King’s Speech

Baroness Ashton of Upholland Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate. This week, as the right reverend Prelate has just referenced, some of our most experienced former military chiefs wrote:

“When crises are left unaddressed, they do not stay distant for long”.


One of the most important lessons in foreign and security policy that I learned in my years as the EU foreign policy chief was the connection between what we call the three Ds: 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 “lie not at sea but on the land”. Military leaders pushed for greater efforts to rebuild Somalia, to provide alternatives to teenage boys persuaded into piracy on the promise of $10,000 if they succeeded in capturing a vessel, and to engage in more effective diplomacy to get others to support our military and civilian missions. Their determined, highly effective military operations could ultimately succeed only 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 Ds are not interchangeable but part of the same comprehensive approach.

We cannot spend what we do not have, and streamlining, 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, we need look no further than the Strait 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 Araghchi, the Foreign Minister, though they are probably now more constrained by hardliners who stand beside them or behind them. They have some experience, but so do we. I often describe the Iran deal as a jigsaw puzzle. Put together, it creates a picture. In 2015 the picture showed that we could be confident that Iran was not building a bomb. It was not. The picture was made up of pieces covering different parts of the deal, including 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 reasons for the war, and therefore the problems to be addressed, seem to fluctuate—getting rid of an oppressive leadership, freeing the people, continuing to degrade and dispose of any nuclear weapons capability, preventing support to proxies, or some version of all of these. The vital first jigsaw puzzle piece, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which requires detailed, hard negotiation, does not of itself settle any of these underlying issues.

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, the Gulf countries, Turkey, India, China and others. I worked with six nations on behalf of the United Nations, but I engaged with 20 more in pursuit of the agreement. There is much we could offer, so perhaps he can tell your Lordships’ House what exactly we are doing.

Finally, as my noble friend the Minister said, there is nothing that we can deal with alone. Foreign policy is domestic, not remote. We cannot keep people safe, offer opportunities or grow our economy without collaboration. The closer the collaboration with 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 am not arguing here for rejoining the EU, but perhaps the Government could be a little more careful in talking about our red lines as though they somehow will prevent what I see as a tidal wave of anger and resentment at being let down in so many communities. People want to see better living standards; that is impossible without better economic growth. They want to see a better life. I hope that my noble friends will take these comments in the spirit of willing them on in the tough decisions that lie ahead. The Government need to be as clear as they can be why foreign policy is about domestic issues and why engaging and showing leadership in taking tough decisions is more vital than ever.

Ukraine

Baroness Ashton of Upholland Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, as he makes his first intervention in your Lordships’ debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, suggested, the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, has aptly shown that we can look forward to rich contributions from a distinguished diplomatic career.

I was fortunate enough to work with the noble Lord in Brussels, London and a little bit in Moscow. I well recall bringing the P5+1 to Moscow as part of our negotiations with Iran, and the noble Lord hosting senior representatives from France, Germany, the US and China to dinner in the embassy. It is not an everyday occurrence, said the noble Lord, wryly, at the time. They were different times, of course—different circumstances—but a demonstration of the adaptability of the noble Lord in all circumstances. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in wishing him well in his career in your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to the opportunity to hear him enriching our debates in the future.

I thank my noble friend for instigating this debate. I am reminded that this war is well over a decade old. In the autumn of 2013, President Yanukovych of Ukraine walked across the lobby of a hotel in Vilnius and told me that he could not sign an agreement that had been seven years in the making, had been initialled and had brought together most of the European leaders in celebration of its signing. He told me then that he could not sign because of pressure from Moscow.

Standing in Maidan in Kyiv in November 2013, in the deep cold of winter, I watched thousands of people with their European banners demand that the promise made of a stronger and deeper relationship with Europe be fulfilled. Their passion was reflected in similar demonstrations all across the country. I spent many hours with the then President, trying to persuade him; more hours with politicians and representatives from across Ukraine, trying to help solve problems that we know now were just beginning; and, of course, a great deal of time with the Russian Foreign Minister and with President Putin.

From that time, I was aware that President Putin was driven by that combination of history and legacy. His desire to recreate what he perceives as Russia’s glory in empire is combined with the refusal to be the leader—as the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, mentioned in the context of President Yeltsin—who, in his mind, loses Ukraine. Whatever the fallacy of this situation, it is important to understand that, as we consider support for Ukraine not just now but into its future.

We must remain steadfast, as other noble Lords have said. Visits to Ukraine before this phase of the war broke out and broke cover in 2022 revealed that people in Ukraine often felt forgotten. People killed by missile strikes in the Donbass while I was there seemed barely to merit responses in capitals across the world. It felt to me as I left in early 2020 that this cold conflict could fast become frozen.

I remind noble Lords, too, that the conflict in Georgia remains in such a state. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, held by Russia, with barbed wire separating them from the rest of their country, remind us too that in any final resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, we have unfinished business elsewhere.

Ukraine does not take our support for granted, of course. Meeting with colleagues and friends recently in Warsaw, I was conscious of their determination and steadfast nature and of their gratitude to us. I look across this House, at a time when politics seems to thrive on division and anger, and see a united House on this issue—long may that remain. But I also see, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said of her friends and colleagues, the tiredness and anxiety of my friends, who need to know that we will stay with them. I commend the Prime Minister and the ministerial team, including my noble friends, on their strong leadership.

It will one day not only be about the supply of weapons, training of soldiers and coalition of the willing—it will be about how we support Ukraine in resolution of the conflict and stay with this country into the future. Wars end with ragged edges, not with straight lines, with challenges and with dangers. As we help build Ukraine’s future, democratic and free, there is always the risk that conflict will be renewed without the safeguards to prevent it.

What will make the difference is how far the support of the willing is prepared to go. I remember well in negotiations with countries such as Iran, or with Russia itself, that I was conscious that those who sat opposite me in negotiation did not look just at me but at who stood behind me. We must stand squarely behind Ukraine. Ukraine will determine its own future, but those who look from the opposite side at it should see in the role directly behind it no turning away from the steadfast, determined support. For as long as it takes, we must give Ukraine strength in war and strength in peace.