Relations with Europe

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for securing this debate. Our relations with Europe matter very much indeed, as has already been indicated. I have always described myself as a Euro-realist, not a Eurosceptic. This means being pragmatic, not ideological, and certainly not dogmatic—well, no more than my innate bossy disposition directs.

There are obvious and clear benefits to the United Kingdom in having a positive relationship with Europe, with the caveat that we do not enter into any arrangement that compromises our sovereignty. That stance is neither remarkable nor objectionable. It is particularly relevant where defence is concerned. We should seek strong bilateral relationships with individual European states—we have many of these already—and we should seek an engaged but vigilant approach to the EU.

My party has a solid record on this approach. Under a Conservative Government, the UK entered into defence partnerships with Italy, in the form of the GCAP programme, and with France in the Lancaster House treaties. In 2014, we led the establishment of the Joint Expeditionary Force, a defence partnership between the UK and several other EU and EEA member states.

The UK has been one of the most steadfast supporters of Ukraine, and on this we have closely co-operated with the EU very constructively. Russia’s brazen attack on a sovereign European neighbour united us around a common cause and spurred joint action. We have worked closely with the EU on sanctions, co-ordinating the provision of lethal support and advising on military training.

Along with the UK’s continuing role as a leader of NATO, such partnerships and organisations provide a crucial forum for co-operation and engagement on defence and security matters. Co-operation and engagement are the watchwords. This is precisely the point. The unity implicit within co-operation should not be conflated with uniformity, and engagement should not be conflated with a template of homogenous response—in other words, “It is this way or no way”. It is of the utmost importance that any interactions we have with our partners, with Europe and with the EU, must carefully take account of the future operational independence of UK defence. That is sacrosanct.

The Government propose a UK-EU security pact, and the Defence Secretary has spoken of negotiating a “bespoke relationship” that may see the UK joining as a third-party participant in the EU’s common security and defence policy. If this proposed security pact risks tying the UK into restrictive arrangements which compromise our operational defence independence or our sovereign national security decision-making, it should be rejected.

Under the current arrangements, we have been able to work alongside our European and EU partners in a highly effective manner. Why seek to fix something which clearly is not broken? Why court risk? I hope that, going forward, the Government will continue our legacy of defence engagement and leadership, but, in seeking a closer relationship with Europe and the EU, I counsel caution. There are opportunities that can be responsibly and productively pursued, but there are also areas of clear risk, which I would advise the Government to avoid.

Strategic Defence Review

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for facilitating this debate. I know he is committed to a viable, lethal and effective defence capability to protect the UK and to contribute to global security. Equally, I am in no doubt that he wishes to benefit from a full spectrum of opinion to inform his review. With the experience in your Lordships’ House on defence issues across all Benches so impressively evident this afternoon, I hope this debate will be regarded as an authoritative source of ideas and suggestions: many excellent ones have been advanced. I echo the important point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the extent, within this House, of consensus on defence matters.

My honourable colleague James Cartlidge, on behalf of the Official Opposition, has responded to the SDR in a manner which I hope the noble Lord has found constructive and helpful. I do not propose to read out that response ad longum, but rather to shape a perspective around it to explain why my party has focused on the particular issues which we have identified. For those interested, the response can be found online and I shall provide Hansard with the link.

My starting point is defence spend. Whatever the back office number crunchers may think, defence spend is not some financial fair-weather option, where you spend when you can and deliver biting financial cuts when you cannot. A defence capability of the magnitude of the United Kingdom’s requires core funding to ensure both maintenance of that capability and an ability to plan strategically. If the Government cannot guarantee that, they might as well walk away from having any meaningful capability at all. It will not have escaped the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that resource has been a recurring feature of this afternoon’s debate, notably and powerfully from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard.

The previous Government set out a clear and fully funded pathway to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030. This Government have said repeatedly that they are committed to 2.5%, but not when. So why am I and so many others concerned? There has been an implied understanding that we could anticipate clarification of the “when” in the imminent Budget Statement. Regrettably, just this week, the Prime Minister has created a new doubt. In response to a question from my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition in the other place, who, reminding the PM of his previous indication that a trajectory would be set out in the coming fiscal event, asked if he would commit to that timetable. He got the following answer:

“In relation to defence spending, let me recommit to increasing it to 2.5%. We will set out our plans in due course”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/10/24; col. 26.]


This ambiguity and uncertainty at this late stage is unacceptable and dangerous. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, himself acknowledged, this is a British effort. We are actually controlling this show, so my plea to the noble Lord is this: if he has any apprehension or doubt at all that, with a Budget Statement imminent, either No. 10, the Treasury or both have been nobbled by the number crunchers and the “when” is to remain hanging in the air then he needs to get on his Islay walking boots, get round to the Treasury, get round to No. 10 and deliver a kicking.

Why is this so important? It is because it begins and ends with threat. Threat is multifaceted, but the primary threat right now is pure adversary European warfare, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, cogently described. That demands a shift to an urgent and immediate preparedness disposition. That is why we must deliver certainty now on the resource that defence requires. The strategic defence review must be threat-based. The threat is there now: it is all around us, it is dynamic and our resource response has to match that. Of course I accept that the defence budget is not the noble Lord’s responsibility, but there can be no more powerful an advocate than him. I entreat him to use his influence with the Government, as I entreat the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to use his, to ensure that this uncertainty is dispelled.

The 2.5% by 2030 set out by the previous Government would have enabled an initial mobilisation of the war-ready approach and ensured stability for major existing programmes, such as GCAP and nuclear, while providing funding to enhance the lethality and survivability of our existing and imminent forces. However, coming good on the 2.5% is not enough to achieve a greater war readiness without also urgent reform within the MoD to create a less risk-averse department, able to procure at pace.

Some may greet this observation with a yawn and say, “Oh, we have heard all that before. Successive Governments have all talked about reform and what changes?”. I credit the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with much greater discernment and acuity, because he knows, as he said, that the MoD of 2024 is unrecognisable from the MoD of the 1990s, and he knows why. The changing face of threat has transformed dramatically, as my noble friend Lord Howell described. We have seen the advances in technology. With the war in Ukraine, we know what a land-based conflict looks like in the 21st century, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, described. Lastly, and arguably most importantly, it is because the MoD itself has begun that reform. On acquisition and procurement, the MoD had become subsumed in a stifling culture of risk aversion, and that atrophy feeds into strategic outlook and is inimical to a culture of war readiness—the noble Lord, Lord West, made that point well.

There needed to be a distinction between military risk and peacetime risks, which predominantly exist in the civil domain. That process had already begun under the last Government, and the noble Lord does not need me to tell him that there is an open door in the MoD for building on what has been achieved and rolling out that change in culture. If resource cannot deliver without reform, reform is limp without resource. Of course, I wish the noble Lord well with the review—he knows that—and I hope that what he has heard today will help him to shape it, but I urge him to put on these walking boots.

Ministry of Defence: Expenditure

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have made any decisions to pause expenditure on Ministry of Defence programmes; and, if so, on which programmes.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

Work continues on our programmes within existing allocated funding as the strategic review progresses. This review will consider the threats Britain faces, the capabilities needed to meet them, the state of the UK Armed Forces and the resources available. It will set out a deliverable and affordable plan for defence.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment, and welcome him to the Front Bench. My Question was predicated on an already stretched defence budget and government opaqueness about the future. The commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP is very welcome, but we do not know when—it is jam for an uncertain tomorrow. The Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said to this Chamber on Tuesday evening, referring to the strategic defence review, expected to report early next year, that it

“will inform how the amount is reached”.—[Official Report, 23/7/24; col. 424.]

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is deserving of much admiration, but his expertise is defence, not macroeconomics and certainly not Treasury fiscal wizardry. This is the Government’s most important responsibility; we have to stop pussyfooting around. How can there be any informed strategic defence review when the chief reviewer has not been told what the budget he is working on is?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome to the post; it is an honour to follow her, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Minto. We have made a clear commitment to 2.5%, and the timetable for that will be announced at a future fiscal event. Alongside that, as the noble Baroness will know, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is conducting the review. As we think is important, the noble Lord will come forward with the capabilities needed to meet the threats of the future, and then we will know what we should be spending the money on, rather than just flying blind, without any idea as to the threats we will face and the capabilities needed to meet them.

King’s Speech

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege and an unexpected pleasure to find myself at the Dispatch Box opening this debate for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in this House. Just when I thought I might acquire a cat, grow roses and take up knitting, it seems that my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip had other ideas. My noble friend Lord Minto is unavailable today—hence this cameo appearance.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, on their ministerial appointments and warmly welcome them to the Government Front Bench. I wish them both well. When I was a Defence Minister, I greatly respected the noble Lord; he is a man of principle and integrity who believes passionately in our defence and security. I found him constructive and pragmatic. In opposition, I and my colleagues will seek to emulate that good example.

I also pay tribute to former Defence Secretaries of State Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps. Ben was a fearless advocate for the MoD and its people, military and civilian, and he won admiration across the political spectrum for his leadership, which Grant Shapps prosecuted with energy. With the MoD working in tandem with my noble friends Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, the former Foreign Secretary, and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—he is sitting behind me—as Minister of State at the FCDO, two hugely respected global politicians, it constituted a very impressive defence and diplomatic presence on the global stage for the United Kingdom. It paid dividends and I thank them. In restaurant parlance, that deals with the amuse-bouche. Let me now get into the menu.

There has been a change of Government, but the complexity and intensity of the threats we face remain the same. Looking at the starters, I hope that the Government will still find some relevance in the integrated review and the integrated review refresh. Of course, the Government, under Britain Reconnected, may want to place their own emphasis on aspects of the IR, but I suggest that tearing it up would be unwise. I also gently suggest, in relation to defence and foreign affairs, Britain is already very well connected, and the Ministers to whom I referred were some of the prime connectors.

We led the charge to support Ukraine in defending herself against President Putin’s illegal invasion. We worked tirelessly with international partners to maximise the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, while supporting negotiations to secure the release of the Israeli hostages. Having listened to the Minister, I give all encouragement to the Government’s advocacy and interventions to try to improve that desperately worrying situation. We produced a groundbreaking White Paper on international development, which drew in the support of all political parties, to tackle global poverty. We have been a pivotal supporter of NATO. We have responded to the tensions and threat to maritime passage in the Red Sea, and we have made the Indo-Pacific tilt a reality with combined diplomatic and defence activity. That is all existing, rock-solid connection, and these Benches will support all endeavours by the new Government to maintain and build on that global connection. The Government are right to recognise the importance of these connections. It is nurturing these relationships that gives us influence.

Having dealt with the starters, let us now look at the rest of the menu. In foreign affairs, the Labour manifesto seeks to reset the UK-EU relationship. Within the important constraints of UK sovereignty, I think there is scope to develop new opportunities with the EU. The caveat must be to guard against being drawn into arrangements which, if they do not deliver, prove very sticky when we try to extricate ourselves. Pragmatism and a weather-eye should be the watchwords. They are dishes with a tasty potential, but they could turn indigestible.

The new Government’s aspirations—to tackle corruption and money laundering, be fully committed to AUKUS, conduct an audit of the UK-China relationship and protect the overseas territories’ and Crown dependencies’ sovereignty—all deserve support. That is solid fare, but these dishes need to be kept bubbling in the cooker, and we on these Benches will be checking the temperature.

Much more problematic are the various ambitions under the manifesto commitments of championing UK prosperity, climate leadership, strengthening diplomacy and modernising international development. We are into à la carte territory here. The dishes sound exotic, perhaps invitingly tasty, but without knowing the ingredients, they are just a culinary wish list, not dishes ready to serve. We will need much more detail. In that quest, can the Minister tell us, when he winds up, whether the previous Government’s White Paper on international development will contribute to the new Government’s objectives? On climate leadership, will the Government explain what a “clean power alliance” is? Who is to be in it, and for what purpose? When will it deliver whatever it is meant to deliver?

I now turn to defence. This is where the menu is certainly à la carte—indeed, some of the dishes may be unknown even to the chef. As to the effect on the digestive system, let me explore. My starting point is the Government’s recognition in their manifesto that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. I wholeheartedly agree. However, from the primary obligation, onerous and inescapable consequences follow. I welcome the Government’s steadfast commitment to continue supporting Ukraine, their unshakeable commitment to NATO, their absolute commitment to our nuclear deterrent, their explicit commitment to AUKUS and the very welcome clarification and confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in this House on Tuesday, that the Global Combat Air Programme will proceed. On that last matter, given the comments made earlier in the House at Oral Questions, can we nail this down? Is the relative statutory instrument coming before the House next week? This is a rich and sumptuous fare, and these Benches will support all of it.

A stand-alone item on the menu is the strategic defence review. I accept that any incoming Government will want to stocktake. The appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, whom I am pleased to see in his place, is reassuring. He is hugely respected, and his authority and expertise will bring substance to the review. However, even before he begins his work, he finds smoke pouring out of the kitchen. His boundary for the review is

“within the trajectory to 2.5%”—

I presume that is a reference to GDP, although the terms of reference do not actually say that. A trajectory normally means the most direct route from point A to point B. At the moment, there is no point A. If there is no point A, where is point B to be found? This is, frankly, farcical. The Government now need to commit to a start point for spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. If that really is the first duty of this Government, as their manifesto proclaims, they need to put their money where their mouth is.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but this clarity is so important and so critical to our global credibility, not least within NATO, that it must be addressed now. At least then the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will have a clearer view of the kitchen. Will the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in responding to this debate, if he cannot provide a specific road map to 2.5%, at least acknowledge the cogency of the concerns that I am articulating, which are to be found not only in this Chamber but more broadly? Even with that clarity of 2.5%, the budget will be severely stretched to combat the rising threats that the manifesto identifies. Quite simply, if the Government will not provide that clarity, we are right off the menu and reaching for bottles of Gaviscon.

Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that we have arrived at the desserts. To finish on an optimistic note, I have included some dishes of my own. I referred earlier to the Indo-Pacific tilt. The manifesto was silent on this, apart from an audit of the UK-China relationship, and I do not recall it featuring in the King’s gracious Speech. However, I was very relieved to learn that, in a recent briefing to the media, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, certainly identified what he described as a “deadly quartet of nations”—China, Iran, Russia and North Korea—from which I infer and assume the Indo-Pacific region will be covered in the SDR.

When I was a Defence Minister, one of the most productive parts of the job was increasingly working in tandem with my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, my counterpart in the FCDO. The FCDO and the MoD can collaborate to great mutual benefit, and that closer relationship is a way forward. My queen of puddings is that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, who is also a highly respected Member of this House, will push forward that collaboration. Within the MoD, I found my most effective work abroad was born out of excellent defence attachés working closely with their FCDO counterparts in the host countries. My crêpes Suzette is that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, should be given the same opportunities that I received and that he will fight the corner of the defence attachés.

In relation to defence and foreign affairs, there is much which unites the Government and these Benches. The Minister referred to common sense and humanity—I agree, and I would add “expediency”. The Pole Star of these Benches will always be the national interest: where we have questions, we shall ask them; where we have concerns, we shall raise them; if we have criticisms, we shall make them, but we shall do so always to support and protect the national interest. And if we can provide constructive help to the Government, we shall willingly give it.