King’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is often suggested that a week is a long time in politics, and I suspect that for the Prime Minister, it has been a very long week. It is now eight days since His Majesty the King came and gave the gracious Speech last Wednesday. We heard the Motion for an humble Address from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, which was one of the most exciting, lively and dynamic Motions for an humble Address I have heard. I am delighted that she is in her place today.

We are now moving to the very end of speeches on this year’s gracious Speech, at the end of a day that has been wide-ranging, well-informed and interesting. I hope the Minister responding will feel that he has been blessed, in that from his own Benches in particular there have been myriad calls for resilience and increased defence expenditure—surely things that any Minister in the MoD will want to hear—which will enable him to talk to the Secretary of State for Defence and urge him to press in Cabinet, to the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of defence expenditure. One thing that has virtually united the House today has been the importance of defence expenditure. There are nuances in what noble Lords have said but, broadly speaking, there has been an acceptance that defence expenditure is crucial.

However, before I get into the details of defence, as I am winding from these Benches for the whole 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.

Among the very powerful speeches today, one that I thought was noteworthy was from the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow. He told noble Lords that he remembers 8 May 1945 and his parents celebrating, as other people’s parents would have been doing, but in particular saying, “We are safe”, and described the importance, if you were Jewish, of being safe in this country and in Europe. We have heard many contributions today about concerns of antisemitism. If you are Jewish in this country today, you may no longer feel safe. But there is a wider concern. It is not only that if you are Jewish you may not feel safe; the message of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has been mentioned more times than anybody else in the Chamber today, is that we are underprepared, underinsured, under attack, and not safe.

If the first duty of the state is to protect our citizens, do His Majesty’s Government believe that they are doing enough to ensure that our country is safe and that we will 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 their predecessor, put a lot of effort into supporting Ukraine, and that is absolutely right. But are we ensuring that we are doing enough to remain safe at home?

The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, all talked about the three Ds—the interplay of diplomacy, defence and development. As the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, of course I am committed to increasing defence expenditure. However, like other noble Lords I would like to believe that the Government can come forward with a plan actually to increase defence expenditure rather than simply say that it is going to happen at some future point. 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.

In cutting development aid as we have been doing, we lose influence and the ability to support communities abroad—precisely the sorts of communities that most need our aid, as so many noble Lords have pointed out. My noble friend Lady Northover raised the issue of development aid. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, reminded us that the amount spent internationally on aid will be 0.24% in 2027. 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.

As the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Hodgson, said, there are real concerns about cuts to FCDO expenditure. Diplomacy is vital. If we are not committed to diplomacy, we will find that the pressure on defence is even greater. We need to focus on embassies and high commissions and ensure that we are not reducing morale within the FCDO. Diplomacy matters but not just the very high-level diplomacy which this country has been so good at. The Minister started off with what some people have referred to as “tiara diplomacy”—His Majesty the King’s visit to the United States, and his speech to Congress, which was so well received. 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 wheeling out our royals on high-level occasions and ensure that our diplomatic links are thorough. We need them even more since we left the European Union because we have lost many of those behind-the-scenes informal conversations. For that reason, I very much support the call made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for stronger bilateral relations. She talked about UK-Spanish relations. If I was giving a single speech, it would perhaps be on UK-German relations, but we need to be strengthening those bilateral relations and our relations with Europe. If one message 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 does not go far enough. My noble friend Lady 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, to take back the future. There was a suggestion that it is not red tape that is holding the Government back but red lines.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also talked about the great importance of Europe. Why does that matter so much? It is precisely because we have an unreliable closest partner in the United States. The Falkland Islands are perhaps held in some disdain by Donald Trump —it is not quite clear—but there are suddenly question marks over their future, which His Majesty’s Government should not tolerate. There are questions over what we should do with the Chagos Islands. That should be our decision and not subject to the vagaries of a President of the United States. There are questions around 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.

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 carry-over Bill that will be coming to your Lordships’ House, where it will be most welcome, particularly as it enshrines the Armed Forces covenant, as was pointed out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. 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 propose to have the national conversation that the SDR said was needed. It is the sort of conversation that we need to offset or ensure resilience against the hybrid threats that were mentioned by Fiona Hill, one of the authors of the SDR, and in my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond’s contribution today. If we are at war with Russia, it is not a hot war, but we are vulnerable.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Antrobus, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and Lady Hodgson, the noble Lords, Lord Forbes of Newcastle and Lord Naseby, and my noble friend Lady Harris all talked about the need for resilience. Only one talked about national service; I am not going to suggest from these Benches that we should have national service, but we certainly need a national conversation. We need to look for ways of finding resilience and we need to look at 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 was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle. Increasing defence expenditure is not just about making us safer or improving our alliances; it has positive consequences at home.

We heard a rumour of another £18 billion for defence. What I would really like to hear from the Minister today is whether that is merely a rumour or whether His Majesty’s Government are actually going to forward with a plan to increase expenditure. Are we going to see the defence investment plan? It is a Thursday afternoon just before a recess; that is very often a time when a Government slip things out. Might it appear in the next few days or do we have to keep waiting?

We welcome the prospect of the Armed Forces Bill, but we would much prefer also to have legislation on a resilience Bill. We hope that the Government will keep preparing, be bold and show some leadership.