USA goes back 400 years as our 1777 to back to 1600. Research that I and others have been carrying out shows that the bedrock of the special relationship is, in fact, an enduring relationship that has been going on for over 400 years at all. Of course, you may say that we disagree, and that while the USA is indeed the most powerful nation in the globe today, we are bound to disagree.

And maybe the government disagrees with some aspects of US policy. Yet, if you recall the letter of George Washington to his son in, I think about 1770. True friendship cannot qualify as such if there hasn't been at least one very, very significant disagreement in between. So friendship incorporates disagreement. I do not ask that the government agrees necessarily with the USA government, but this does not give any excuse at all. But apparently discarding and dismantling the most important relationship we have of all.

I do not believe that we can fulfil our defence of the nation which we are demanded to do unless we. When we celebrate the 250th anniversary as perhaps the most important thing this year, following the Queen, the King's visit that we do not recognise the USA and see that our enduring relationship goes back at least 400 years. So I believe myself that the key of the enduring relationship is the trade and industry that we in the United Kingdom carried out for so many hundreds of years.

And if you look at the 1777 Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you will find that Middle Temple benchers, seven judges of the UK actually signed it. So we are integral to this relationship, and I leave it with the government to tell me, you and other colleagues in this chamber, why it is that you have somehow apparently forgotten it and discarded it. Yesterday I had the great honour of entertaining one of the tribal leaders, now a nation Chickasaw. In the week before the Muscogee tribe, and their relationship with us goes right back.

And it is based on the enduring relationship of trade and business. And that's really what it's all about. I asked the government to confirm that the US UK relationship is the most important one for us. Thank you.
15:02
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm pleased to join you today to speak in this debate you today to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech as we focus our attention on foreign affairs, international relations and defence. My Lords, one in particular, I in particular welcome the attention given to the United Kingdom's role in the world stage as a secure, engaged and collaborative with our allies in a period of global uncertainty and great disruption. My Lords, today I would like to touch on six key issues sexual violence and conflict, women in peacekeeping, our relationship with Europe, Northern Ireland, hostile state threats and immigration and asylum systems.

My Lords. First, on sexual violence in conflict. This country has a proud record of leadership and the Labour Party, through its work with the Right Honourable William Hague, helped to place this issue firmly on the international agenda and to keep it there. My Lords, we have constantly argued that this scourge should not be treated as an unfortunate yet inevitable by-product of war. My Lords, but instead taken seriously as a preventative. Grave violation of human rights and a serious barrier to the creation of any lasting peace.

I hope that the government will continue to put prevention of survivor support and accountability at the heart of its work abroad. My Lords, I was therefore welcome. Continued UK commitment to the International coordination to prevent sexual violence and conflict with where we can work with allies, multilateral institutions and local women led organisations to stop these atrocities. Violation of human rights. Secondly, complementary, we must continue to push for greater inclusion of women in peacekeeping negotiations. My Lords, women at the peace table actively engaged mean more than a token woman.

It also means training, capacity, building, proper safeguarding mechanisms. My Lords, while not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, I hope that the government will never nevertheless use the defence, diplomacy and international standing to be firm advocates in support of women into peacekeeping roles for the sake of global stability. My Lords, thirdly, I welcome the government's. I welcome the government's comments to the. Our deeper partnership with Europe in a more dangerous world. Practical cooperation with our European neighbours is not a luxury, my Lords.

It is a necessity. Where on defence, energy resistance, sanctions, trade, migration or diplomacy coordination, the United Kingdom is stronger when it works closely and respectively, with those who stress and share our security and our values. I particularly welcome the direction of travel towards a more constructive UK EU relationship. This, my Lords, is a progressive step forward in our relationship with our closest neighbour and allies and is a practical arrangement that favours our nation's interests. I do hope that when.

When fiscal conditions allow, we can return to a model of greater foreign aid and development partnership in the knowledge that development, my Lords, is the foundation of security. When people are educated, economically empowered and the health systems and fragile states are supported. The world is a far safer place for everyone. Fourthly, my Lords, I wish to touch on Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is essential in confronting the outgoing the ongoing legacy of the Troubles.

My Lords, it performs a vital role of addressing unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement. It corrects the flaws of the 2023 Legacy and Reconciliation Act. It reconstitutes and reforms the Legacy Commission. It ensures fair disclosure of information, including jointly the Irish government and accountability. It provides a delivery of a bilateral victim centre and Human Rights Commission approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, and with the aim of delivering truth and justice to victims and survivors of the Troubles, while introducing safeguards to protect armed Forces veterans when it is reasonable to do so.

We owe the Bill, my Lords, to every. To the citizens of both Northern Ireland and the UK. Service personnel killed, injured and bereaved during those dark days of the Troubles. Fifthly, I turn to the hostile state activity in the world where the boundary between war and peace is no longer clearly defined. The government is right to take the changing nature of the threats seriously. Our response to cyber attacks, espionage and proxy groups, pressure on disparate communities, and other forms of hostile action must be firm and lawful.

I would like to add here that a country's resilience is not just about security powers, but it lies in the democracy confidence of the people and the state itself. My Lords, people need to feel that they have a meaningful voice as exactly when they feel excluded or unheard, and that hostile actors can come in and exploit grievances and divisions. So I hope that alongside a robust and national security measures, the government will continue to invest in trust, participation, civic education and protect our open democracy.

I couldn't get the last bit.
15:08
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
For some variety of topic. I would like to start by warmly welcoming, welcoming the wider acceptance across government departments of the covenant duty of care in the forthcoming Armed Forces, much pressed for by me and others in debates on the 2021 Bill. But will the government now tackle the dark scourge of lawfare? I've repeatedly raised concerns about growing legal pressures placed upon our armed forces, which risk undermining operational effectiveness and fairness for those who serve.

At first raised this when the Human Rights Bill was being debated in 1998, I argued that there were incompatibilities between the bill and then three single service disciplinary acts. The sitting Lord Chancellor assured the House that would always be possible in a combat situation to resolve a d d d derogate from the human rights legislation as necessary. Practical experience since has shown that withdrawing from the Human Rights Act for combat reasons has never been considered possible, let alone attempted.

But numerous operational cases based on human rights legislation have made their way through the courts, even to the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. A decade ago, in debate on alleged war crimes and the interplay between international law and domestic legislation, I and others pressed the government to reintroduce formal Crown immunity for overseas operations. The complex and expanding legal landscape risked burdening commanders and frontline troops with uncertainties. At moments when clarity is essential.

Later, during debate on vexatious legal claims against British service, personnel are and others pressed for combat immunity or other legal protections be arranged for those engaged in active operations. In the Queen's Speech debate the following year, I urged Ministers to consider both combat immunity and the statute of limitations for historic allegations, arguing that our servicemen and women deserve clarity and protection when involved in testing combat operations. But our armed forces must, of course, operate within the law.

But there must also be protected from legal encroachment that threatens their ability to act decisively in combat. I highly respected U.S. Army General General Petraeus said. UK must decide how its legal architecture supports rather than inadvertently constrains, the effectiveness of those that are asked to serve. My Lords, recently we've seen examples of apparent piracy on the high seas when special operations forces have boarded a vessel. Fortunately, no individual member of the crew was hurt or died as a result of the boarding.

But if they had, the claim was made. Would the Special Operations member or the Minister who authorised the seizure be in the dock? Should it ever be a Minister? The position is unclear. Even more so were the destruction of a terrorist civil line. Civil airline akin to the nine over 11 attacks to be ordered by a Prime Minister. These problems, sometimes summarised as lawfare, must be grasped. My Lords, with no sign of a new Bill of rights, the Quinquennial Armed Forces Bill would be an opportune legislative moment.

Much detailed work has already been done, and I urge the government to use the Armed Forces Bill to act on this subject.
15:12
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we meet today at a moment of profound consequence, as we've already heard for the Middle East and as events have shown subsequently, our shared future. In drawing attention to my registered interests and my work on organisations focussed on conflict resolution and with the Arab Ambassadors Council, I begin from a place, as did the noble and gallant Lord Lord Houghton of hope, optimism and principle, because history shows, as did my tenure as a foreign Minister, that when courage meets conviction, even the most intractable conflicts can bend towards justice and lasting peace.

Let me set out three truths that must guide us on this pathway to peace. First, every life has equal worth the death of a child in Gaza and Israel, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or in Iran diminish us, diminishes us. All our politics, our actions must never become so hardened that we forget the humanity at the heart of these conflicts and crisis. Second, security and dignity are two sides of the same coin. Israelis and Palestinians must be able to live in peace and security.

But any framework that asks for one people to mortgage their dignity so that another may feel secure will fail. A durable peace will only emerge when both peoples can see their rights, safety and aspirations reflected in equal measure. So I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to detail what is being done to stop the shocking attacks by Israeli settlers and the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank of Palestine. What are we doing through our long standing support for Lebanon in helping them, the government of Lebanon disarm Hezbollah? The government response must be more than references to the past sanctions or statements of condemnation.

When was the last Foreign Secretary or defence secretary visit to Israel and Palestine? When did we last meet with President Aoun of Lebanon? Third principles matter most when there are hardest to uphold international humanitarian law. My Lords, is not a menu of optional extras. It is the baseline of our common morality the protection of civilians standing with and for survivors of sexual violence, unfettered humanitarian access, accountability for abuses, our human obligations. And from these truth flows a practical path a ceasefire respected indeed, as well as word humanitarian aid moving at scale, infrastructure being rebuilt.

These are not political concessions. They are life saving imperatives. I met this week with the visiting Egyptian foreign Minister during his visit to the UK. So I asked the noble Lord, the Minister, what is the action planned and agreed with Egypt and indeed other partners that the noble Lady, Baroness Chapman, alluded to through the Partnership Conference in making progress in this respect and to the security architecture, a ceasefire must be underpinned by credible security arrangements. This means coordinated efforts to ensure the disarmament of militant groups.

It means robust border and maritime monitoring. It means accountability of security institutions to the law, not to the gun, my Lord. So I ask the noble Lord, what are we doing the United Kingdom to deploy to the region in terms of training and defence assets and, of course, the political horizon, we must restore that pathway to the viable, sovereign Palestine, living in peace and security alongside Israel. But, my Lords, it must be time bound with clear milestones governance reform, economic stabilisation, security and yes, steps that reopen Jerusalem as a shared city of faith, hope and heritage.

Iran, as we heard from the Minister, has changed dynamics. Neighbours have a stake, but my Lords, we do as well. Normalisation anchored in de-escalation, reconstruction and investment can change the calculus of despair. And I am sure all in this House will join me in commending the efforts of our Gulf partners, but particularly the efforts of Pakistan. Who we speak as we speak today are in Iran again through the Interior Minister, to avert the restart of a war. So can the noble Lord, the Minister, share what assessments have also been made on the new security and defence architecture in the Gulf, which includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, indeed, supported by Qatar? What support have we extended to the UAE and Bahrain in the ceasefire partnership, and what is the current status of the Abraham Accords? My Lords, to our international partners, we must align our efforts, not just our statements.

The government has hollowed out aid and development budgets to their bare bones, and we have lost leverage. And I do feel for and genuinely appreciate the efforts of the Development Minister this regard. But as the noble Lady Baroness Ashton reminded us, development, diplomacy and defence comes together. It requires leadership in all three areas. My Lords, I close with a simple conviction. First of all, leadership is the art of narrowing the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be.

The hardest day to make peace is always today. Tomorrow offers the illusion of easier choices that never arrive. And if the Middle East is the cradle of faiths, as we argue that teach the sanctity of life, the dignity of the stranger, and indeed the possibility of redemption, if those truths can take root again in both policy and action through ongoing action, investment, and I believe through prayer as well, peace becomes a reality.
15:18
Lord Hussain Portrait Lord Hussain (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord. His Majesty's Gracious Speech was watched by millions of people at home and abroad with interest. His Majesty spoke at a time of turbulence, wars and uncertainty facing millions of people around the world. In Gaza and Israel, the conduct of hostilities since October 2023 has generated credible allegations of serious violations of international human rights law, including crimes against humanity and genocide. The Security Council resolutions have called for ceasefires and humanitarian access. The problem remains compliance.

The ukraine-russia in Ukraine. Russia's invasion violated the charter as affirmed by Unga resolution E. S 11, stroke one. The Security Council is blocked by Russian veto, but the legal position has not changed. Borders cannot be redrawn by force. In Sudan, the war between SAF and RSS has produced famine, mass displacement and and document documented atrocities against civilians. Resolution 2715 renewed the UN mission, but without political pressure and accountability, the situation deteriorates. Resolutions without enforcement become empty gestures.

In recent months, the US and Israel have waged war on Iran without any reference to international law, though thanks to the efforts of government of Pakistan, a ceasefire is agreed, while details of a peace agreement between US and Iran are still being worked out, the United Nations have proved to be irrelevant. Once again, my Lords, this brings me to another international dispute that is almost forgotten by the international community. That is the Kashmir issue that has been on the Security Council's agenda since 1948.

Resolutions 47, 51 and 80 called for a free and impartial plebiscite under UN supervision. Once hostilities ceased. That plebiscite has never taken place. Whilst waiting for the UN promised plebiscite, the human rights situation has deteriorated in Kashmir over the years. International human rights organisations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission for Human Rights and others have reported Indian Army operating in complete impunity under the Armed Forces Special Power Act and is alleged to be involved in excessive use of force, arbitrary detentions, torture, murder, mass graves and rape, while journalists, political leaders, human rights defenders and activists are detained and held under preventative laws such as the Public Safety Act for months and years, often without charge or trial.

This situation should not be allowed to continue. The international community, including Britain, must do everything they can to bring an end to these human rights abuses and hold those responsible to account. India and Pakistan have fought three full scale wars and many border clashes over Kashmir, and Kashmir remains one of the most militarised zones in the world. In May 2025, we saw another dangerous escalation with the cross-border strikes and civilian casualties the ceasefire holds. But this dispute is unresolved.

What makes this issue different is the nuclear dimension. A single miscalculation on the Line of Control could escalate beyond regional control, with consequences for global health, climate and economy. My Lord, I have mentioned earlier in my speech for other areas of conflict, but let me tell you that the consequences of a war between two nuclear countries, India and Pakistan, can be far worse than these conflicts. In conclusion, my Lords, we can either invest in diplomacy now, wait or wait for the next crisis to invest in damage control.

I believe Britain, with its historical relationship with both India and Pakistan as the head of the Commonwealth and the permanent member of the UN Security Council, is best placed to use its unique position to bring these two friendly countries back to dialogue to help finding a peaceful solution to the long standing issue of Kashmir. According to the will of the Kashmiri people and bring peace, stability and prosperity to 1.7 billion people of the Indian subcontinent.
15:23
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
Very good. >> Following the most welcome reference in the Gracious Speech to drive global growth and reinforce drive global growth and reinforce global stability, I want to raise the subject of international action against corruption. I should first declare an interest in. My daughter has been active in drafting the core crimes of an embryonic international treaty on the subject, but my acquaintance with it dates far before that, from when I was a member of the Council of Transparency International UK, sat on two bribery bill committees and also observed at first hand the effects of corruption in sub-Saharan Africa.

Corruption is the foundation from which widespread and deep rooted instability comes. The erosion of democracy and the rule of law, the exploitation of the many by the few, the simple misery of those without the means to obtain education, health care and the provision of utilities. The perversion of action against climate change, the destruction of level playing fields for ethical businesses, and the deterrence of constructive investment, and not least, the demoralisation of public support for international aid. Corruption does not endure from lack of laws.

192 states are party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. It criminalises corrupt conduct. Kleptocrats, however, continue to arrange impunity by controlling the administration of justice. The United Kingdom now has a promising anti-corruption strategy, but this is not a problem that any country can address on its own. We can leave the development of multilateral solutions. The government's plans to host an illicit finance summit next month on encouraging Part, an international anti-corruption court is vital among the innovations that are needed.

It would fill the enforcement gap in the international framework. It would go far to disrupt transnational grand corruption networks. It would prosecute the bribe payers, corrupt officials and money launderers who commit the universally agreed crimes of UN convention when national governments failed to do so, as well as its credible threat of criminal prosecution, which would deter corruption. Most significantly, the court would have an assets division dedicated to returning illicit assets to serve the public good, even when the arrest and extradition of criminals is difficult, which has been a serious obstacle to proper redress so far.

An eminent global expert group led by Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa and Allan Rock, former Canadian Minister of justice, has shared a first draft of the international Anti-Corruption court treaty with interested officials in more than 35 governments, as well as civil society organisations, for informal comments. I understand that we are committed to actively participate in this dialogue, along with Canada, Moldova, the Netherlands, Nigeria and Norway. Ukraine high anti-corruption court judges have said that this would help their domestic effort.

Widespread support comes from Africa and Latin America. The voice of the global South is crucial and demonstrates their pressing need for for better governance. Finding the Lords. The expert group has done the bulk of the laborious drafting work so that governments like ours can now provide input. Through 2026, the expert group will use the feedback from important stakeholders to finalise the draft for publication in early 2027. So will my noble friend the Minister, renew the United Kingdom's commitment to this viable solution to a deep rooted and intractable barrier to justice and democracy? Keep your Lordships House in touch with development.

And can he say how His Majesty's Government will contribute to the treaty discussions at this formative stage of its development? And how will our government play a leadership role in raising awareness about the. The proposal.
15:28
Baroness Mobarik Portrait Baroness Mobarik (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we will once, unquestionably a leading military and economic power. Today our role is less clearly defined. We still have significant soft power through our institutions, global networks and cultural reach. And His Majesty the King embodies that soft power in a way that no one else can. But soft power cannot rest on individuals alone. It has to be reinforced by national confidence and a clear foreign and defence policy. Britain has often been defined by its pragmatism, yet at times we have alienated and ostracised certain nations and peoples to such an extent that meaningful dialogue and peaceful negotiation have become almost impossible.

I trust my Lords can only be earned through openness, honest endeavour and a willingness to engage without prejudice. I fully endorse the Prime Minister's decision not to join the United States in what most regard as an unlawful war in Iran. That restraint was right and showed judgement, for escalation is not the same as leadership. However, that in itself is not enough. We do not want to be drawn into conflict. But where is our diplomatic leadership? Where is the active effort to convene, to influence and to lead from the front in the pursuit of peace? Britain soft power should be at its most effective in that gap between stepping back from military action and stepping forward with diplomatic influence to remain a country of consequence, we must shape the conditions for peace, not merely react to them.

But, my Lords, as someone who believes that every effort must be made in the pursuit of peace and in preventing the troubling proliferation of arms in ever more destructive technologies across the globe. I also believe that soft power alone is not enough. There must stand an unquestioned degree of hard power, too, so that our words carry credibility and weight. And, as laid out in the Strategic Defence Review. However, that strength must be grounded not in aggression, but in defence and the protection of stability.

And our values should and laws should not just be ink on some document. I'd like to remind noble Lords that we are a signatory to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict, recognising that attacks of on heritage are often attacks on people, history and humanity itself. That is why damage to historic sites and cultural assets in Isfahan in Iran are so deeply concerning. A city of immense historical and architectural significance, Esfahan represents centuries of artistic, cultural and intellectual achievement.

Whatever the wider politics or political or military circumstances, the protection of civilians and of cultural heritage must remain a principle upheld by all sides, because once heritage is lost, it cannot truly be replaced. My Lords, we must use our diplomatic influence, including with our allies and partners, to help safeguard cultural heritage wherever it is under threat, and to uphold the principles we have committed ourselves to under international law. These treasures do not belong to one nation alone. They form part of the shared inheritance of humanity and reflect the very values of civilisation, respect and continuity that we seek to defend.
15:32
Lord Forbes of Newcastle Portrait Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> Lord Dear Gracious Speech puts national security where it belongs at the centre of government. I at the centre of government. I welcome that, but the question before us is not only what we spend, it is how we think and how we act, how we organise a whole society defence, how we turn resilience from a slogan into collective preparedness and how we convert defence investment into regional growth. The Strategic Defence Review is clear. The UK faces a more complex set of threats than at any time in recent decades.

Cyber attacks on critical infrastructure and major employers, hostile activity against subsea cables and satellites, biological risks, pressure on food and energy security. These are not hypothetical scenarios. They are real and they are happening now. My noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen warned recently that we are underinvesting and deciding too slowly in our defence expenditure, and I fully share his analysis and concerns. But the answer is not only more and better armed forces, it is a more resilient country whole of society.

Resilience means three things. First, services that function when systems fail. In particular, public services that know what to do when the screens go blank and the phones go down. Second, infrastructure, particularly power, water and transport that is designed to withstand disruption and yet keep on working. Third, citizens who know the basics of preparedness. And on this, my Lords, we need to be frank with the public and practical as my noble friend, the Baroness Lady Antrobus, has said, our Nordic neighbours show how Sweden's If Crisis or War Comes booklet tells every household how to cope.

If the power fails or networks go down. The advice is simple be able to look after your household for at least a week. Plan to have enough water food that doesn't need refrigeration, medicines, cash, a battery, radio, warm clothing, a family contact plan. Finland goes further teaching civil preparedness in schools. This is not alarmism, it is adult citizen citizenship in a modern age. And I am not for a moment, my Lord, suggesting that we face imminent invasion. But we must also recognise that we have grown used to systems, food, banking, power, fuel, water that never fail.

That confidence is in many ways a measure of our progress as a nation. But we have allowed our collective capacity for self reliance to atrophy, and it has left us brittle. Complacency is a weakness and diminishes our collective strength and resolve in the eyes of those who seek to do us harm. This in turn, increases our vulnerability and the likelihood of such continued attacks. We must address this calmly and with clear public guidance in a way that treats people as partners, not passive observers.

Reform of local resilience forums is an opportunity to. Why this. In local government, blue light services, businesses, universities and civic groups planning together. Exercising together. Communicating together. Resilience done well is not about fear. It is about confidence. The confidence that comes from preparation and practice. And members of your Lordships' House will know that. I've spoken previously about the economic dividend of defence. Defence spending, done smartly, can be a powerful engine of regional growth. Advanced manufacturing in the North East, cyber and AI in the Midlands, green maritime on our coasts.

These are not add ons to our defence strategy. They are its drivers of innovation. But the system must be fit for purpose. Today, SMEs face procurements designed for primes. Universities sit on world class research without clear routes to its practical adoption skills. Providers need the ability to plan and engage effectively for the long term. Economic growth and national security are not competing priorities. They are the same priority, and I recognise that there is some scepticism in parts of my party to this agenda shaped by history.

But the threats described in the SDR are not those of the 1980s or the early 1990s. They are the real and present threats of. Now for the threats. My Lords are real. They are growing, and the price of inaction will far exceed the cost of preparedness. The gracious address sets a direction. Now we must match it with pace by building resilience locally, unlocking defence investment for growth regionally and acting nationally at the speed the world now demands it.
15:37
Lord Grade of Yarmouth Portrait Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Conservative)
-
-
Here. May I commend Lord Forbes of Newcastle for that amazing analysis and a very practical analysis of where we are and what needs doing. And I'm somewhat nervous about following him. But my Lords, I must declare that for the record, that I have now rejoined the Conservative Party after four years as a non-aligned peer, coinciding with my tenure as chair of Ofcom, which I've now finished. I am free, therefore, to express some opinions again, which is a great relief.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And today the Middle East, specifically the UK, has formally specifically the UK, has formally proscribed both Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations. Both organisations are Iranian backed organisations are Iranian backed proxy actors responsible for attacks on Israeli civilians, regional destabilisation and the deaths of British citizens. Doesn't this create a strategic this create a strategic inconsistency for British foreign policy? If the UK legally recognises Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist entities, shouldn't British policy more clearly reflect support for democratic allies confronting those organisations directly? The Middle East conflict is not solely a regional dispute.

It intersects with core UK national security priorities identified in the SDR, including drone warfare, missile defence, cyber conflict, autonomous systems and hybrid warfare. Israel is already confronting these threats operationally and thereby represents a key strategic and defence partner for the United Kingdom and its allies. The humanitarian crisis from the war in Gaza cannot be separated from us from Hamas governance, militarisation of civilian infrastructure, aid, exploitation and refusal to disarm Palestinians themselves continue to suffer under extremism, corruption and institutional failure.

Long term Palestinian stability requires demilitarisation, anti-corruption reform, educational reform and the marginalisation of extreme actors. Shouldn't there be? Shouldn't the UK therefore pursue a strategy, a strategically coherent policy that strengthens UK Israel defence, intelligence and cyber cooperation, expands sanctions and international coordination against Iran and its proxy networks, supports post Hamas technocratic governance and reconstruction in Gaza, promotes Palestinian education reform, anti incitement measures and institutional transparency, and advances long term regional stability grounded in security, coexistence and of course, democratic government supporting Israel's security and supporting a viable future for Palestinians are mutually dependent objectives, not contradictory ones.

It's worth remembering that the Palestinians rejected coexistence in the state of their own on at least four occasions post-war. They don't want a two state solution. They want a one state solution which excludes Israel entirely from the Middle East map. Following the UK's recognition of a Palestinian state and the expansion of UK Palestinian bilateral engagement, I think Britain now carries a greater responsibility to ensure that its political engagement and taxpayer funding support, taxpayer funding, support, coexistence, transparency, educational reform and anti-extremism measures rather than incitement or radicalisation.

Recognition of a future Palestinian state should therefore be accompanied by clear expectations that Palestinian education systems promote coexistence, mutual recognition, tolerance and peace while demonstrating meaningful reform, transparency, transparency and accountability. Consistent with international educational standards. Continued UK engagements should encourage bilateral Palestinian partners to implement measurable reforms in governance, education and anti incitement frameworks. Long term Palestinian stability is impossible while extremism continues to dominate their political and educational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

structures. Following the. 7th. October attacks, Hezbollah's deliberate escalation on Israel's deliberate escalation on Israel's northern border forced approximately 60,000 Israeli citizens to evacuate their homes, despite cease fire arrangements and sustained international pressure. sustained international pressure. Hezbollah continues rebuilding military infrastructure and military infrastructure and resisting disarmament. The window for a structured disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process supported by the regional actors, including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and modelled in part on the framework the UK helped to shape in Northern Ireland, may be narrowing.

I do hope the whole House would welcome some enlightenment from the government on how they intend to capitalise on Iran and its proxies current state of weakness.
15:43
Baroness Hussein-Ece Portrait Baroness Hussein-Ece (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I welcome the commitment in the King's speech that the government would champion the rights of women and girls in a world free from violence. I recently read a 2001 UNFPA report and the introduction went as follows. It said that the nature of armed conflicts changed dramatically during the latter half of the 20th century, when civilian casualties outnumbered those of military personnel. So we know that women and girls are now the most vulnerable in all modern conflicts.

I want to focus on the impact of conflict on women and girls, and especially that we've seen now that preventing conflict has seems to have taken a back seat in the intervening years. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact this week published the latest assessment of the global Context for development cooperation. This watchdog warns that the UK's modernised approach to development must address significant global pressures through clear, measurable commitments if it is to deliver lasting impact.

And this is at a time when sexual violence used as a weapon of war remains widespread. Conflict related sexual violence surged by 25% in 2024, with millions of women needing, still needing and reliant on humanitarian assistance. A quarter of countries report a backlash against women's rights. 1 in 5 children worldwide are growing up in conflict related areas, being killed and injured. So the bleak reality is at the current pace of progress, ending gender based violence and achieving equality for women and girls would take another 100 years.

And the need has never been greater. According to the UNFPA, the impact of recent cuts to its programmes has been that more than 11 million people lost access to essential sexual and reproductive health and protective protection services. The maternal health clinic may still be there, but the midwife has gone. There's no emergency obstetric equipment, no post rape kits, no contraceptives or menstrual supplies on the shelves, according to Plan International. In Afghanistan, which has already been very eloquently mentioned by others, women and girls face now the severe crisis of malnutrition, alongside systematic human rights abuses.

And while this is happening, relations with the Taliban have become increasingly normalised globally. In Sudan, as we've heard as well, very eloquent from Baroness Ainley and Lord Bates and Lord Lord Bates, the humanitarian situation is worsening as the conflict continues, with 25 million now at risk of starvation, according to the recent Amnesty International report, women in Gaza are being denied the conditions needed to live and to give birth safely. This erosion of their rights to health, safety, dignity is a deliberate act targeting women and girls.

It is also a consequence of Israel's calculated practices of multiple mass displacement, deliberate restrictions on essential items, as well as humanitarian relief and years of relentless bombardment that have devastated Gaza's health system and decimated entire families. And I would also welcome an update as to what the government is doing about that. According to Human Rights Watch Women's Agency in Participation in Peace building accountability and political leadership is the most important step countries can take to protect women's rights during conflict.

To uphold a right enshrined. 25 years ago, the UN Security Council. Upholding women's rights requires having women at the table every table, all the time. The United Kingdom is in a unique position of being the UN penholder for women, peace and security one. And with that comes the one that the UK can use for global political clout and leverage, especially at the time when hard won rights for women and girls and opportunities are slipping back and deepening with deepening inequality.

Could I ask to fulfil the ambition in the King's Speech to protect women and prioritise women and girls rights globally? Whether this will include using the UK's diplomacy and redouble its soft powers, soft powers to counter the global rollback of girls of rights for women and girls to provide flexible, long term funding to women and girls, girl led organisations and working across government to tackle violence against women and girls in the UK and globally, and aligning a commitment to halve violence against women by 2030.

Will the UK government ensure life saving, sexual and reproductive health and gender based violence services are central to humanitarian action in 2026. 25 years on from the report, the I started in my introduction. Millions of women and girls have none of the rights that we would wish them to have had. Safety, choice, opportunities and most of all, a voice.
15:48
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Portrait Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, while. >> Major defence programs. >> Dominate the headlines, we risk overlooking more cost effective ways to strengthen Britain's ways to strengthen Britain's resilience and war fighting readiness, investing in our reserved forces and logistics support services, tanks, ships, aircraft and drones may capture the attention, but none of them can operate without trained people to sustain and support them. Credible deterrence depends not only on equipment, but on depth, readiness and resilience. Ukraine's ability to draw rapidly on trained reservists at the outset of the Russian invasion illustrates the need for for the UK to rebuild military depth and widen participation across society.

While the Armed Forces Bill seeks to expand the reserves pool, it focuses largely on the strategic reserves and fails to address deeper structural problems. Reservists remain only partially integrated into wider defence planning and I declare an interest as my daughter is a serving reservist officer. Training opportunities are inconsistent, access to Mod facilities is limited, and poor budget management leaves times of the year when reservists are unsure whether they will even be paid for their duties. Communication failures make it difficult to balance civilian careers, with military commitments, forcing many eventually to choose one or the other.

This is particularly concerning given that despite the star's commitment to increase the active reserve by 20%, both numbers and service days continue to fall. Reviews have repeatedly identified the same shortcomings, including the work by my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton. Yet little meaningful action has followed. The government still lacks a clear delivery plan, dedicated funding or even a proper understanding of the skills currently available within the reserve forces. If the government is serious about strengthening the reserves, it must go beyond simply extending recall ages or service lengths.

We should look to allies that integrate reservists far more effectively. KLM pilots who also fly Dutch F-35s, or the US Air National Guard, who operate frontline aircraft, and Scandinavian and Baltic nations, where reserves often outnumber regular forces. Many of us believe the UK should aim to double the size of the reserves, but that requires clear, cross-government understanding of the role reservists are expected to play. My Lords, the same lack of attention affects the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Like the reserves alongside the regulars, the RFA often plays second fiddle to the Royal Navy, despite being indispensable to it.

Royal Navy operations rely on the RFA for fuel, ammunition, aviation support, medical assistance supplies and amphibious capability. Without the RFA, the Royal Navy's global reach would be severely restrained. The Minister himself has described the RFA as essential, and yet the service continues to face mounting pressures. Its fleet is ageing, procurement delays persist and several vessels require extensive modernisation and repair. At the same time, personnel shortages are worsening for the second time in two years. RFA crews are staging strike action over pay and conditions.

Temporary settlements have failed to resolve concerns about below average pay awards, poor transparency and declining morale. My Lords RFA personnel occupy an especially difficult position. Technically mod civil servants. They are nevertheless expected to spend increasing amounts of time at sea undergoing demanding operational tasks. They are, in effect, the Royal Navy's Blue Light Emergency Service, but operating with ageing equipment and insufficient recognition. It even remains unclear if the Armed Forces Covenant Covenant extends to the RFA.

And this matters because the RFA is central to the future of naval operations. It is the RFA Lyme Bay that is being sent to the Middle East, currently being readied in Gibraltar. Once upgraded, the ship will be able to deploy and recover autonomous systems, underwater drones and minehunting vessels acting as a mothership for uncrewed technology. And as the First Sea Lord observed, this is a perfect example of the hybrid Royal Navy the UK hopes to build, but advanced technology alone cannot compensate for workforce instability and underinvestment, settling industrial disputes, improving retention policies and creating clearer career progression.

Incentives are all essential and so too is properly aligning the RFA with the UK's wider defence strategy. The Reserve Forces and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are two indispensable pillars of Britain's defence capability, yet both are undervalued and unloved. If we are serious about delivering the ambitions of the SDR and restoring genuine war fighting readiness, we must invest not only in platforms and hardware, but in the people and support structures that make military power possible. It is time to give the reserves and the RFA the love they deserve.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey good. My Lords, I'm pleased to
15:54
Baroness Kingsmill Portrait Baroness Kingsmill (Labour)
-
-
>> My Lords, I'm pleased to contribute to this debate on a subject which I believe sits at the very heart of everything else that we discuss in this chamber, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we discuss in this chamber, and that is the security and Safety.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the UK and all of us. I declare an interest as a member of declare an interest as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and as a chair of the Subcommittee on Defence and Transatlantic Economics. I begin by welcoming the government's stated commitment to defence in a dangerous and volatile world. These words of resolve matter. But I have to say with respect that words alone are not enough. And on this occasion the words were not accompanied by the legislative framework that the scale of the threat requires.

There has been. There had been real anticipation, widely reported that the King's speech would include a defence readiness Bill. It did not. That absence should trouble every member of this House who has read the Strategic Defence Review, and in particular, those who have read and absorbed the extraordinary speech given last week by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who led the review. The Strategic Defence Review called for a war fighting readiness, new munitions factories, enhanced cyber and missile defence and a revitalised industrial base.

The Ministers accepted all 62 of those recommendations. Yet the promised ten year defence investment plan remains undelivered. Accepting accepting recommendations is one thing funding them, legislating for them, given them, giving them the permanence and priority they deserve is quite another. It is in this context that I draw attention. The attention of the House to a report published earlier this month by the centre for European Policy Analysis, entitled Unleashing Defence Innovation. It is a serious and timely piece of work, and its central argument deserves to be heard in this chamber.

The report makes clear that Europe's current surge in defence and there is such a surge. Defence spending represent what it calls a once in a lifetime, once in a generation strategic opportunity, but that without a modernised investment strategy, new funding, entrenching outdated force structures rather than delivering real deterrence, spending more on the wrong things is not a solution. It's just a more expensive version of the same thing. The report is particularly instructive on the question of financing.

It argues compellingly that private capital, venture investment, private equity, sovereign wealth funds must be mobilised alongside public expenditure if we are to transform our defence industrial base at the speed that it that the demand that the threat demands. Procurement cycles that outlast entire technology generations are. As the report rightly observes, both strategically reckless and economically wasteful. The government should read these words carefully. Legislation that removes the. The regulatory and other barriers currently preventing institutional capital from flowing into defence would be a significant step forward.

And that is precisely the kind of bold structural reform that a Defence readiness readiness Bill could provide. Our NATO alliance remains the bedrock of our collective security, and I'm glad that the government has reaffirmed it. But NATO is not a comfort blanket. It is a commitment. And commitment requires capability. As Lord Robertson himself has warned, our reliance on the United States is predicated on the assumption that they will always be there has led to a diminution in our capability.

We cannot outsource our security and be surprised, then, when the terms change. The alliance is only as strong as its members, and Britain must be a strong member, not in aspiration, but in armour munitions and in readiness. I want to say something that I think bears repeating in this chamber. We talk a great deal about the conditions necessary for democracy to flourish free and fair elections, the rule of law, an independent judiciary and a free press. All of these things matter enormously, but none of them can be sustained without the hard infrastructure of national security, a democracy that cannot defend itself is a democracy that will not long endure.

Strong defence is not the enemy of liberal values. It is the guarantor. My Lords, the government has the diagnosis. Lord Robinson and his distinguished colleagues gave it to them. The centre for European Policy Analysis has shown the way forward on innovation and finance. What is missing is the courage to act on it, with the urgency and legislative seriousness it demands. I hope Ministers will hear this Minister, this message not as a political challenge but as a patriotic one offered, as I believe it is by all sides of the House today.

In the national interest.
16:00
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
To. note that in the first paragraph of the Gracious Speech the King mentioned the Middle East conflict, and in the second paragraph he made the statement, my government will take urgent action to tackle anti-Semitism. Clearly, the two are not unrelated. Like Lord Pannick. I went to the Nova Festival exhibition in East London on Monday with some other members of this House, and it brought back the utter revulsion and shock of the events of October the 7th. I very much hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will have chance to go to the exhibition as many, if not most, members of this House as well.

The barbarity of October the 7th was beyond description, and shortly afterwards the government seemed to be sympathetic to the horrific threat faced by Israel of repeat attacks. But unfortunately, since then it has significantly diluted its conviction to ensure this never happens again. I very much welcome His Majesty's Government's previous statement that there has not been any genocide in Gaza. To suggest so is an insult to the true victims of genocides around the world, and to ignore the extraordinary steps taken by the IDF to try and protect civilian life wherever possible.

Despite facing an enemy who uses its own compatriots as shields and pawns in hospitals and schools. Fair criticism of Israel is fine, and I have made that in particular of Mr. Ben-Gvir and his like. But can the noble Lord, the Minister, please today confirm the government's position that there was no genocide in Gaza? We have seen unparalleled levels of anti-Semitism and hate in the UK. As recently as last Saturday, a Palestinian demonstration had to be redirected by the police to avoid it going past my synagogue.

As I said on Times Radio later in the day, members of my congregation felt unable to attend because of the danger they simply felt being on the streets of London, going to and leaving the service, I was there, I saw it. The government has offered welcome money and warm words to the Jewish community, but it misses the very simple point that its constant demonisation of Israel opens the door to those who wish to indiscriminately attack both Israel and the Jewish community around the world.

We have heard for ourselves the marches, the chant death to the IDF and from the river to the sea. I am sure my Lords realise what from the river to the sea means. It means that every Jewish person should be thrown out from the state of Israel. So can I ask the noble Lord, the Minister who I know is unhappy with the level of anti-Semitism he sees in the UK, to urgently address the following issues which relate to the scale of institutional focus against Israel, which is without parallel.

For example, agenda item seven of the Human Rights Council exists solely to target Israel. The UK has changed its position on agenda item seven, which is completely unacceptable. For years under previous administrations and this one, the UK opposed it along with the E3 partners, and now it is shamefully moved to absent, absent, absent nation. Likewise, we see UNRWA is in a state of institutional dysfunction. It applies an inherited definition of refugee status exclusively to the Palestinians, unlike any other refugee in any part of the world.

It perpetuates the Palestinian refugee question rather than trying to resolve it. And this government is guilty of compliance. There has been proven Hamas infiltration of UNRWA. So why has HMG continued funding it? Why has this government not made more protests over the appointment of Francesca Albanese as a special rapporteur, given her appalling statements, some European allies have. So why can't we. I am pleased the King's Speech and Tackling State Threats Bill to which will hopefully proscribe the Islamic, not the Iranian.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards to be prescribed. And I think I probably detect the noble Lord, the Minister's hand in making this happen, for which we are grateful. The threat to this country from Islamic radicalism is not just cyber attacks. It is not just violence on our streets killing Jews randomly. It is also the institutionalised singling out of the world's only Jewish state. We see more attacks in Israel in the House of Commons than support for the National Health Service. These and other inherently discriminatory measures have created such a negative perception of Israel that some very misguided people believe they have an open door and support to take it out on Jewish people in this country, in Heaton Park, in Manchester, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.

The attacker shouted this is what you get for killing children and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, and then killed two British Jews. We need to understand that the RET connection between demonising Israel unjustly and death threats to British Jews. This government should have the backbone to be much more forthright in its support for Israel's fight, for the right to exist, and take steps to calm the febrile, poisonous atmosphere which has arisen against Israel and our own Jewish community.

Yes, my Lords, my speech will be rather different. Giovanni
16:05
Lord McDonald of Salford Portrait Lord McDonald of Salford (Crossbench)
-
-
Spadolini was Italy's Prime Minister in September 1982 when I Minister in September 1982 when I joined the Foreign Office. In the following ten years, Italy had following ten years, Italy had seven different prime Ministers. Italy was less effective on the international stage. As a consequence. In the UK ten years consequence. In the UK ten years ago, our Prime Minister was the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. It looks increasingly likely that in the next few weeks the UK will have its seventh Prime Minister in a decade.

The UK is seen as less serious on the international stage. When we are not serious at home. Across the board. Our reputation is taking a knock in some areas which have traditionally defined the United Kingdom, so political stability, policy consistency, strategic clarity and fair play. I will give one example about the last. Late on the 15th of April, the Guardian splashed the story that Lord Mandelson had failed his security vetting before going as ambassador to Washington within 24 hours in time for the evening news.

The Prime Minister dismissed Sir Olly Robbins, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office in the UK. Prime Ministers do not dismiss permanent secretaries without process and without cause. The without process, I think, is demonstrated by the very compressed timeline that without cause is becoming obvious through the continuing investigation of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, to which Sir Olly gave compelling evidence. Sir Olly was the victim of an injustice, an injustice which can, and indeed should be corrected.

My Lord, it's not all bleak on the international stage for the United Kingdom. In some areas. The UK continues to be world leading or world beating. Our soft power is intact. So right now exemplary work is being done in British courts, British theatres and film studios. British football clubs. I congratulate Aston Villa and British universities. I am the master of Christ's College, Cambridge, which last year won its fifth Nobel Prize. And right now at Christ, there is a postdoc who, with his brilliant professor, is developing a blood test for the very early detection of multiple cancers.

Their work is hampered by restrictions on foreign medical samples coming into British laboratories. They understand the need for regulation, but their contention is that it is unnecessarily restrictive. Now, I appreciate this is the first time this has been mentioned today, and this is rather a technical subject, but I will write to the Minister, and I will urge His Majesty's Government to help. Please.
16:09
Lord Hintze Portrait Lord Hintze (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Oates. It's always a pleasure to follow or to listen or to point to the noble Lord Lord McDonald of Salford. And here I must declare an interest. Salford City, your namesake. Is this this Monday, fighting for promotion from the. From League Two to League One against the wonderful. Not city. Let's hope we win. And I think I did declare an interest in that in that in that result. But let me go back to something more to the point here.

I welcome the renewed commitments to defence spending and NATO. But we cannot we absolutely cannot ignore the noble Lord. Lord Robertson's recent observations of corrosive complacency. Complacency in government on defence, and his warning that we cannot defend Britain with an ever expanding welfare budget. Politics is about choice and government is about priorities. The first duty of government, the first duty of government, is defence of the realm. Before every other programme, state stands the obligation to keep the nation safe.

We are living in a very dangerous world and many peers have already talked to that point. The peace dividend that we saw potentially in 1989 has been spent. It's gone. We face a belligerent Russia, an expanding China, instability in the Middle East, and a contested Indo-Pacific. Cyber attacks, economic coercion, and hybrid threats that respect no borders. And we haven't even talked about international criminality in a world like this. Defence is not one departmental claim among many, but the foundation on which every other claim rests.

Unfortunately, unfortunately, for too long, successive governments have treated it as a residual claimant on the public purse and I am sick and tired of hearing politicians from from, from from the other place and potentially from here blaming the Treasury. This is nonsense. Blame yourselves. You are in charge. You have been elected. I'm sick of this. Blame yourselves. You cannot blame the Treasury. That's enough. Britain is not a poor country. We're the fifth largest economy in the world. We have science, innovation, the city, the universities, legal system, Lloyd's of London, our teaching, our leading AI practitioners.

Alliances and the history to be the great power that we are. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a founder of NATO, Five Eyes, Aukus, G7, G20 and the. And the Commonwealth. And we lead the the Joint Expeditionary Force. We are a nuclear power. Please, let's just get a grip here. Britain is in fact a great power and we have obligations. But greatness is not an inheritance. It must be nurtured. We comfort ourselves with talk of soft power.

Enough of this. Soft power without hard power is no power at all. We are not the Vatican. In case anybody has missed the point, we are not the Vatican. We cannot simply will. Stability, deterrence, freedom of navigation and support for our allies while failing to provide the ships, the aircraft, the munitions, train people, and yes, the industrial capacity and resilience to fight and win. This is a question of priorities. The state has the obligation to protect the vulnerable.

Undoubtedly. But we cannot become a transfer economy in which welfare drifts from a safety net, an important safety net into a very unpleasant state of life, way of life. It is unfair. It's unfair to the working people. It's unfair. It is corrosive to society, and it is divisive. And everyone wants to blame every other party around here. I look at these guys, look at those guys. The corrosion starts from within here. Now, let me give one example, one illustration, the Motability scheme.

For many. It is a vital. It is a vital scheme. It is a good scheme, but its scale and scope has ballooned beyond becoming a true state. True safety net for the vulnerable. The latest figures show this 875,000 vehicles on the road. 875,000 at roughly £25,000 per vehicle. This is 21.9 billion of natural resource deployed using Babcock numbers of £25 million to build a core 31 frigate. The sum is equivalent to over 87 frigates. That's what we're doing 87 frigates.

So when we ask where are our frigates, we can see where they are. They're travelling around our roads. This is a choice we have made to expand entitlements at the expense of the safety of the nation. We need we need a new settlement. We need some backbone. The question is not whether Britain can afford to remain a great power. We can. We. And we are. The question is whether we choose to be. So with that, I end with my previous question where are our frigates? And I'll tell you where they are.

They are in the priorities. That we and prior governments have chosen. And frankly, it is time to choose again.
16:15
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Hintze, whose patriotism and clear headedness are an inspiration. My Lords, a an increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom. They were His Majesty's first words from the throne. Well, not quite his first words. His first words, I think, were, my Lords, pray be seated. He's a very polite monarch, and he always puts the immediate before the important. But his first important words were that an increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom.

And you would think, listening to this debate, that no one disagrees with that. On every side we've had listed, sometimes in abstract terms and sometimes in specific terms, the various forms of danger that threaten US cyber attacks and energy shortages and direct threats. But I put it to you, my Lord, that we don't really believe that. Or if we did, we'd be behaving very differently. We would to develop Lord Hintze theme, we'd be putting minesweepers before Motability. We'd be to adapt the older First World War catchphrase.

We'd be putting guns before butter. We would, in short, be prioritising actual security over Social Security, rather than spending more than five times as much on the latter as on the former. That is not a the behaviour of a country that truly believes that it is threatened by an increasingly dangerous and volatile world. What's the single biggest threat? My Lord Swire security. Again, we heard all the abstract nouns listed on all sides by this. In this debate, we've sometimes had it more specifically identified as Russia or China or Islamic terrorism or whatever.

But I put it to you that above and linking all of those threats is the really serious threat, which is that we're not growing economically. And as long as our GDP is flatlining, it doesn't matter whether we spend 2 or 4 or 5 or 10% of GDP on defence, because the number is not increasing. We are bloated as an economy, morbidly obese, adipose. And like anyone in that situation, getting fit again is going to require some short term pain.

Now, there was an opportunity for some of that short term pain in the King's Speech. We had been promised a bill on welfare reform, and it was very ostentatiously dropped. And what did we get instead? We had a whole series of bills increasing the power of state regulators and growing the state at the expense of the private sector, what's left of the private sector that bills on regulating water bills, on regulating ticket sales bills, on regulating oil bills, on regulating energy prices, bills on regulating house building.

This, again, is not the behaviour of a country that thinks that it faces an immediate threat. Behavioural psychologists tell us to infer motive from behaviour rather than the other way around. If we infer motive from behaviour. This is a government that has decided to prioritise short term popularity, particularly with certain groups of the electorate, over the long term security of the nation. The noble Lord Lord Grade said he'd rejoined the Conservative Party and therefore could regain his opinions.

I recently moved in the opposite direction. My partisan glands were cauterised in a painful operation. So let me say that this problem has grown up under successive governments, including that of my former party. There's been this repeated unwillingness to face short term bad headlines in pursuit of long term security considerations. But my the strength of this country was always its relative economic success. I say that from the Nine Years War until the end of the Cold War, we were successful in war, we were victorious, and we were powerful in the councils of the world, not because of some magical property in our soil or our seas or our skies, not even because of the fighting spirit of our people, excepting the present company of the noble and gallant Lords.

But because we had a technological edge over our adversaries based on greater economic advancement, now we are making a choice. Instead of pursuing that advantage, to spend it on short term popularity and on making ourselves more comfortable. The noble and gallant Lord Lord Stirrup quoted quoted the Athenian. Ambassadors, as quoted by Thucydides in his history, that the the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. We are making a decision to be relatively weak because we don't want to face any of the short term pain and that, my Lords, is how powerful countries become weak countries.

They become bloated, they become overweight, and in the end they lose the capacity to defend themselves, and they collapse as all powers collapse altogether. Elsewhere, vast herds of reindeer move across miles and miles of golden moss, silently and very fast. My Lords, it is. It is.
16:21
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
A privilege to take part in this >> A privilege to take part in this debate, and I must say I've learnt a great deal from many of the contributions that have been made. contributions that have been made. I hope I'm a wiser person as a result, I want to talk about two topics about the movement of people throughout the world and the effect it will have on this country and on Western Europe, and something about the Middle East, Palestine and Israel. I, I can't claim to speak about defence.

I'll just say in passing that about 20 or more years ago we were. I was invited as part of a delegation of members of this House and of the Commons to visit Afghanistan. We went to Camp Bastion and Kandahar, and that was a very informative and interesting experience, seeing the British Army, seeing the British Army in action in very dangerous circumstances. My Lords, we must expect there to be more movements of people, whether driven by climate change, poverty or by war and persecution, and we ought to be ready for that.

The movements will increase. They're not going to be stopped, not easily. We have to look at the tragedy in Lebanon. I grieve for that country and what it is going through. I've been there a few times, not very recently, but it is suffering enormously. And I have to say that there will come a time when many Lebanese will have to flee as their country is being bombed and attacked by the by the Israelis. I'm grateful that I'm pleased that we did not succumb to Trump's blandishments to join him in attacking Iran.

It is America's war. It's not our war. We've supported the Americans in Afghanistan and indeed in other countries. But this was not an occasion for us, for us to get, get, get involved there. But I do think I do think it's going to be a long time before the world recovers from the tragedy of what the Americans are doing there. Then we have the tragedy in the Horn of Africa, not just in Sudan, but in the DRC. And again, people are suffering there and many are on the move.

And then there is almost a forgotten situation of a million Rohingyas who are who fled from Myanmar into Bangladesh. I visited Cox's Bazar some years ago and there were about 100,000 there. But now there are a million people and Bangladesh is getting very little help. Some of the Rohingyas are fleeing to neighbouring countries, but nobody's giving them much help. Can I just say about, about, about Israel? I am as anti-Semitic. I am as opposed to anti-Semitism as anybody, partly from my own personal history.

But to suggest that criticism of Israel is somehow anti-Semitic is, I think, a departure from the truth. And I find it very upsetting when people you know, the Lord who said it isn't here now. But I find it very upsetting when people suggest that. Some years ago I had a conversation with a previous Israeli ambassador to London who said to me, of course you can criticise Israel. They do it in the Knesset all the time, and it is unhealthy to think that we are anti-Semitic because we say what the Israeli government is doing is unacceptable, which I which I believe it is.

Yes, there was a dreadful tragedy in Israel on October the 7th, and the Hamas attack was appalling, and we all send our sympathies to the Israelis, the people who were held hostage and the. And the families of those who suffered. But that isn't the only tragedy in the region, and I think it has been made much worse by the response of the Israelis. Now, we recently seen on our television screens people who came on the flotilla. The flotilla was a fairly peaceful exercise to to bring aid to Gaza.

But the fact that the Israeli Minister delighted in seeing people handcuffed on their knees, humiliated without having committed any criminal offence. And he should say this is to teach them even the president, the Prime Minister Netanyahu, had to say that wasn't in the best traditions of Israel, and it was rightly condemned by our by our Foreign Secretary. Yes, I was delighted when this country recognised the state of Palestine, not because that recognition in itself solves anything, but it is a necessary stage on the way to having a two state solution without recognising Palestine.

I was very happy to be outside the Palestinian. What became the embassy when they celebrated becoming a Palestinian state. And it is absolutely necessary for there to be a two state solution. The growth of settlements is under damaging, damaging the chance of a two state solution. There are 102 illegal settlements on the West Bank, and the threat of more settlements through E1, which will divide Palestine into two separate parts and make a Palestinian state even more difficult to achieve. So we have to take action against any British companies that want to have contacts to.

To build E1, we must make sure that they know there will be sanctions against them if they go ahead. The Prime Minister has said that the 1967 occupation is unlawful, as advised by the ICJ, and I think that should be absolutely fundamental to our approach. There should be consequences. There should be no UK trade, goods, trade with goods and services settlements. We should suspend the bilateral trade partnership. And I think this is all based upon there being international cooperation. I shudder at the thought that the Israeli government is now reintroducing a death penalty, only for Palestinians, and they've denied access to Palestinian prisoners in Israel, as NGOs have denied access to Gaza.

My Lords, what is happening is a tragedy. And we have to say to the Israeli government, you've got to stop the tragedy of October the 7th does not justify what you're doing now.
16:26
Baroness Verma Portrait Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I refer to my interest >> My Lords, I refer to my interest in the Lords Register, and it is a great honour to be here in and present in this debate today. My present in this debate today. My Lords, I want to start by asking the noble Lord, the Minister, three questions. When will we start supporting British companies that are developing innovative defence systems, but find themselves having to go abroad to countries like the USA to manufacture their British products because they don't get the funding or the support from the UK government? My Lords, we then end up buying those products back to to be in the defence of our great nation.

Given the importance of being self reliant and and resilient, perhaps it is time we really did start to look at how we bring back manufacturing and backing those fantastic entrepreneurs that, if backed properly, would create thousands of jobs and put us back at the forefront of leading the world in world class systems. My Lords, it would also help the government's economic growth agenda. Will the noble Lord therefore commit to putting the interests of British entrepreneurs at the heart of supporting their of their support by funding and helping them invest in this country.

This would include manufacturing of uniforms, PPE and other necessary uniforms. My Lords, I was horrified to find that only 6% of all uniforms with the military are produced in this country. My Lords, we need to put the economic growth of our country first. That does not stop us from engaging in closer cooperation with our other allies, old and new. My second question to the noble Lord is, when will we work closer with our friends and allies across the African continent? My Lords, we, like all nations, have an economy to grow into, an economy that needs to grow into a greater knowledge based, rich, new technology based and cleaner power based country.

We need critical minerals and whilst the Chinese, the Americans and many of our European allies have been engaging actively for many years, we seem to lack a coherent, joined up strategy with the African continent, especially with countries with which we have long standing relationships. My Lords, this is not just important for the British businesses, but for our presence in the wider debate. Through soft diplomacy, we can do so much more. That benefits not just us, but our partners, our allies across the continent.

Will the noble Lord, the Minister, say, if he will urge the government to strengthen our embassies and high commissions in countries, particularly where it will generate opportunities for British businesses and our excellent, talented and skilled workforces that support us to export goods globally. My Lords, cutting the strength of embassies and high commissions is shooting ourselves in the foot. We need to have a strong presence across the world, and our embassies and high commissions are the first outward facing connections that those countries have with us as a country.

And finally, my Lords, in these uncertain times. Times. Would my, my the noble Lord, the Minister would the noble Lord, the Minister, tell us what the government's strategy will be to access to strong access to virgin steel? Because without virgin steel, we're not going to be able to manufacture SMRs defence capabilities and infrastructure. There are no discussions taking place with UK businesses that are willing to work with the government to help support the steel industry. Will he, therefore, meet and speak to those businesses that wish to come in and support the infrastructure in this country to help build our defence mechanisms? My Lords, the security of this country is very unpredictable.

We are living in a very unpredictable world and whilst the noble Lord Lord Forbes of Newcastle isn't in his place, I actually agreed with everything he was saying. It is time we put growth and security of our country first, working with old and new allies. My Lords, we can't dither. We need to make decisions. And that is what, what what is what is needed in this time of turmoil? And my last piece of advice to the noble Lord, the Minister who I know will listen carefully to his own colleagues, the Baroness Ashton, the Lord Robertson, who have got huge amounts of experience around the the terrors and the turmoil that goes on that perhaps it is time to bring them into the tent and take their advice on how to actually work and negotiate.

Sorry. The Minister is looking over their. But. But, my Lords, my Lords, their experience is huge and they would greatly benefit the government, but also the wider nation.
16:32
Baroness Harris of Richmond Portrait Baroness Harris of Richmond (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invite Baroness Harris to speak. My Lords, before I start, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before I start, I would like briefly to pay tribute to the RAF regiment with which I to the RAF regiment with which I have strong connections and are noted in my register of interests. Their role is not well known but Their role is not well known but essential and they deserve public recognition by this House, as does recognition by this House, as does the RFA spoken to so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. My Lords, I would like to have heard rather more about national security and the Gracious Speech.

To help advance the short debate I initiated in Grand Committee on the 20th of April, and nevertheless, I'm determined to continue that debate, focusing on our civil preparedness for war or major critical infrastructure disruption. So I was delighted to hear the contribution from the noble Lord Lord Forbes of Newcastle, who reiterated my remarks from that debate. Despite many assurances by the noble Lord, the Minister whom I greatly respect. When he responded to my short debate. My concerns remain.

The omission of the Defence Readiness Bill from the King's Speech, kicking the can down the road until at least mid 2027 shows remarkable, even criminal complacency by the government. When we have kinetic war raging on the European continent, as well as hybrid warfare by Russia and China, waged directly against the UK and its allies, so wisely and vehemently expressed by the noble Lord, noble and gallant Lord Lord Stirrup, and by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, and other noble Lords.

Throughout this very interesting and important debate. In my town of Richmond, the Community Emergency Plan appears to be driven by a community interest company, a CIC, a volunteer body, a very committed and well-meaning one, undoubtedly, but it needs to be our central and local government that takes the lead to give legal weight, authority and direction to what has to be done by our civil service industry and citizens. No less than a whole of government approach is needed, putting in place the means to mobilise the whole nation, even existential crisis arises.

Part two of our county emergency Plan in North Yorkshire warns of the consequences of inaction. And I quote, it can be chaotic if people do not know where reliable advice can be found, what is needed and not needed, and to whom they should turn and quote. In his critique on understanding the UK's transition to warfare readiness, former Deputy Police Commissioner David Gilbertson relates how public order can quickly break down in crisis and the need to prepare for it.

Chaos can easily be sown by our enemies. Hybrid warfare is destabilising Europe. Look at Russia's shadow fleet activity, mis and disinformation and malign influence, cyber attacks, aggressive probing by drones in the sea and air, economic warfare, explicit, explicit threats we call the Salisbury poisonings. And not to mention the existential threats we have of climate change and the looming energy crisis now made incredibly more difficult since we seem to be letting Russia off the hook by reducing sanctions against buying its oil.

The Prime Minister's national conversation on defence and security has yet to start, as noble Lords have already mentioned, and there's been little, if any, public engagement and certainly no clear central direction on what that national conversation should look like. In his newspaper article of March 16th, the noble Lord Lord Hague of Richmond wrote, and I quote, an act of national leadership is now required to be frank with the country about the dangers and be clear that the funds for more tanks, ships, planes, ammunition and recruits are vital.

Close quotes, and, I would add, be clear about how we as civilians should be preparing ourselves to ensure our survival in extremis, as we presently lack a plan for homeland defence, notwithstanding the setting up of our own Committee on National Resilience, chaired by the excellent Baroness Lady Cousins, can I ask the Minister what action is being taken to strengthen our civil defence immediately? I don't believe we have the luxury of waiting until that report is produced at the end of November.

What is being produced in the interim? Being complacent about our country's security is no longer tenable. Ukraine shows us that graphically, my Lords, we do not have the luxury to implement plans in the usual way we have done in the past. It's time to get our act together to ensure our collective security and build the resilience of our nation.
16:38
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lord, before turning to the main substance of today's debate, may I briefly say that I warmly welcome the inclusion in the Gracious Speech of a promise to tackle so-called conversion practices. These have severely damaged and traumatised many LGBT people over decades, and not least when performed in the name of religion. And my Lords, I welcome that promise just as warmly today as I welcomed it from this same bench, from the 3 or 4 occasions when it's previously been made.

I just hope that this time round, we'll actually get to the point of legislating. Indeed, the General Synod of the Church of England overwhelmingly voted to press government to do just that. Several years ago. Turning to today's main topics, I want to speak briefly about Britain's soft power, about covert foreign influence, and about defending liberal democracy. As international threats grow more complex and less overt, Britain's foreign policy and influence abroad depends less on traditional hard power alone, but increasingly on proactive British diplomacy.

The noble Lords have already alluded to this, but alongside our formal diplomatic missions, key institutions the British Council, the World Service they extend our cultural influence. Many of our universities, along with our public schools, play a key role in shaping future global leaders. They must be sufficiently supported and resourced to do the job. We need them to do a nuclear bodies such as the Commonwealth and indeed my own Church of England itself. We contribute to an extensive international network. We connect local communities, education institutions, development organisations, all of which promote British values like human dignity and justice on a global scale.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking in the House earlier this week, highlighted that the church builds, bridges and fosters relationships across lines of race, faith and class. Its role in fostering unity is absolutely essential in the face of an increasingly divided world. More broadly, these institutions not only develop long term diplomatic relationships, but grassroots engagement with them embeds liberal democratic principles in cultures abroad and promotes best practice in other nations. One of those we cannot ignore the growing prevalence of covert operations by foreign powers on British soil.

Recent years have seen a marked increase in incidents of transnational repression in the UK. The targeting of Iran International in 2023, the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in 2018, as well as foreign actors who seek to radicalise British citizens. In the light of these threats, I do welcome the government's commitment to tackle foreign interference and most especially, the proposed national security bill's focus on criminalising those involved in instigating or indeed, planning the most violent and egregious attacks. And whilst previous legislation has already placed some caps on foreign political donations, I'm also concerned about how technology enabled routes of access to the British public may enable undue ideological influence of our political system, including seeking to weaponise differences of religion or heritage within the UK, strengthen the transparency of donations to political campaigns to individuals either directly involved or prominently seen as being engaged in politics and to parties more broadly is essential if we are to defend the democratic integrity of our electoral processes.

I welcome the government's renewed interest in defending these threats, but at the same time, I do remain concerned about the impact of such proposals on our civil liberties. Recent years have seen a steady tightening of regulations around protests. That does have major implications for the freedom of expression, which underpins a liberal society. My Lords, it's crucial that any new government powers are firmly rooted in a commitment to maintain personal liberty and freedom of expression, and I do believe we can do this.

We can do this at the same time as ensuring our freedoms are not abused as a means of promoting hostility. And others have already alluded to the dramatic rise in anti-Semitism that has killed two of my Jewish neighbours on Yom Kippur last year, and frightened so many others of us who live in the city of Salford, and those liberal democracy stands under threat, not only from non-democratic stands, from what Viktor Orban of Hungary proudly referred to as illiberal democracy. From Hungary to the USA, we see jurisdictions where votes may still be largely free and fair, but the use of executive patronage and commercial pressure to force the judiciary, civil service, press, religious institutions and businesses to collude with the leaders whims and wishes make democracy a very thin defence.

That must never happen here. This United Kingdom, which I am so proud to serve in your Lordships House, is far more than a blot of pink on an increasingly multi-coloured map. Britain is a way of life, a way of life inevitably far from perfect, but which can yet be a beacon of hope across the globe. That is what's worth defending. That is what our foreign and defence policies must provide.
16:43
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
But it's always a challenge to follow a bishop and the right Reverend. The Bishop of Newcastle is no exception, and the Prime Minister says a central aim of the new legislative programme is to strengthen security, economic, energy and defence. The country is to be put at the heart of the European Union, at the heart of Europe, to remove the barriers to growth under a European Partnership Bill, and European alliances are to be rebuilt, the armed forces strengthened and the UK is, he says, to stand strong with NATO.

Noble Lords today have referred to the link between a strong economy and strong defence, to which I would like to add a strong, tough diplomacy. The UK is a sovereign, is a sovereign state, a G7, historically a global trader and a staunch upholder of competitive markets and free trade for which trade treaties remain. As the noble Baroness, the Minister reminded us this morning, a vital tool in the whole armoury of international relations. Sadly, this does not seem to have been followed up by this government in rebuilding alliances.

The very costly one in, one out deal with France of August has resulted in the removal at the end of April of 605 people arriving illegally on small boats, with France sending 581, which seems a lot of money £500 million for the current deal, plus the 1.62 million top up for the deport and detain scheme. And. And I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister. But could he let us know how this deal will make more value and whether it can be toughened up for this country in respect of the wider EU, the government for this government, there seems to be no EU demand.

That is too much, no cost, too high, no deal, too punitive. Even Sir Keir Starmer's three modest reset proposals, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and an end to restrictions on UK touring artists, and a modest veterinary agreement. All of these have failed. The first two have got nowhere so far and the third one, instead of an agreement, we've got a fully blown SPS deal which has been demanded by the EU, including and they now get, including access, long term access to UK fisheries and there is a negotiation in progress to open the borders of this country to up to make tens of millions of UK young people, EU young people under 30.

They haven't shown the slightest flicker of willingness to consider the proposed suggestion. The suggestion proposed by David Lammy of a financial services agreement based on mutual recognition of equal standards, equivalent standards, worse trade with Britain's global partners will suffer. They signed up to trade with the UK, with the UK under its own laws. Each party, as in the deal to trade on that basis with mutual recognition of standards scientifically assessed and in conformity assessment bodies, and without the uncertainties produced by dynamic alignment with EU law.

As Professor David Collins has explained, this could leave the UK open to legal challenge internationally, with trade partners. This week, the International Agreements Committee heard from a former chief trade negotiator adviser, a free trade negotiation adviser at the dept. He said the UK should look to the growing economies of Asia, the Middle East, the GCC countries and continue to work with the US on whatever opportunities presented themselves. Because agreements are possible. The US remains our biggest single trade partner, and the official added.

The current UK administration wants to go where we want to go and we share many similar aims in trade, but that cannot be expected from a future democratic regime. So I conclude by asking why should the country be held up by the slowest ship in the convoy, rather than embrace its role as a global leader of free markets, competitive global trade and the rule of the common law itself, the most significant export.
16:49
Lord John of Southwark Portrait Lord John of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Very good. Why don't you, my Lords, I thought long and hard about which debate on the Humble Address I should participate in my background in local government regeneration and housing initially pushed me towards the debate yesterday. But since joining your Lordships House in January, the questions raised here, conversations with colleagues and the challenges of world events have brought me to a realisation that our nation's defence is a topic which I cannot ignore. Whilst I have no historic experience or expertise in defence, the challenges our nation faces means that defence should be everyone's business.

For more than 30 years, since the peace dividend of the 1990s, we've perhaps left defence as a subject largely for those with knowledge and experience of the military sector, but I know that they must now feel that it is imperative that more, if not all of us, should play a part in the debate about this fundamental duty of government, the security of our nation. Because without a new debate and the building of a truly national consensus, we risk allowing our nation's security to be sidelined again at a time when it should be top of every agenda.

So I hope that my contribution today will be welcomed and my lack of experience forgiven, perhaps seen as a pre-emptive strike of the national conversation. President Theodore Roosevelt popularised the proverb speak softly and carry a big stick. As an approach to the United States national defence policy in 1900, as one military expert observed to me recently, there is a risk that our approach to defence today becomes characterised as shout loudly and carry a matchstick. I know that, in fact, the British military remains a formidable force with recent and relevant experience of supporting significant military engagements.

Britain has military knowledge which continues to be envied and used around the globe. My Lords, we have a plan in the Strategic Defence Review, but I can only add my voice to those calling for it to be implemented through the Defence Investment Plan. For. The reality is that even if we meet our current and significantly increased target of 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035 nine years time, this will still only be half of what the then government was spending on rearmament in 1938, having risen from similar levels of spending as today in 1932.

My Lords, I do not believe that we have the luxury of being able to wait another nine years as significantly increase our defence spending and capacity when the world today feels far more threatening and our alliances uncertain. And I know that many here would argue that the world today is more akin to 1938 than it is to 1932, because we know in life that prevention is better than cure. 3.5%, or even 6.9% of GDP spent on defence now would still be dwarfed by the massive sums that would actually cost to fight a war.

As the noble Lord Lord Stirrup pointed out, recalling that more than 50% of GDP was ultimately spent annually on defence during World War Two. So, my Lords, we need to show those who would challenge our way of life that we are serious about protecting our freedoms and begin to make the investment necessary to defend ourselves with the systems, weapons and people needed. In 2026, as Baroness Kingsmill had outlined. There are innovative and affordable ways in which we can fund that defence investment.

Let's embrace that innovation and explore all options to build the systems we need now. I welcome the government's moves to strengthen our relationship with our EU neighbours. It is an essential ingredient in building our defence capability. My Lords, war and conflict is never an inevitability, but we make it more likely if we fail to demonstrate by words and deeds, that we will act now to have the military capacity to defend ourselves.
16:53
Lord Magan of Castletown Portrait Lord Magan of Castletown (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Fantastic. Excellent. >> As the chief of the. >> General Staff has recently made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

General Staff has recently made starkly clear. Great Britain and NATO are very much in Putin's crosshairs. We are on an inescapable collision course with a Russia that is on a determined war footing. Many aspects of this conflict have already been underway for quite some time. Deliberate enhanced Russian escalation in a wider sphere is evidenced by its increasingly subversive and deliberately antagonistic activities in Eastern Europe. Yet the Labour administration has been consistently weak in its responses to these ever increasing dangers, and has shown a lacklustre regard to substantially beefing up defence of the realm.

Our European partners are not indulging in such dangerous and inescapable complacency. Some are already taking the gloves off in a way that should be a real spur to our own commitment and endeavours, but could also, if not balanced, raise very significant concerns. My Lords, we need to talk about Germany again. Germany is launching an enormous rearmament programme. Germany's now officially

**** Possible New Speaker ****

declared stated aim is to build, In their words, the strongest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In their words, the strongest conventional army in Europe, Chancellor Mertes, has secured a constitutional amendment to exempt constitutional amendment to exempt defence spending from the stringent legal limits on government debt. legal limits on government debt. Mercy's recent proclamation is that the scale of defence spending now has to be again, in his words, whatever it takes. It is now very clear that by the end of this decade, Germany's conventional defence spend will significantly exceed that of the combined total of the UK and of France.

Metal, Germany's defence giant, is already responding at full bore to Chancellor Mertz's exhortations, with typical German efficiency, huge productivity and focus on maximum quality. This is now for understandable historical reasons. Ringing alarm bells in Paris and in Warsaw. There are clearly much more disturbing forces also at work. But for us in Great Britain, this should be the spur to emulating Germany's determined commitment to protect Europe's freedoms and culture.

Why is this present Labour administration so timid and so indecisive? Why does this Labour government not listen and respond with immediacy to the wise experience and much respected counsel of its own distinguished, noble friends in this House? Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. Action this day surely has to be seized as the galvanising mantra. We have. For far along, for far we have for a long time been the USA's major and most respected partner in NATO.

We should welcome Germany's even more heavyweight presence alongside us, restoring President Trump's confidence in NATO is of permanent importance. A NATO Riga, under the leadership determinedly funded by Great Britain alongside a fully funded and committed Germany, will be very close to President Trump's heart. He clearly hugely values his own British, Scottish and his own German familial ties. We must determinedly embrace Germany in this way, field Marshal Blücher in the Royal Gallery reminds us of an absolutely pivotal partnership of yesteryear.

His Majesty the King's hugely successful state visit to Germany demonstrated how warm this two way relationship can be. My Lords, we must not let Germany drift eastwards.
16:59
Lord Singh of Wimbledon Portrait Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, I speak from a perspective on common concerns for peace and justice in our strife torn world of today. The poet reminds us that rivers and mountains interpose. To make one people implacable foes. But it's not only geography that divides our one human family, it's also human greed, prejudice and bigotry, including religious bigotry. Seeing ourselves as superior and others as lesser beings has been a source of conflict throughout history. In 1937, in a speech justifying the proposed uprooting of Palestinians to create a Jewish state, Winston Churchill said I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.

I do not admit a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race has come in and taken their place. My Lords rivalry between the higher grade races resulted in the horror of the First and Second World Wars. Atrocities against the Jews and the incineration. Hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The suffering and devastation of war shocked world leaders into a new realism, and a common desire to work from more peaceful world.

Victor Nations agreed that the only way forward to lasting peace would be a recognition of the equal rights of all members of one human family. Imperatives for peace and justice first put forward by the Sikh gurus more than two centuries earlier, Jesus Christ wisely warned that the sword should not be resumed. Used automatically to resolve difference. But today, politicians and retired generals constantly call on the need for bigger and better weapons to defend ourselves against those we call our enemies.

Today, we show righteous indignation when those who are not our friends abuse human rights, but show less concern when a friendly country fires on innocent children and aid workers in Gaza and at Trent, and at the threats by an eccentric friend and ally to obliterate obliterate all life in Iran. Powerful nations exploit smaller nations conflicts by selling arms to impoverished people in places like the Middle East, or by direct involvement in conflict in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

India buys oil from Russia to help fund Russian aggression against fund Russian aggression against Ukraine. Unbelievably. Russia sells arms to Pakistan for use against India. In a speech in this House a year or so ago, Lord Robertson, a former defence Minister, made clear what politicians mean by defence. He spoke about countries like China and Russia threatening the existing world order. He was right. They too are also trying to acquire crude political and economic power.

However, the briefest glimpse at world history shows that the existing world order is built on racism, slavery and gross economic exploitation. Conflict is inevitable in a world built on such insecure foundations. What do we need to do to make it a fairer world? Religious teachings were meant to provide the answer, but today, rivalry between different religions and absurd claims of exclusive and favoured relationships with the one God of us all has made a distortion of true religion a major cause for conflict and suffering.

Guru Nanak was a witness to such bigotry in India some 500 years ago. The guru, like Jesus Christ in the parable of the Good Samaritan, openly challenged his irreligious view of religion. He taught that the one God of us all is not the least bit interested in our different religious labels, but in what we do to create a fairer and more peaceful world. At the same time, he recognised and highlighted the ethical commonalities between our different faiths.

Our holy Book contains writings not only of the Sikh gurus, but also parallel ethical perspectives from Hindu and Muslim saints. I believe that this approach of looking to the good in others and building on common values and common interests is the only way to lasting peace and justice. Today we are in a smaller, interdependent world. Our destinies are inextricably entwined, and we face common environmental and other challenges. We have to realise now that there is no us and them.

There is only us. We all have a common responsibility to change old fashioned mindsets about exclusive and superior religions, and the belief that force is the only way to resolution.
17:06
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
Before I start, I wish to pay tribute to the hereditary peers who gave time and expertise to this gave time and expertise to this House with a true sense of public service and duty passed down over generations. They will be missed. I begin by declaring my interests. I co-chair and run the APPG on women, peace and security. I'm on the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. I set up and run the Afghan Women's Support Forum, and I'm the honorary colonel of outreach group.

The King's Speech highlighted that an increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the UK, as well as the war in Ukraine and the terrible situation in the Middle East. The Red cross reports over 130 active conflicts in the world today. As the noble Lord, the Baroness Minister said, more than at any other time since World War Two, with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks and sexual violence often being used as a weapon of war. There seems an inability to bring these conflicts to peace the war of the wars of the last 20 years flexed from acute to chronic, and often back again.

Wars are easy to start and as we see so hard to finish, there are today over 120 displaced people, million displaced people, many. As a result of conflict, there will never be global peace. While this situation continues in our interconnected world. What happens in one place affects people all over the world. My Lords, I am concerned about aspects of the UK's response to all this. We should be investing more into conflict resolution and prevention. For resolution. We must work with other countries to maintain and reform international bodies, including the UN, to be more effective.

And conflict prevention not only saves lives, but also billions of pounds by averting war. Studies show that for every £1 invested, as much as £100 is saved. However, the report by Mercycorps and Saferworld last well last year revealed a sharp decline in the UK's investment in peace building, violence prevention and conflict resolution over recent years. Empirical evidence shows, including Women in Peace processes, makes peace more durable, legitimate and effective, and 35% more likely to last 15 years. In the year 2000, the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 recognised the disproportionate effect of conflict on women and girls.

And whilst the Foreign Secretary's words of commitment to the women, peace and security agenda are most welcome, the International Development Select Committee report found that the UK government failed to deliver on commitments relating to the inclusion of women and girls in meaningful participation and conflict prevention. Funding has been reduced and that the government's commitment appears to be waning. I welcome the statement in The King's Speech about putting the rights of women and girls first, but it needs to be action, not just words.

There remains enormous gender equality in many countries, mostly because male leaders turn a blind eye to issues such as child marriage and FGM. But why has funding to sexual health and reproductive rights been cut? The government argue the reason for slashing aid is because we need money for defence. But this does not have to be financed at the cost of international development. It is a political choice that the government is making. What we need is security for the UK and this will not be achieved by defence alone.

We need the combination of diplomacy, development and development. As we've heard from many noble Lords this afternoon. International Development aid is not charity. It is an investment in a safer, healthier and more stable world. And I have a number of concerns in this regard that I'd be grateful if the Minister could address that. The reduction of. Of people at the FCDO is not only damaging morale, but will destroy institutional memory and experience that the reduced aid needs to be used in the most cost effective way, which is financing at grassroots, not mainly financing.

Multilaterals. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, tell me what percentage of aid will actually go to the purpose it is meant for? After hotels for migrants are paid for 16% of the budget last year and top slicing to fund the Multilaterals. Why funding to demining organisations such as Halo and Mag, where the UK is a world leader, is being cut by about 66%. How can countries prosper where there is the danger of mines? It was accepted that education was the way out of poverty.

Yet the UK seems to have now abandoned this. And what are we doing to tackle corruption? Many African countries are rich in resources, but the benefits end up in the pockets of a few. And finally, the Mod tells us we should be war ready. At the moment I understand that we import about 40% of our food. So why is this government allowing solar panels to be put on good agricultural land? Land that we need to grow food? I understand if the noble Lord, the Minister, can answer all this today, but I hope that they will write to me.
17:11
Lord Sharkey Portrait Lord Sharkey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I declare an interest sometime. Chair and Vice Chair of the APPG Chair and Vice Chair of the APPG for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have raised the issue of the division of Cyprus many times in your Lordships House, and I would like to put on record my gratitude for the immense effort made by the FCDO in trying to facilitate a long term solution to the problem. Our colonial past on the island and our status as a guarantor power have meant real involvement, particularly in the run up to the Crans-montana negotiations.

Now, five years ago, nine years ago, it's a matter of huge regret that these negotiations failed at the very last moment, when the Greek Cypriot negotiators abandoned the process. Cyprus has been divided for over 50 years, and in this half century, there have been repeated attempts to reunite. All these attempts have failed, and in each case, the Greek Cypriot south was the proximate cause of these failures. The current position is that the north of the island, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is a de facto state, recognised only by Turkey and supported by Turkey, both economically and militarily.

Northern Cyprus is isolated and under embargo. In 2017, after last minute failure of the Crans-montana negotiations, the then incoming president took the quite understandable view that more negotiation would be a waste of time unless there were to be formal recognition of the Trnc as a separate state. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted or had resulted until recently in no significant progress. But there has been no shortage of warnings that the situation was delicate and the tensions were increasing.

And this was before war broke out in the Middle East. And war has made these tensions on the island very much more intense. But despite all possibly because of these heightened tensions, they do now appear to be faint signs of a restored appetite for negotiations to resume. The Republic of Cyprus president has indicated that discussions between the UN secretary general and the Turkish president could lead to a new peace plan and has urged the resumption of negotiations. The UN Secretary General has also indicated a desire for an effort to restart reunification talks, but clearly the record of 50 years of failure to reach an agreed settlement carries some harsh lessons about good faith, the inevitability of serious and probably unpalatable compromises.

The Minister will know that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has newly elected a leader. Too often EFRA a man. On April the 28th. Last year last. Mr. EFRA said that the question that needs to be asked is this is there anyone who truly believes that a solution on the island can be achieved by ignoring the existence of the Turkish Cypriot people? And he went on to say, as to our position, guided by the will of our people for a solution, we are here resolute and determined, with patience, composure and a serious sense of purpose.

My Lords, for many decades the people of northern Cyprus have lived unrecognised, disadvantaged and embargoed, deprived of access to international capital and now facing wars in the region and the likely consequences of those wars. The division of the island was not the fault of the people in the island. They are not to blame, but they have been isolated as a consequence for 50 years, with the inevitable economic consequences. It may be that the changes to the geopolitics of the region, shifting alliances and the arrival of newly elected politicians present an opportunity for progress.

This is what Ursula von der Leyen had to say about the situation. Speaking on January the 7th this year, she said For the European Union, a comprehensive, fair and lasting settlement for Cyprus remains an absolute priority. Could I ask the Minister if he could make the same commitment? There is, as I'm sure the Minister knows, there is significant sympathy and relevant expertise in this House. On the subject of Cyprus and the Cyprus issue. Could I ask the Minister to meet with me and other colleagues to discuss how we may contribute?
17:16
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
In this adjourned debate on the Gracious Speech? I'd like to cover the area of dual use technologies, and in doing so, I declare my interest to set out in the register as advisor to the Crown Estate and other PLC and Baroness Symons LLP. My Lords dual use technologies have become increasingly important and of interest, but it is AI that has put this on a completely different path, not least because of its omnipresence, if not as yet omnipotence, and certainly its omni applicability.

The sheer velocity and availability of AI means that dual use technologies now need to be considered in a wholly different manner. Considering the past nuclear. Fortunately still a largely niche activity highly technical, difficult and complex AI by complex I. AI, by contrast, are very. Retail pursuit available to all bad actors as well as good. So what should we consider when we look at the UK's approach to dual use technologies? Well, firstly, the tech stack itself.

How much of this should the UK develop? How much should it control? How much should it directly own? How much should it have a complete 100% grip upon? Similarly, the data AI nothing without data. Where is the sensitive data when it comes to dual use technologies on prem, in the cloud, in this country or somewhere else? The people involved. Where are they based? Where does their expertise come from? What and how are they doing when it comes to dual use technologies, to the capital, the sources of funding, and indeed the whole question of investability around dual use technologies, what's happening in terms of institutional investment pension funds, both in terms of the possibilities for investment and the barriers and blockers to said investment.

When it comes to exports, it's easy to think that we should just reach to have export bans around some of these technologies, but perhaps we should look at both sides of this and see the potential to export some of these technologies to like minded nations, to build that coalition and collectivity around such similar approaches. The energy which used, where is it coming from? Who controls it, what level of risk is involved there? And finally, well worth considering a word on open source and the possibilities therein.

Can I ask the Minister specifically, what has the government learned from the Pentagon's Project Maven? What lessons for the UK? Similarly, when it comes to reviewing the UK's tech stack in AI and across all dual use technologies, what process of decoupling, if any, are the government currently considering and allied to that? What premium are the government prepared to pay when it comes to having true sovereign AI? Would it not be the case that it would be beneficial around all of these technologies to have some legislation, some right sized regulation, as set out in my AI regulation private member's Bill? To conclude, my Lords, in many ways, dual use technologies shine the sharpest of spotlights on an uncomfortable truth wilfully ignored by governments over decades.

And that is this if you want peace, prepare for war. Politically problematic, economically inconvenient, and yet timelessly true. From Plato to NATO. Certainly prepare for war on the battlefields. But much more than that, prepare in the boardrooms, in the data centres, in the servers and in the chips, preparing the cloud for preparing the rare earth minerals and prepare under our oceans. Prepare, prepare. Prepare to fight for the. We. In a sadly increasing world of me, prepare.

If we want peace.
17:20
Lord Harris of Haringey Portrait Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> The Gracious Speech was notable for many things, not just the welcome list of bills. Actually, I welcome list of bills. Actually, I rather suspect that your Lordships House is going to be even busier in the in the next session than it was in the last. And there are many debate bills that we can look forward to debating and considering in detail over the session ahead. But also I want to welcome it because of the.

And here I disagree slightly, but only slightly, with the noble and gallant Lord Lord Stirrup. There was a narrative thread running through it, albeit a slightly thin narrative thread about building better resilience for the country. And before I go any further, I should refer to my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. There are, for example, to be bills strengthening the resilience of critical infrastructure and to safeguard sovereign supplies with bills on energy independence, the steel industry, clean water and highways.

Others reinforce national security. Looking at cyber and state threats, and the Armed Forces Bill will take steps to expand the pool of reservists. So all that is welcome. But the two decades of external shocks that have left our nation in a weakened state merit rather more. We cannot continue to apply, as is suggested, sticking plasters. What is needed is a bold strategy to deliver a stronger, more resilient society for everyone. And alas, there is one striking omission in.

In the. The Gracious Speech there is no defence readiness bill. This was recommended last summer in the Strategic Defence Review, led by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. That recommendation was accepted by His Majesty's Government, but apparently it is not ready. Now, I know that work is progressing on this and inevitably draft legislation to provide the powers needed to prioritise the supplies and support required in the event of a national defence emergency. Inevitably calls for substantial consultation across government.

My Lords, I understand that. But of course, in an ideal world we would have had it before us this session, particularly as the international situation has become an even more threatening. In just the short period since the. Since the SDR reported. Indeed, such legislation is a necessary part of the UK's commitment to article three. NATO expects each member country to maintain its own resilience as part of collective defence, and that involves preparedness against all types of shock, including natural disasters, cyber attacks or military military threats.

And that is needed because it's there to ensure the continuity of government and critical services at times of crisis. My my Lords, I urge my noble friends on the front bench to use this delay. It's an unfortunate delay, but to use this delay as an opportunity for the Bill to have a broader focus than perhaps is suggested in the Strategic Defence Review. Let us be clear the nation's resources may need to be mobilised, not just in the event of hostilities, but also in other civil emergencies, not necessarily arising from nation state action.

We will need those mechanisms, and we would need those powers in another pandemic or to deal with extreme weather events precipitated by climate change, and indeed, many of the other acute risks listed in the National Risk Register. So what is needed is something much broader, a National Resilience and Defence Readiness Bill to provide a framework to make the best use of the nation's resources in the event of any emergency or in response to hostile action. Such a bill could place a duty on government departments, public bodies, local authorities, large businesses and organisations to build their resilience and bolster their preparedness to respond to different sorts of threats and emergencies.

It could set structures to facilitate this and to underpin this as part of a concerted national effort to address the dangerous and volatile world that we now face as a nation. My Lords, I believe this must now be prioritised and brought forward as soon as it's ready, even perhaps before the next Gracious Speech. And, my Lords, it would be gross negligence for us not to do so.
17:26
Baroness Shields Portrait Baroness Shields (Conservative)
-
-
Hold on. >> Hold on. >> My Lords. His Majesty is Gracious Speech address Britain's security, prosperity and position security, prosperity and position within an increasingly fractured international order. Yet it made no mention of artificial intelligence, the technological force now profoundly reshaping it. AI is not just sectoral or domestic as a policy issue, it has begun foundational to how nations project power, defend their citizens, secure critical infrastructure, and maintain sovereignty. AI is not arriving in a stable world.

A decade of algorithmic conditioning on social media has already separated people into parallel realities, eroding the shared reference points of international order and cooperation. And today, AI systems capable of matching human cognition are beginning to participate directly in human judgement itself. The frontier AI systems on which much of the world will depend, are being shaped by an extraordinarily narrow concentration of people, power and data. Most nations are not participating meaningful meaningfully in this process. They are inheriting it.

I believe AI has the potential to usher in the greatest civilisation civilizational uplift in human history, but that outcome is not guaranteed. It depends on whether international communities can establish credible frameworks for stewardship before competitive pressures harden into permanent norms. At present, the opposite is happening across the world. The centre of gravity has shifted away from shared safety frameworks towards acceleration, sectoral, sectoral advantage and national competition. Whilst principles have been written and summits have been convened, the trajectory of artificial intelligence are increasingly being made by a handful of individuals unelected, unaccountable and operating at scale that democratic institutions were never designed to oversee.

I know from personal experience that many of those building AI systems care deeply about their responsibilities, but private capability, however well intentioned, is not the same as democratic legitimacy. The majority of the world's nations, representing the majority of the world's people, are not part of the equation. In the absence of governance, restraint must become. Restraint becomes a competitive disadvantage. This is no longer a theoretical question of future risk. It is a present contest over power, incentives and control.

A few weeks ago, one major frontier AI company refused to allow its systems to be used in autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of citizens. Its competitors agreed to the conditions of unrestricted use and secured the contract. My Lords, we are facing a new magnitude of technological power, and the window to shape what comes next is rapidly closing. Sir Demis Hassabis, Nobel laureate and founder of DeepMind, has described this moment as ten times the industrial revolution at ten times the speed.

Other institutions are recognising the scale of this moment. On May 25th, the Holy See will publish Magnifica Humanitas, the first encyclical on artificial intelligence. It was signed on the 130th fifth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, the church's landmark response to the human and social consequences of the Industrial Revolution. The Holy See recognises that this technological transition will profoundly shape moral conditions of human society, and that the time to act is now. My Lords, the United Kingdom has historically been the country that convened coalitions capable of shaping international order at moments of profound transition.

This is such a moment. The question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will shape the future international order. It already is. The question is whether democratic nations will help shape that order together, or whether they will gradually surrender agency to systems, norms and concentrations of power designed elsewhere. Britain has the credibility and alliances to convene that coalition. I urge His Majesty's Government to place this transformation at the top of the agenda for the United Kingdom's G20 presidency in 2027.
17:30
Lord Dannatt Portrait Lord Dannatt (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, yesterday I had the >> My Lords, yesterday I had the privilege to visit an exercise being conducted this week deep underground, less than half a mile underground, less than half a mile from your Lordships House. It was being conducted by the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, which is a British led NATO Strategic Reserve Corps. This is the United Kingdom's principal land fighting component dedicated to NATO. We've committed to make that corps available with two fully rounded out warfighting divisions.

That's a force of about 3000 and the necessary combat support brigades in the exercise units of the Corps were deployed forward in Estonia and connected to the exercise headquarters here in London. In the exercise scenario, the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps was facing two Russian combined arms armies in Estonia. It was integrating military capabilities drawn from the land, air, space and cyber domains, all enabled by AI. It was a very impressive demonstration of the best of the modern capabilities to which we aspire, drawing significantly on the Ukrainian experiences gained over five years on the battlefield.

My Lords, I was very pleased to note the ambition, forward thinking, battlefield concepts and levels of innovation shared between the army and industry, especially many being small and medium sized enterprises, some using hedge fund funds. Hedge fund money. The Army's aim is to have this level of capability fully deployed, developed and deployed by 2030, the date by which it's assessed that Russia could mount a land attack in Eastern Europe or the Baltic. It was. Therefore, it was there to be.

If there was to be a ceasefire in Ukraine. This date could, of course, come forward as Russia could constitute reconstitute its forces more quickly. My Lords, there is no doubting the commitment, enthusiasm and professional dedication demonstrated by all involved in that exercise, but the level of capability required to deter or defeat a Russian attack will not be met by 2030. At the current level of investment into our armed forces, and certainly not into our land forces. Yes, there is talk of an additional £18 billion being spent on defence in the next four years, but that is not the 28 billion that the service chiefs have identified as necessary in the short term.

Nor will that take us to 3% of GDP by 2029, and certainly not to 3.5% by 2034. There may be a temptation in trying to find this additional money that His Majesty's Government considers raiding the international development budget again. Already we know that has been reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP and more recently, to 0.3%. This dramatically weakens our soft power potential, which, when combined with our hard power capability, is what brings the UK influence on the international stage.

More immediately, one has to wonder when or if the Defence Investment plan will ever be published. Without it, defence programmers cannot allocate money. Contracts cannot be let to industry, production capabilities be boosted and the security of our nation assured. Yesterday morning as I walked to the exercise location, the household Division was rehearsing for the King's Birthday parade next month. We can all be very proud of the immaculate standards of the bands and the soldiers of the Household Division, and I'm confident they will deliver a spectacular parade.

But my Lords, I would be even more proud if we were able to deliver a full warfighting division into the field, let alone the two we have committed to NATO. My Lords, our enemies smile at our weakness and our friends shake their heads in disbelief at our lack of commitment to the security of Europe. I've said it before we are drinking in the last chance saloon. The leadership of this country needs to wake up and take action before the dead hand of history calls time.

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity.
17:34
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
To contribute to the debate this afternoon. But before I start, I want to congratulate the government on the announcements today on the Gulf Free Trade Agreement. This agreement has been a very long time coming, and it has been an extremely difficult negotiation, and it is absolutely fantastic that it has now been agreed with the six separate nations of the GCC. I must declare my own personal interests in this, as set out in the Register and in particular as co-chairman of the UK, UAE Business Council, which has amongst its members many billions of pounds of investments.

Both ways. This agreement, if it does have the clauses which we all hope on investor confidence and investor protection, will enable even bigger investments to flow, which is going to be exciting, particularly at these times, but it's also going to make an enormous difference to the 25 billion of bilateral trade between the UK and the UAE. Hopefully this is just the beginning and that what will follow will now be a bilateral agreement to pick up those other areas which are not covered in the free trade agreement and is something that has been negotiated by some of the Gulf states with other nations.

And those agreements will, of course, give us a lot more in the areas of professional qualifications and data. Two of the key areas I'd like to just move on, though, to talk about the thing I wanted to talk about particularly, which is defence. I fear that we are not moving at the pace and urgency required, and this has been said by so many people this today. I therefore welcome the government's stated ambition to increase defence spending, but I'm afraid the proposals are just simply not enough.

The strategic global challenges and real threats faced by the United Kingdom today require increasing our national defence and security spending, as has already been said of somewhere in the region of 5 to 7% of GDP. Once upon a time those figures would have sounded excessive. But not today. NATO, for example, has already moved towards a 5% framework. I applaud the fact that across Europe, we are now starting to see European nations take far greater responsibility for their own security.

The American view that Europe must increase defence spending and become less reliant on America underpinning security will not disappear. This is now a structural fact of the American political psyche that far, far transcends the current presidency. Yet, my Lords, we are far behind where we need to be. It is regrettable that our armed forces lack the equipment, industrial backing and procurement speed required for the changing nature and character of war. Today, we cannot meet the peacetime demands of our current innovation blocking systems of defence, procurement and regulations that are simply not fit for the industrial requirements of the 21st century.

And that brings me to the situation in Ukraine, from which we must learn. Last Thursday's missile attack on Kyiv, which killed 24 and injured many more, is a painful reminder of why our resolve towards Ukraine must not falter. We should be clear that despite Russian disinformation, the economic pressure of sanctions placed on Russia by the United Kingdom and our allies is being felt. These sanctions have constrained Russia's access to capital, weakened their supply chains and suppress their ability to innovate.

At the same time, Ukraine's extraordinary innovation on the battlefield has shown the world how a determined nation, with the right support, can inflict damning blows on the war machine of a much larger aggressor. Back home. With our stubbornly stagnant economic growth with the noble Minister, agree with me that there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a key opportunity to reposition order. Just remind the noble Lord. Speakers in the gap should only Speakers in the gap should only take maximum four minutes. So if you see on the speakers list. Huge apologies to the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree with me that there is a key opportunity to reposition increased defence spending as an engine for domestic renewal and engine for domestic renewal and regional growth for if we anchor our sovereign defence supply chains in the towns and cities that have been too often left behind, I put it to government that we will soon find that we can strengthen our national security while transforming local economies through targeted, increased defence spending. We have a real opportunity to upskill a generation, generate high tech civilian spill-overs and turn the urgent necessity of national security into a powerful instrument against domestic deprivation.
17:40
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it is very often suggested that a week is a long time in politics, and I suspect for the Prime Minister it has been a very long week. But we are now eight days after His Majesty the King came and gave the gracious speech on Wednesday of last week, and we heard the motion for an Humble Address from the noble Lady Baroness Crawley, which was one of the most exciting, lively and dynamic motions for a Humble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Address, I've heard. So I'm delighted that she's in her place today. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. We are now moving to the very end of speeches on this year's end of speeches on this year's Gracious Speech, and at the end of the day, that has been wide ranging, the day, that has been wide ranging, well informed, interesting, and where I hope the noble Lord, the where I hope the noble Lord, the Minister in responding, is going to feel that he has been blessed, that from his own benches in particular, there have been myriad calls for resilience, for increased defence expenditure.

Surely things that any Minister in the Mod will want to hear to enable him to talk to the Secretary of State for defence to press in Cabinet to the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The. And to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The importance of defence expenditure. Because, my Lords, one thing that has virtually united the House today has been the importance of defence expenditure. There are nuances in what people have said, but what noble Lords have said.

But broadly speaking, an acceptance that defence expenditure is crucial. But before I get into the details of defence as unwinding from these benches for the whole of the International and Defence Day, I want just to touch on some of the wider issues of foreign policy, the challenges and particularly Europe, because noble Lords will have realised that from these benches there is a very clear voice on Europe. But, my Lords, among the very powerful speeches today, one that I thought was noteworthy was from the noble Lord Sterling of Plaistow, who who reminded or told noble Lords that he remembers the 8th of May, 1945, his parents celebrating, as would other people's parents have been doing, but in particular saying we are safe.

And the importance of that if you are Jewish, being safe in this country and in Europe. My Lords, we've heard many contributions today about concerns of anti-Semitism. If you are Jewish today in this country, you may no longer feel safe. But my Lords, there is a wider concern, not only if you are Jewish, you may not feel safe, but the message that the noble Lord, who has been mentioned more times than anybody else in the chamber today, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson has pointed out, is that we are underprepared, underinsured.

We are, and we are under attack and we are not safe. If the first duty of the state is to protect our citizens, does His Majesty's Government believe that it is doing enough to ensure that our country is safe, and that we are actually going to be able to meet our international obligations to our NATO colleagues, and to defend ourselves and to work with our NATO partners and allies to keep Europe safe. This government, like its predecessor, put a lot of effort into supporting Ukraine, and that is absolutely right.

But are we ensuring we are doing enough to remain safe at home? Various noble Lords have talked about the three D's, starting with the noble Lady. The Minister, in her opening remarks, and the noble Lady, Baroness Ashton, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, all talked about the interplay of diplomacy, defence and development. My Lords, as the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, of course I am committed to increasing defence expenditure. Like other noble Lords, though, I would like to believe that the government could come forward with a plan actually to increase defence expenditure, not simply to say it is going to happen at some future point.

So a commitment is vital. But that commitment to increase defence expenditure must not be at the expense of development or of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office because, my Lords, if we cut or as we have been cutting development aid, we lose influence. We lose the ability to support communities abroad, precisely the sort of communities who most need our aid. As so many noble Lords have pointed out from my own benches, my colleague in particular, Baroness Northover, raised the issue of development aid.

The noble Lady Baroness Royall reminded us that now the amount spent internationally on aid is 0.24% or that's what it will be in 2027. My Lords, if we aspire to global influence, we need to be committed to aid and not simply to talking about what we might do and how we might have networks. Networks matter, but the ability to deliver also matters. And as the noble Lady Baroness Verma raised and the noble Lady Baroness Hodgson, there are real concerns about cuts to the FCDO expenditure.

Diplomacy is vital. If we're not committed to diplomacy, we are going to find that the pressure for defence is even greater. We need to focus on embassies and high commissions, but we also need to make sure we are not reducing morale within the FCDO because diplomacy matters, not just in the very high level diplomacy which this country has been so good at. The noble Lady the Minister started off with what some people have referred to as tiara diplomacy.

His Majesty the King's visit to the United States, his speech to Congress, which was so well received the. His first state visit to Germany was well received, as was the return match last year. The role of the Royal family in diplomacy is important, but we need to go beyond willing out our royals on high level occasions and ensure that our diplomatic links are thorough and we need them even more. Since we left the European Union, precisely because we've lost many of those behind the scenes informal conversations.

For that reason, I would very much support the noble Lady. Baroness Royall calls for stronger bilateral relations. She talked about UK Spanish relations. I would talk if I were giving just a single speech would be on UK Germany relations, perhaps, but we need to be thinking about strengthening those bilateral relations and looking to strengthen our relations with Europe. Because, my Lords, if there was one message that came out most loudly and clearly from these benches, it was the importance of strengthening our relations with our European partners.

The partnership Bill is important, but it doesn't go far enough. My noble friend Baroness Suttie talked about the future, particularly for her great nephew, who is almost born but not yet with us. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford called on the government to be bold, to take a lead, I think, to take back the future. And there was a suggestion that it's not red tape that's holding the government back. It's red lines. Lord Hannay also talked very much about the importance of Europe.

Why does that matter so much? Precisely because we have got an unreliable, closest partner in the United States, the Falkland Islands. Held in some sort of disdain, perhaps by Donald Trump. It's not quite clear, but certainly question marks over the future of the Falkland Islands, which His Majesty's Government should not be tolerating. Questions over what we do with the Chagos Islands should be our decision, not subject to the vagaries of a president of the United States.

Questions of support for Ukraine. Again, our closest ally is also an unreliable partner, so it is vital that we strengthen our links with our European partners, particularly over foreign and defence policy. But my Lords, finally on defence, this is one area where there is a small amount of legislation in the Gracious Speech. The Armed Forces Bill is a carryover bill. It will be coming to your Lordships House and it is most welcome, particularly the enshrining of the Armed Forces Covenant.

As the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley pointed out, the commitment to forces accommodation is very welcome. But as so many noble Lords have pointed out, what is missing is the Defence Readiness Bill. What is missing is any sense of how His Majesty's Government proposes to have the national conversation that the SDR said was needed. The sort of conversation we need to offset or to ensure resilience against the hybrid threats that have been mentioned by Fiona Hill, one of the authors of the SDR, and my noble friend Baroness Harris of Richmond, in her contribution today.

Because if we are at war with Russia, it's not a hot war, but we are vulnerable. And yet, as so many noble Lords, including Baroness Antrobus, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie, Maddie, my noble friend, Baroness Harris, Baroness Hodgson Lord Naseby all talked about the need for resilience. Only one talked about national service and from these benches I'm not going to suggest we should have national service, but we certainly need a national conversation. We need to look for ways of finding resilience, of looking to the models of our Scandinavian friends in NATO.

But we also need to be bold to have leadership and to ensure that our defence expenditure rises not randomly, but in a targeted way. As the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle pointed out, increasing defence expenditure isn't just about making us safer. It's not just about improving our alliances. It actually has positive consequences at home. So, my Lords, what I'd really like to hear from the noble Lord, the Minister today is we heard a rumour of another £18 billion for defence.

Is that merely a rumour, or is His Majesty's Government going to come forward with an actual plan for increasing expenditure? Are we going to see the Defence Investment plan? I notice it's a Thursday afternoon, just before a recess recess. That's very often the time that the government slips things out. Might it appear in the next few days, or do we have to keep waiting? My Lords, we welcome the prospect of the Armed Forces Bill. We would much prefer also to have legislation that was going to bring forward a resilience Bill, and we hope that the government will keep

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leadership. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good. My Lords. Predictably, this.
17:54
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
>> Predictably, this. >> Has been a good debate with some. >> Excellent points. >> Punching through strongly. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Punching through strongly. And as my noble friend Lord Callanan indicated, I am going to focus on indicated, I am going to focus on defence. But before I do that, may I just say very briefly into foreign affairs? I listened and I looked around the chamber and I was not alone. With humility to the lucidity, the expertise, and the wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and to my noble friend Lord Lord Lamont of Lerwick.

And can I suggest that the noble Lord, the Minister, with no disrespect to his colleague, the noble Minister, the noble Lady Baroness Chapman, who introduced the debate so well. But can I suggest that this talented duo be brought in to the FCDO to help, to inform policy and to advise on how we disseminate UK influence in relation to Iran? Because I have not heard two people with more brains and more knowledge than that pair to whom I listened today.

My Lords, since we last debated a most gracious speech, the world has become demonstrably less safe. And not only has that been an unmistakeable theme emerging in the course of the debate today, but it was acknowledged by His Majesty in the first line of the gracious speech. And to give me a comparison point, I looked back to see what I said in 2024, and I said, my starting point is the government's recognition and their manifesto, that the first duty of any government is to keep the country safe.

So we have two immediate points of clarity and consensus. The government must keep the country safe. Our safety is more at risk than two years ago. Now, the noble law of the Minister knows that I hold him in high regard, as I do the noble Lady, the Minister, and I know that neither will question these two premises. But our situation is grave, and the government has completely failed to grasp the gravity of the situation. Indeed, we are less protected, less war ready than we were two years ago.

And who do I call on aid to support that view? While the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, frequently referred to during the course of the debate. Now, if the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, were remarkable only for having been His Majesty's keeper of swans in the upper reaches of the Thames, I don't suppose anyone would pay much attention to his opinion, but this man is the former Labour defence secretary, a former director general of NATO and the Prime Minister's appointed author of the Strategic Defence Review.

And when he accuses the government of corrosive complacency, do you know what I'd start to tremble is what I would do. The Prime Minister's own national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, is reported to have warned that Britain will struggle to maintain our position in the world

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stage without a significant increase In defence spending. And just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In defence spending. And just today there were contributions from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord stirrup, who who said weakness stirrup, who who said weakness makes war more, not less likely. Deterrence means capability plus political will, and the noble and gallant law. Lord Houghton of gallant law. Lord Houghton of Richmond expressed his regret that the narrative on defence, in his opinion, was neutered, and he was blunter when he said defence capability is in a mess. And the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, in a cogent and I would say, very plucky contribution, echoed the noble and gallant Lords.

Concerns about the lack of a defence readiness Bill, and I did notice that the normally dependably loyal. The noble Lord Lord Harris of Haringey also referred to that omission. So there are serious commentators here who are expressing concern. And the chilling reality is that despite the government's repeated claims echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, earlier this week in this very chamber, that they have instituted the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War.

The government has nothing to show for it. My Lords, any government can give the Mod more money. What matters is what they do with the money. What things does that money buy which better protect the country, make us more war ready and effectively deter the defence investment plan? Still nowhere to be seen despite promised last autumn. Intentions to spend mean absolutely diddly squat if it does not translate into actual spend of actual extra money, and they have not spent any extra money because they have not published their investment plan.

We're in Alice in Wonderland territory here, and every time Ministers have been quizzed, they simply respond by saying it will be published in due course and that the Mod are working flat out to get it finalised. Well, I have to say, if a nine month delay as a result of the government government working flat out, we are in some state is the reason I keep pressing the government on the defence Investment Plan is because the delay, the inertia has a real time effect.

Defence is in limbo. Military planners can't plan. Orders have dried up. Defence companies can't plan. Do not know how to seek investment. Do not know what to invest in. Procurement has been frozen and while the government prevaricates our adversaries become more brazen and our allies become more frustrated. Now, I hate to remind the noble Lord that the Minister of this. But when his party came to power, the last government left him a fully funded plan to immediately increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.

Now the government scrapped that plan. That was a privilege to do that, and it took them seven months to announce they would reach the same figure, but not until 2027. And they still cannot guarantee they will reach 3% within this Parliament. My Lords, the last government left Labour a fully funded 10 billion munitions plan to replenish our national munitions stock. And what did the government do? They scrapped it. Now, my Lords, governments, of course, have the right to determine their own priorities.

Nobody disputes that. But what is completely unacceptable is laying waste all before them and putting nothing in place of the devastation. May I say to the noble Lord, the Minister, I think we're past the point of words. We are urgently needing action, and the country is crying out for political leadership. And I am not going to make, you know, cheap jokes about the Prime Minister who is going through a most turbulent time. But the country is crying out for political leadership.

We must have somebody who substitutes dates for talk. A government which shows courage, faces up to the hard decisions and has the grit to take those hard decisions. My Lords, may I remind the House where starvation of defence funding has got us? Recently, Britain was unable to rapidly move resources to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East to protect our interests. British sovereign territory in Cyprus was left undefended. Our regional allies were left tearing their hair out at the pace of our glacial response.

Shipbuilding. We've all seen reports that the next type 26 construction slot in the Clyde may be awarded to the Norwegians, and that will further delay our own frigate building programme, which, given the Royal Navy, is now down to just five type 23 seconds, is not sustainable. Aircraft build in one of the few procurement decisions the government has announced, the nuclear capable F-35a and details remain sparse. In fact, I hesitate to even call it a procurement decision because as far as I can tell, no aircraft has actually been procured.

But we have a vague announcement we will purchase 12 F-35a fighters at the Public Accounts Committee last October. The committee said. In June 25th, the department announced it intends to purchase 12 f-35as to be both training aircraft and capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but only now. That's last October. Is the F-35 program senior responsible owner, talking to other partner nations about what is required to deliver the new capabilities, and the department has not produced any estimates of what these might cost.

So can the noble Lord, the Minister, clarify what stage this procurement is at, and how much will these planes cost? And can I fling in for his attention? A few more questions. When will we start construction of the type 49 destroyers to replace the type 45? And how many of these will the government commit to? What's the status of challenger three? When will the government set out the procurement timeline for the remaining 90 F-35bs and when we should be moving heaven and earth to support British industry? Why have the government not purchased UAVs such as octopus 100 and Hearne XL SUV that are made by British firms? Now is this dithering and delay is having significant ramifications on our defence industry.

Last week, sadly, Iran announced that they had been forced into administration and announcing the news, the company said, and I quote. The appointment follows a sustained period of pressure on the company's cash flow as a result of continued delays to the UK Defence Investment Plan. Now, this is a marvellous British company. It's produced a modular and technologically advanced jet that could act as a future fast jet trainer and aerobatic aircraft for the RAF. It could be a British designed and produced replacement for the Hawk trainers and the Red arrows, and yet forced into administration by the uncertainty created solely by the government's inaction.

Now the noble Lord, the Minister will be quick to say that there have been announcements and he will say, for example, the new medium helicopter and the RC 155. And these are welcome. But the Minister knows that this is all too little, too late. And if the government are struggling to conjure up a plan to increase defence spending while maintaining fiscal discipline, then perhaps I can help. My right hon. Friend, the Shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge, has a fully costed plan to establish a sovereign defence fund that would be utilised to increase spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, and this would be funded by repurposing 17 billion from the National Wealth Fund, reallocating R&D funds and cutting the welfare and net zero budgets.

Now, it is a clear proposal. People may disagree with it, but that's leadership. It's tough decisions involved to deliver that. But that's leadership. And that plan could be implemented tomorrow. So I just hope that the government is listening and that some food for thought is being provided to the Minister, as is perhaps my noble friend, Lord Howard, suggestion about if every government department were to accept a 1% self-imposed cut, monies could be produced. Now, of course, there would be a huge rammy about who is doing what and what the consequences were, but that is what political leadership is about and how you have to determine political priorities.

Now, of course, funding and equipment are one aspect of our defence readiness and resilience the other, and arguably the most important is our people, the brave men and women of our armed forces who sacrificed so much to keep us secure. And I know everyone in the House joins in paying tribute to them. And we would not have a military were it not for their sense of duty to king and country, which I have to say to you, Lordships is all the more painful for me to see the way that they are being treated.

Now, personally, I think it is quite wrong that those who have served and those who continue to serve should have to constantly look over their shoulders, awaiting the service of a legal writ. There are veterans from the Troubles who have faced decades of lawfare, dragged before investigations, hauled into courtrooms for the simple act of doing their duty for their country. And we now have the government's troubles bill, which, after the Supreme Court's recent judgement, can only be considered as wholly unnecessary.

The court has explicitly found that the Commission established by the Legacy Act of the Last government can carry out investigations that are compliant with articles two and three of the. So what purpose will the government's bill serve? My Lords, I feel the only outcome of repealing the legislation we passed in 2023 is that the fear, the gnawing anxiety, the uncertainty that our brave veterans have had to contend with, will be reopen once again as their lives are raked over, being asked to account for split second decisions they made 50 years ago serving their country.

So I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, how does the government justify going on with the Troubles bill? When I was in conclusion, and the Royal Artillery Monument in Hyde Park Corner that is inscribed the words, they will return never more, but their glory will abide forever. Will, my Lord, as I think we all owe it to those who have served King and Country so gallantly to ensure that their glory does indeed abide forever. And if we are to do that, then we have to reject the temptation of historical revisionism.

We have to support our veterans, have their backs, fund defence properly, robustly defend our nation's interests wherever they are challenged. Now, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his unstinting commitment, his passion for defence. But this government, my Lord, is failing these fundamental tests.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords. Thank you very much for the last remarks that in particular that Baroness Goldie made. Can I start by thanking everyone who has by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate and the discussion this afternoon into the early evening, and can I particularly thank the front bench particularly thank the front bench contributions from Lord Callanan, Baroness Goldie and Baroness Meyer, Baroness Goldie and Baroness Meyer, and also the opening remarks of of my noble friend, Baroness Chapman.

It is a huge discussion. And can I just say that I will not answer every question that has been posed to me, but given the importance of the debate, given the the times in which we live, I think it would be remiss if I didn't ask my officials with the Foreign Office officials to go through the debate and to write to everybody who's contributed to make sure that that we respond in full to everything and to place a copy of that in the library.

So I make that commitment to to everyone. I think that is an important part thing for us to do. Can I also join the the noble Baroness Baroness Goldie in in something I know we will all share in her paying tribute to our armed forces, the personnel, their families, and all of those, including those who served in the past. Our veterans as well. I think that is particularly important to to to do that as well, to always to, to continue to do that.

And I'm very pleased to do that. Can we also reflect on the tragic accident and death of of Bombardier Kiera
18:11
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Sullivan of the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery in Windsor recently, Horse Artillery in Windsor recently, which was a tragic event. And we remember her and of course, her family and friends as well. We come family and friends as well. We come together. My Lords, I really difficult time. And I say this because it's something I often say because it's something I often say there are differences and there are will be debates between us, both within and across the chamber, within and across the chamber, about some of the issues that we are confronting today.

But the important thing that should come out from this, and the important point that I make time and time again, because our deliberations are read and looked at by others who are our adversaries, is that there is nothing disunited about this Parliament, whether it be in this place or in the other place, about our determination to stand up for our country, about our determination to stand up for the values that we uphold and to work with our friends and partners and allies across Europe and indeed across the world to fulfil those.

And I think that's an important principle, an important point that we need to continue to make, because, as I say, as others will know from their own experiences and everybody across this chamber, what happens in this Parliament is repeated back to us. And so it is important that nobody should take the fact that we we appreciate the democracy in which we live, that that free and frank debate should be in any way construed as weakness on our part in the pursuit of that.

Let me come to some of the particular points, and Lord Callanan would be delighted. 40s it took for Lord Callanan to get to Chagos as we. So we we. We were all. I should have had a sweep on it, I. But but there we go. So. And and but he's quite right to. I did say that I would find a couple of things to him, and I'm going to read the answers because I did find them out for you, because I thought he might ask the.

Why did. Why did we deny the government. That is, deny humanitarian aid to the child on the island? Let me repeat what I said back to him specifically in answer to the questions that he made, the reporting of the incident that we've read is inaccurate. The British Indian Ocean Territory Administration has not refused humanitarian resupply, but also engaged in good faith and expedited discussions over the Easter period to facilitate a resupply mission, approving a permit covering approximately 140 categories of items, including several items not essential for humanitarian purposes.

Upon the resupply vessel's arrival in the territory, the Biot Customs and Immigration officers discovered aboard a number of items that were not on the manifest. Had those been prepared for the manifest, they would almost certainly have been permitted. So what was on the manifest was allowed in terms of the resettlement. As the noble Lord Lord Callanan pointed out, I have written to clarify those remarks. The proposed UK Mauritius agreement provides the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. Mauritius will be able to resettle the islands other than Diego Garcia, and it will be for Mauritius to set the terms of and manage any future resettlement.

So it may not satisfy the noble Lord, but it. It's the the answers in terms of the the landings on the individuals have landed on Paris Baroness Sater Atoll have done so illegally without a permit, and there's no legal right for anyone, regardless of their citizenship or heritage, to enter the islands without a valid permit. This. There is a temporary court order in place preventing vessels transporting further people onto the Chagos Islands. So I hope that starts to give some reassurance to the noble Lord.

In terms of answering the questions that I promised him I would do the next time I had the opportunity at the despatch box in which he particularly asked about. So moving, moving from some of the specifics to the more general point, the. Just to start and talk a little about the national conversation, I want to say that. And so let's be clear about this so that you know who to hold to account in terms of the Ministry of Defence, I take can't do the whole of government.

I have now been given responsibility for the national conversation with that. So I just I say that to you. So I'm I'm all for accountability. I will not shy away from it. But that's where we are with it. And it's quite right that Lord Stirrup very. And and Lord Houghton and others raised the whole point along with Baroness Harris Baroness Royall, Baroness Antrobus Lord Naseby, Baroness Rothesay, Lord Forbes Lord John, Lord Hannan, Baroness Morris. As I said, Lord Harris, my noble friend and others, the national conversation is crucial, so I'll come to defence spending and I'll come to some of the others about defence, investment plan and so on in a moment.

But the national conversation is absolutely crucial, which is why so many noble Lords have actually raised the issue for it. There is a discussion which we're having in government now about how that starts, and it will start soon, but what that national conversation should be about, what it is the script is that we take to the British people to discuss with them to agree what that should be. And the noble Baroness Baroness Goldie and others are right. We will ask other people about their views on on that.

We will take advice on it. I will take advice on it so that we get an agreed way of speaking to the British public, which is inclusive, which lays out the threat without being alarmist and takes us forward. And that's what we're going to do with respect to to the national conversation. It's absolutely crucial that we that we that we actually do that. And I can't remember who it was, but somebody said they weren't necessarily frightened of Russian paratroopers arriving in their particular vicinity.

But in the nature of the the, the conflicts that we face now, we are in the era of cyber, of grey warfare, of threats to underwater cables, all the things that noble Lords will know in here. And in that sense, we are already threatened. We are already being attacked in terms of that type of new type of, of warfare in that sense. And it's for all of us that we need to do that. And of course, that requires resilience. What does that mean for us in terms of protecting our own infrastructure, protecting our own cyberspace? What should we ask our population to actually be able to provide for themselves on an individual family basis to do all of that? And my noble friend Baroness Rafferty mentioned the point about defence medical.

Again, we need to have that that whole of society approach, not just defence, but what we do in terms of the medical provision, local authorities, all of those sorts of things. Each and every one of you in here would say would become become really important. And let me say on spending, I mean, I'll come to the bit in a minute and I can't and won't satisfy people in here about spending all the defence investment plan. But I do think, and it's been made a point that's been made a number of times in here, that if we are asking our population to actually that we require more money to be spent on defence, not on this, not on that, not on this, not on that.

We require a conversation with people to say the prioritisation of spending for this government or any government will have to change to a certain extent with respect to defence. We all mean and perhaps mean less on this to be spent. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to have that conversation and bring people with us to do that. Yeah. And that is a no. Government can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that is a no. Government can shy away from that or move away from that. And there will be differences of view. Your families differences of view. Your families may be different to mine. We have sometimes good discussions in my own family about this, and that's own family about this, and that's perfectly proper thing to actually do, but that is something that we will have to take forward, how we will have to take forward, how we build that resilience and so on.

And I understand the points that have been made about Defence Readiness Bill, and is being prepared at the moment. Can I move on and say another general topic topic was Soft Power Lord Lamont. Lord Howard and many others made the whole point about the importance of of, of diplomacy. There can be no doubt. Of course, it matters how many tanks you've got, how many ships you've got, how many aircraft you've got, how many submarines you've got. But one thing this country has that sometimes we do not give ourselves enough credit for is our ability to influence across Europe and across the globe, through our relationships is enormous.

It does not, in my view, when I go to other. And people travel all over the world in here, when I go there, they want. The UK stood beside them and it's a Foreign Office stroke MoD debate and we will no Lord Ahmad will know having a British ambassador in a foreign embassy somewhere stood with a British military personnel going to discuss a particular problem, a particular conflict, a particular crisis, something that needs to be done, that military to military, ambassador, to ambassador, cooperation and network is fundamental to the architecture that we have across the world.

And nation after nation asks for that, and I'll tell you why I think they ask for it, is the involvement of the British military, particularly with the ambassador, gives a confidence and a legitimacy, a legitimacy and a status to a particular government who is seeking to do something to resolve the conflict in their in their own area, that integrated global defence network, which we run from the Mod, but we do, in partnership with our Foreign Office colleagues, is fundamental, fundamental. And we need to build and to develop that on overseas global assistance that we may.

There have been difficult decisions that are made. The only point I would make, and I think that our population needs to hear at current prices in 2627, we're still spending £10 billion on overseas development assistance. That will give you the figures, because it does go down. The figures I've got does go down next year, and I appreciate that. So I'm not saying it doesn't. It goes down. It's still 8.9 billion. And then the year after in 2829 on these figures I've got goes back up again to 9.4.

Now we can say it should never have been reduced, but that is significant sums of money that are still being spent by our government, our country to deliver certain things. And if you look at particular things which I lifted out, the British World Service, the BBC World Service is receiving additional grants and the British Council grant in aid is increasing as well. So I think, you know, we as well as the. And I appreciate the difficulties and the points that people have made. All I'm saying is, alongside that, we are still doing things on the defence investment plan.

I can't really add much further to the points that I've made in the past. I know Baroness Susie Lord Houghton, Lord Tope, Tugendhat, Lord Morgan, Lord Hinsley, many others may made the points. Lord Lee and someone made the Points and Lord Dannatt and others. And again Lord Lord Stirrup and and Lord Houghton have made the point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Defence Investment plan. Could he tell us whether it's likely to be published during the premiership of the present Prime Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the present Prime Minister? Well, no, I you know, I just can't add anything further to what to what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that defensive investment plan is that defensive investment plan will come forward and lay out some of the things, and that will be related to, obviously, the spending to which to which we decide on the UK, EU relationship. The government's position is quite clear. We're the. We've laid out about the debate about rejoining the the the EU, which some I know you know, the Liberal Democrat benches will want at some point to lay out.

We should rejoin. As I understand it, our position is. It would be futile and silly not to say we should have a close relationship. As Baroness Altmann points out, of course we should have a close relationship with Europe. It doesn't mean we're going to rejoin the EU, but I mean to to have a relationship with the Europe, to defend Europe, to work with Europe in terms of economic prosperity, in terms of military assistance to each other. Given the fact that NATO is the fundamental defensive alliance for ourselves, of course it would do that.

And so and the the point was, was was made by Baroness Royall about bilateral relationships. That's why we've signed an agreement with France. That's why we signed an agreement with Germany. I mean, the noble Lords, whose name I've forgotten, sat next to Lord Naseby was talking about Germany. That's why we've we've whilst why we've established an agreed a bilateral treaty with Germany, recognising the importance of that relationship also with Poland, also with other countries. That's why we leave.

Jeff. All of those sorts of things. We have those relationships with Europe and we will develop those and strengthen those. But we will do it in a way which doesn't reopen and get us into a sterile argument about arguing about whether we join the EU or not, whether we respecting the referendum when we're saying actually what we're doing and what we're saying is that we need that close and proper relationship on the Middle East. Of course, I think the the way and it's been supported by, by by His Majesty's opposition on the Middle East, some of these things are.

And Lord Ahmad now is because he asked me specifically about diplomacy. And again, the point Lord Howard has made. We. Of course, we carry on about about legitimate about negotiation and diplomacy. That's why Baroness Chapman went to Israel and Gaza. I think I'm right in saying last year, that's why she met with the Egyptian again. Specifically, the noble Lord asked about meeting the Egyptian foreign Minister. Baroness Chapman met him yesterday. That's why, in terms of the Middle East, I have met every single week defence attachés and ambassadors from the Middle East to talk about the supply of defence equipment and what we are doing to try to support them in defensive posture with respect to the Iran conflicts, in terms of the Iranian war.

And so we've done all of that. And so in answer to to many of the points that people made, we, of course, retain that influence. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot. Anti-Semitism is an absolute national disgrace. Yeah. It's a national to have what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a national to have what we've had happen is not is not something awful. It is a national stain on this country. And we must stain on this country. And we must do all we can to ensure that the vast majority of people who have that view, that we ensure that that's the view that's heard loud and clear by by the community. Of and clear by by the community. Of course, Israel remains important to us. Of course, in answer to Lord Pannick question, of course, Israel remains important to us.

But as my friend Lord Dubs and others have said and many have said as well in this chamber, we will criticise that government where we think they are wrong as well. And there's nothing there's nothing contradictory in that. The US criticises us, we criticise the US, but we we value Israel, but we are not going to stand aside if we think they've done something wrong. And indeed another noble Lord or Baroness made the point that that happens indeed in the Knesset, that people will hold.

Hold them to account as well, I think I think it was Lord Callanan asked the point about Palestine. I think recognising Palestine is an important step. It was a way of saying we want to move the negotiations and discussions forward. It doesn't in our in any way undermine the commitment of the government to the two state solution. Of course, there should be a viable, a strong Israel. But we also think alongside that, there needs to be a strong and viable Palestine.

And the only way of achieving that, however frustrating, however demanding, however we get, sometimes it will never happen. It won't work. We can't do it. The discussions and negotiations will happen. And when you look back again, somebody mentioned the how near we were a few years ago to an agreement, how near we were. And it just it fell at one of the last hurdles. But we need to recapture that optimism and, and hope for the future. Lord Houghton's point about the noble that sometimes we have to have hope with these things to take this forward.

On the point about genocide, let me just read again the point Lord Lee made about genocide. The government's position is exactly the same. It's been the same for years, just on the genocide point. The UK's long standing policy is any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for the. For a competent national or international court. After consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process, rather than for governments or non judicial bodies.

And that's the the point that's that's been that been with with that. But I couldn't agree more with Lord Lee's point. Just to go back to start where I finished on this about anti-Semitism, Semitism and and what a disgrace that is. And let me think about the invite to the particular event. That's if that's the appropriate word that that he mentioned. Can I mention also about Pakistan, again, I think, and the role that Pakistan has played with respect to Iran. And actually, if you look at the military to military cooperation there, without saying too much, that helps enormously with respect to all of that, can I just say on Sudan, because you always worry that it's an absolute disgrace what's happening in Sudan.

We are going to conference after conference, trying to ensure Baroness Finlay that we move forward with respect to that and try and deal with some of the the crisis that's taking place on Cyprus. I'm very happy. Lord Sharkey if you want to meet with respect to to Cyprus and to do that, can I just take the point of saying we've been delighted with the cooperation and support that we've had in Cyprus in terms of of what's been going on with respect to that. Lord Alton pointed out the point not only with China, but Russia, and the need for us to respond to to that.

And he's quite right. The the axis of Iran, North Korea, Russia, China is a really important thing for us to to think about and to consider and how we respond to that. And his contributions in, in this chamber are enormously helpful of holding the government to account and remind us of the responsibility that we have towards that. Can I just say to Lord Campbell-Savours, as somebody else has made the point, it's a it's an absolute delight that he can say what he says to all of us, most of whom most of us disagree with him.

But I do make the point again, that much of what we are doing is to defend the right of people like Lord Campbell-Savours, to actually say what they think without fear from the police or from. And I think it's not trying to be it's not a smart argument or a sarcastic argument, but I think it is a really important argument. And as somebody I think it was John Stuart Mill from my university days said, you must always remember that the opinion of one is as important as the opinion of a majority in terms of being respected and listened to.

And I think sometimes when you look back, if you look back over the years, you sometimes find that a minority opinion at a particular time, you roll it forward 50 years and it becomes a majority opinion. So I do think that that we should reflect on all of that. If I just abuse my privilege just for another minute or two. Baroness Royall Baroness Neville-Jones Baroness. I can't read my own writing. I'm sorry. And but the Lord wrote Meghan and son made the impulse.

Let's just be clear about this. The. Sorry if I've got it wrong. The the. The US UK relationship is a fundamental strategic alliance which remains hugely important to this country and hugely important to the global alliances that we have. It's hugely important to NATO and it's hugely important to ensuring that we continue with the efforts that that we do, and we will continue to work hard with that, however difficult and challenging that may be at times, because the bigger strategic point is to ensure that NATO retains its credibility and retains its importance, and we will continue to do that.

Baroness Kingsmill mentioned the Defence Readiness Bill, Lord MacDonald, again, about meeting strategic threats requiring political stability, and all of those sorts of things are important, and we continue to implement the Strategic Defence Defence Review. As I say, if I have forgotten and missed out certain points that people have made, I apologise for that, but we will go through that and return to it. But let me just finish with where I started and say this once again, the influence of our country is enormous.

Across Europe and across the world. Europe wants to stand in with them. Many parts and other parts of the world want us standing, standing with them as well. We have to have a confidence and a belief that whatever the challenges, we will in due course, publish the defence Investment plan. We will come to spending decisions which which may please or not please different people. But at the end of the day, what is significantly important is that all of us are united in the determination to ensure that we play our proper, our proper place in the in the world, and that we achieve what we all want to get to do, which is the defence of democracy, human rights and freedom in our own country, in our own continent and across the world.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all of us are united in that. Yeah. Understanding the question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Understanding the question is that a Humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows. Most gracious sovereign, we, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords, spiritual and temporal in Parliament, assembled, temporal in Parliament, assembled, beg leave to thank your Majesty for the most gracious speech which your Majesty addressed to both Houses of Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament, as many are of that opinion will say, content Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Nemone Descension day.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the house. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page