Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have worked in all multilateral institutions to ensure that the position of the United Kingdom and its allies in support of Ukraine is heard loud and clear. I certainly welcome my noble friend’s report on the OSCE meeting.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said it is vital that the United Kingdom and our European allies stay in marked support of Ukraine. Does he believe that the United States still gives that vital support to Ukraine? Very often it does not look like that under Donald Trump.
Defence and Security
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, which come from his experience on the committee. He is right to highlight the threats that exist. People sometimes think that threats in relation to defence issues are happening to other countries and other people—but, no, they happen to us as well. We have seen people attacked in this country because of Russian aggression, including with the Salisbury poisonings. We should not forget that the fundamental first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their own citizens. He also makes the important point that this is not just about the military might of a country; it is also about how we use our equipment and personnel, as well as intelligence and modern technology. Bringing security, in its widest sense, into defence spending—not as part of, but above, the 2.5%—will be very important. Unless we take a stand to show that we are determined and have the ability, the will and the finances to protect our citizens, we will not get respect across the entire world. We have to take the leadership role today that we need to take, and we are able to do so today.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches next, and then we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Howard.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that it will not surprise anyone in this House that I welcome the Government’s Statement to increase defence expenditure, although I might have taken a slightly different approach to where it comes from in the budget line. Can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government are doing to look at military expenditure in terms of working with the defence sector and recruitment, so that by the time we increase spending we have ensured that we have let the necessary contracts? Increasing the budget is one thing, but expanding our capabilities may not come about unless we get that right.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: you cannot suddenly turn on a tap for defence expenditure, say it is however many billions of pounds more and then spend it the next day. Supply chains, research and development, and recruitment must be put in place. That is where the work of the strategic defence review that I mentioned will be vital. We totally concur with her important point.
UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to wind from these Benches in what has been a fascinating debate. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for opening the debate in a magnificent way that really drew out so many key issues about the Arctic: the importance of the Arctic for the United Kingdom, for our security and more generally. It is commonplace to say, “This has been an excellent debate”, but this afternoon we have heard not just from people who have worked on the International Relations and Defence Committee on this report but from people with a genuine interest in the Arctic. I suspect few of us can match the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in having been to the North Pole. If I were in my normal environment of a university classroom, I would be asking people to put their hands up. It is not the custom or practice in your Lordships’ House to do that, but I am not getting a great sense of noble Lords saying, “Yes, I have been to the North Pole”. Like several noble Lords, I have been to Bardufoss, to the cold weather training with the Royal Marines.
I declare my interests as a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme and as a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, under the auspices of which several noble Lords, and in particular Members of the other place, have had the opportunity of engaging in cold weather training with our colleagues in Norway. The Dutch were there as well. In particular, I am very grateful to the Norwegians because they gave me a pair of army boots that were much more comfortable than the NATO-issue army boots. That really was co-operation in practice in a practical sense.
Clearly, there are very serious issues at stake with the Arctic. I was slightly taken aback by the Library’s opening line in its briefing for today’s debate, which reminds us that there is not really a technical definition of what constitutes the Arctic or what the region is. The Arctic Circle is very clear, but what do we count as Arctic? Clearly, we take eight countries as being Arctic states, and the closest neighbour then, after the seven NATO Arctic countries and Russia, is the United Kingdom. We genuinely have a claim to be a near neighbour—unlike China, whose geographical relationship is rather more distant. Yet in 2017 Russia and China were already talking about a polar silk road. Just days before the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2022, they carried on discussions of a polar silk road. The Russia-China relationship—in particular relating to the Arctic—has significant ramifications for the region. That includes the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, reminded us, we might now be a medium-sized state that may have global aspirations, but we are a state that has very long-standing and deep commitments to the North Atlantic area and to the High North. Their security and ours are closely linked, which we discovered, if anyone had forgotten, in the last few days, with former President and President-elect Trump’s view that Greenland is so important. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for talking at some length about the views of the United States—or at least the views of President-elect Trump, because I doubt that they are the views of the United States. I suspect that there is not, in the rust belt, a sense of people saying: “We’ve got to take Greenland; Greenland is so vital for our security and economic interests”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, this is not the first time that Donald Trump has talked about wanting to buy Greenland or to have Greenland. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, it is the height of irresponsibility to raise the status of Greenland. It is very easy to assume—or it was during the last Trump presidency—that this is just being said in jest and that it is not a serious suggestion. But this time around it is very clear that Donald Trump has an interest in Greenland that goes beyond simply his son, Donald Trump Jr, visiting Greenland and putting on social media—on a platform that I shall not name, owned by somebody who does not need any more airtime than he has had in recent times—that “Greenland is beautiful”. For those Members of your Lordships’ House who have not had the opportunity of visiting Greenland, I strongly recommend it. Greenland is indeed beautiful.
Visit Greenland uses as its slogan “Colourful Nuuk”—that is the capital. It has also just been investing in an international airport to make tourism easier. I raise tourism, which has not come up today, because it is one of the aspects of climate change and changes to global interdependence and co-operation that comes to the fore when we think about both the Antarctic and the Arctic. It is not just the freeing up of shipping lanes for commercial trade that has become increasingly important, but a sense among many people that they want to engage in tourism to the South Pole—or, more likely, somewhere in Antarctica—or the Arctic, which is in easier range for many.
For Greenlanders who want to expand their economy in a way that looks sustainable—without getting into the discussion about rare earths—tourism might seem attractive. But the more tourists they attract, the more in danger are the UNESCO sites in Greenland. The reason for visiting Greenland is precisely the beauty that comes from it being part of the frozen Nordic area, but the more visits there are, the faster climate change will be. So it is vital that we think about not just a general discussion of climate change, but local issues for our Nordic partners.
There is a significant question about the sovereignty of Greenland, which needs to be considered. This report, like His Majesty’s Government’s previous strategic defence reviews and policy on the Arctic, thinks about China and Russia as threats. While I am in no way suggesting that the United States is a threat to the United Kingdom or to any of our NATO allies, the suggestion that one sovereign NATO state has an interest in buying part of another NATO state raises some questions about our alliances and how we work with our partners. I join others in asking the Minister whether he, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, will join the voices from France, Germany and the European Union in reminding President Trump that, actually, Greenland is not for sale and that this is not the way we work with our partners in NATO.
Beyond that, there are clearly questions about the UK’s role in the Arctic and our military contributions in particular. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others about the lack or inadequacy of military capabilities. I am not, on this occasion, talking about the size of the defence budget, but I ask the Minister—if he is actually listening at the moment—whether he feels that the equipment and capabilities that we are currently able to deploy in the Arctic region and in the NATO area are adequate and fit for purpose. Is there a case for talking to the Treasury to stress the need to bring forward major defence procurements, such as an icebreaker or other ships and patrol vehicles that would be of benefit to our security as well as that of the Arctic?
This has been an important debate which has raised many timely questions. While I would normally agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that a debate should take place as soon as possible after a report has been written, on this occasion this debate is timely. It is a perfect opportunity for us to ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will reiterate our commitments to the Arctic and whether their position changes from that of the previous Government in any way.
Syria
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for producing the Statement for this House.
The previous Conservative Government had called for Assad to go over 10 years ago. There are moments in history when moral clarity is essential and, in refusing to re-engage with a dictator who has brought untold suffering to his own people, this Government made the right choice. We believe that Britain must stand firm against tyranny and in support of freedom, democracy, and the dignity and rights of the individual. The fall of Assad is a moment of profound change, not just for Syria but for the whole region. The announcement of additional funding for humanitarian aid, including support for the White Helmets, underscores this Government’s commitment to the Syrian people, and I welcome it.
I will follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in the other place. First, as we have seen, Assad has fled to Russia and claimed asylum. Can the Minister confirm that no asylum claims will be accepted in this country from former members of the Assad regime, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?
Secondly, there are concerns about the status of minority faith and ethnic groups under the new regime. Syria is a rich tapestry of faith groups and ethnic groups, and we must ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, Kurds and other minority groups must be protected. The Minister’s ministerial colleague the Member of Parliament for Lincoln had conversations with civil society representatives yesterday. Can the Minister update us on which parties these talks were with? Can he also tell the House what assurances the Government are making to these minority groups?
Finally, I am sure that many Syrians will be delighted to return to their country, now that Assad is no longer in charge. On the issue of Syrian resettlement, the Foreign Secretary said that the issue was “premature”. Can the Minister expand on what his right honourable friend meant by that?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I welcome the Minister coming to this House to repeat the Statement on Syria. In the past two weeks the changes in Syria have been momentous, and even in the three days since the Statement was given in the other place a lot has happened. As my honourable friend Calum Miller said in the other place, the fall of the Assad regime is momentous for millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty was a family of despots who used chemical weapons against their own people, so its fall is clearly welcome, but there is now potentially a period of great uncertainty and there are a lot of questions for Syria, for the Middle East as a region and for British foreign policy.
As the noble Earl pointed out, the previous Government and His Majesty’s current Government have not had diplomatic relations with Damascus for some time. What are His Majesty’s Government now thinking about beginning to at least have some conversations with Damascus, if not diplomatic relations? We are in a period of flux where it is entirely appropriate for the people of Syria to determine their own future, but there will be consequences for British foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement, both for the situation in the Middle East and the potential flow of people out of Syria. Are there proposals for some behind-the-scenes conversations with people on the ground in Syria?
Also, what conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with our partners in Turkey, or Türkiye? Because clearly there is significant involvement of the Government of Türkiye in Syria with their concern about the Kurds. That raises a lot of questions about relations between Syria and the wider region that it would be important to understand. There are clearly short-term concerns about instability and minority rights, which we obviously need to stand behind, because although the groups that have toppled the Assad regime have so far said that they are going to look after the minorities, do His Majesty’s Government think that is the case and what support are they hoping to give to minorities in Syria?
There is also an immediate question about aid. Clearly, the £11 million that has just been given to Syria, announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday, is welcome, but the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement that there are 17 million Syrians in humanitarian need. The quantum that has been given is £11 million; that is about 67 pence per person in need. It does not sound the most generous of offers. Given that we have seen cuts to ODA over recent years, could the Minister tell the House whether there is the opportunity for further funding to go to Syria? At the moment the aid seems to be de minimis.
In the medium to longer term the people of Syria will clearly want justice and it is vital that Assad and his closest allies face justice but, having claimed asylum in Russia, it is quite difficult to see how that can be brought about. Have His Majesty’s Government thought about ways in which those who have perpetrated the worst atrocities in Syria might be brought to justice? What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to offer to assist Syrians in rebuilding and revitalising their own institutions, ideally helping them pave the way to democracy? As I said earlier, this must obviously be done according to their own preferences, because what we clearly should not be doing at this time is saying that we have a blueprint for what people in Syria should be doing. It needs to be led by the Syrians but, as supporters of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, presumably His Majesty’s Government wish to support those in Syria who want to rebuild relations in an appropriate way.