King’s Speech

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate on the gracious Speech and to follow the noble Lord. I must congratulate him on his collection of sanctions.

We live in a fragile world in which democracies and rights are being threatened. Currently, there are 116 million displaced people in the world. 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 their troops on our continent are decreasing. The other key conference is on the EU reset. I associate myself wholeheartedly with everything that my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland said on that.

Bilateral relationships are of the utmost importance. I am delighted to serve as co-chair of the British-Spanish Tertulias, which was established in the 1980s when Spain joined the European Union. This strengthens 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 our political systems are increasingly afflicted by populism.

There are also notable policy differences—for example, on immigration, on which 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 Chevening scholarships. Will my noble friend the Minister say how this visa brake, which denies opportunity to individuals amid humanitarian crises, is consistent with the Government’s stated commitment to support fragile and conflict-affected states, and particularly their focus on women and girls? Scholarships are not only transformative for brilliant students but are 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 for efficiency to deliver value for money, but I am 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. 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. I too 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 only 0.24% will be spent internationally. It is imperative to increase defence 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 to 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 OCHA.

I am proud of the Prime Minister’s global leadership on Ukraine, including the initiative to establish the coalition of the willing, which is vital for not only Ukraine but the security of our country and our continent. I commend his leadership on Iran in resisting calls for engagement advanced by the Opposition, President Trump and his henchman 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 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 at 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, I support an increase in defence expenditure. I am rather dismayed that the national conversation proposed in the strategic defence review, which is essential, has not yet been forthcoming. It is urgent and it is one of the few defence initiatives that can be delivered at little or no cost. I am sure we would all want to contribute.

Afghan Interpreters: Security Clearance

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the threshold for MoD security clearance is as it is because of the intensity of operations and previous security incidents that have occurred in theatre. The protection of our personnel is the highest priority. We are talking not always just about immediate protection from armed force but protection from the risk of coercion and exploitation.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Earl recognise that the interpreters are in a Catch-22 situation? It took them an awfully long time to come to this country because they and their families had to be checked out and were in intense danger. They are in this country now, wanting to move on, to serve this country and NATO and to have a proper job, but they cannot move on with their lives because they and their families are having to be checked out. They are in an invidious situation.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, obviously I cannot comment on individual cases, but when an Afghan interpreter, for example, is relocated to this country, their nationality should not be any bar to employment in most fields. They would need to be cleared for those jobs but, as I say, their nationality is not normally an issue in those circumstances.

War Widows’ Association of Great Britain

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount for securing this timely debate. It was a real honour to attend the service at the Guards Chapel this morning to mark the 40th anniversary of the founding of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain. This remarkable association, now under the chairmanship of Mrs Rosalind Campbell, has achieved much since it was established and it is right that it now has proper recognition and a voice in all of the appropriate fora.

The aim of the association, to improve conditions for all war widows, is a noble aim and, sadly for a civilised nation in the 21st century, still they have to do battle. However, the members of the association are passionate and resilient; they inspire and give hope to one another and to tomorrow’s war widows. When their brave and patriotic husbands were alive, before they had given their precious lives for our country, life was already challenging for these women. I used the term “husbands”, but I am aware and delighted that in 2002, war widowers were officially recognised by the Government and are entitled to be full members of the association. The widows and widowers were the ones who had to care for the children as single parents for great stretches of time. They had to manage the household and juggle finances and commitments—all the time worried about the safety of their loved one. The death of a partner is always painful, but the death of a partner on active service must increase the pain. We, as individuals and as a society, owe these widows and widowers a great deal. Their partners paid the ultimate sacrifice.

While saluting the work of the association and the courage and tenacity of the widows, I, too, have some questions to put to the Minister. First, I associate myself with the concerns already expressed about the retention of pensions for those war widows or widowers who remarry. It is wonderful that some whose spouses have died find a new loving relationship and, as someone who values the institution of marriage, I can understand why they would wish to remarry. It is wrong if this decision is coloured by the consideration of the loss of a pension.

Secondly, while acknowledging the need for restraint in public as well as private sector pay and pensions, I simply do not understand why the decision was taken to reduce the value of pensions for soldiers and war widows. By linking forces’ pension rises to CPI rather than RPI, members of the Armed Forces and their loved ones will see their pensions reduced for the rest of their lives. It cannot be right that the men and women who give their limbs and their lives for our country, and the families that they leave behind, should suffer in such a way. We are told that these measures are necessary in order to reduce the deficit, but the deficit is temporary while the impact on war widows will be felt for the rest of their lives.

Finally, I come to the issue of the Government’s plans to abolish the post of the chief coroner, already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. As noble Lords will be aware, we had major debates on this issue during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. With the strong support of the Royal British Legion, we secured an amendment to the Bill which reversed the decision of the Government. This was an important step for many in our society who had made the argument for years in favour of a chief coroner’s office and who were devastated to learn of the Government’s plan to abolish it. It was especially important for bereaved Armed Forces families who have first-hand knowledge of the difficulties currently faced through the Independent Inquest Advice Service. The Government's arguments in favour of abolition were based on cost and accountability, but these were comprehensively rebutted in the House of Lords by many noble Lords who are in this Room today.

I have heard from various sources that during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill in the Commons the Government intend to introduce an amendment securing the abolition of the office of the chief coroner, precisely overturning what was decided in the Lords. This would not only fly in the face of the very substantial vote in this House, where the amendment was agreed by 277 votes to 165, to preserve the office of the chief coroner, but also be a huge disservice to the Royal British Legion and to the War Widows’ Association, which rightly believe that the role of chief coroner is vital to ensuring that bereaved service families receive the help they deserve when the deaths of their loved ones are investigated. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that the Government will not seek to counter their wishes. I also warmly support the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in respect of the covenant and reports to Parliament.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting the partners of many who are bravely serving our country. It is possible that some of them will now be widows or widowers. I owe it to them, to my Aunt Jean who has been a war widow for many years and to the thousands of others whom I have not met to do everything possible to support the association. It is a privilege and an honour to do so, and I wish it continued success.

Great War: Centenary Commemoration

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is particularly appropriate that my noble friend should have raised this Question on the day that we are debating the European Union? Does he also agree that we should recognise the part that the EU has played in ensuring peace and stability on our Continent since the end of the Second World War?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I do not want to be drawn on the European Union but I can confirm how grateful we are to all our European allies who helped us in the First and Second World Wars.