Ukraine

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Government for initiating this debate today and very much look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barrow.

It is nearly four years since the full-scale and unprovoked invasion in February 2022. Ukraine faces a fourth harsh winter, with constant drone attacks, concerns about energy supplies, power cuts and, for many women and men, continued gruelling life on the front line, in the trenches. The huge psychological impact and disruption to family life, most particularly for children, is hard for us to imagine.

It is hugely important, as through the debate today, that the Ukrainian people know that there is no wavering in the UK’s support for Ukraine. There is strength too, as other noble Lords have said, in the continued cross-party consensus in this country on Ukraine. With the notable exception of some in Reform UK, Ukraine and Ukrainians can feel secure that they continue to have the support of all mainstream political parties in the UK.

It was very welcome that both the Prime Minister and the King continued to give public demonstrations of support during President Zelensky’s visit to London last week. Such things are symbolic but none the less remain incredibly important. For that reason, I profoundly disagreed with the leader of Kent County Council, from Reform UK, when she said in May that flying the Ukrainian flag was a “distraction” and removed it from County Hall. Flying Ukrainian flags on public buildings is a powerful symbol, and one that I know all my Ukrainian friends hugely appreciate when they come to London and see their flag flying all over Whitehall.

Ahead of the debate today, I was in contact with former colleagues and friends in Kyiv. Their messages to me this week have been characteristically determined, but they have made for sober reading. They fear that, once again, we will do too little, too late, and will not take the brave decisions that need to be taken now. One of their greatest fears is the rise of the populist right in Europe. Disinformation, political interference and manipulation are now very real threats across Europe and beyond. As President Zelensky has said on many occasions—and the Minister repeated—the war in Ukraine is our war too. Ukraine is fighting for our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. For this to be more than just words, we have to find ways to continue to take the people in this country with us.

Last month, I had the privilege of attending the Sarajevo Security Conference; I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. I was struck by the conversations I had with military representatives from some of the Nordic and Baltic states. Clearly, those countries that have borders with Russia feel and fear the consequences of the war in Ukraine much more directly. It is not surprising that they are rapidly changing their approaches to defence spending, military service and civil defence. The head of the Norwegian Civil Defence talked to me of their all-society approach to defence and security in Norway, an approach very much embraced in Finland and other Baltic states. It is an approach that puts trust, building resilience and public engagement at its centre. As people face an increasing number of hybrid threats, from power outages to disinformation campaigns and electoral interference, it is incredibly important that people understand that this is now the reality of hybrid war in the 21st century. It is directly connected to the war in Ukraine, and combatting it is all part of our wider defence and security policy. Developing such an all-society approach to defence is contained in the Government’s recent strategic defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I would be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the Minister could say a little more about the plans to implement this in practice, as well as about the Government’s wider approach to implementing Article 3 of NATO.

Although people in the UK remain firmly supportive of Ukraine, as all recent opinion polls show, I think that, for many people, it is regarded as something that is happening far away that is not directly relevant to their lives. I genuinely worry that, if the conflict were to escalate, we have not yet built up the resilience or capacity in this country to deal with such a situation. As we substantially increase our defence spending, we have to take people with us. We need to do this through public engagement, as well as through education. We have much to learn about resilience, as well as about technologies and the realities of hybrid war, from Ukraine. In that, I very much agree with what the Minister said.

As the fourth winter of this war approaches, the backdrop remains bleak. President Trump continues to constantly change his mind about his relations with President Putin. The sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil are welcome, if late in the day. We must hope that the reality will one day finally dawn on President Trump that he has been humiliatingly played by the Kremlin.

With the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, it is welcome that the European allies remain united. The principle that only Ukraine should be able to decide Ukraine’s future remains the dominant view in Europe. It is welcome too that a move to increase European defence spending is agreed in principle. This will inevitably mean strengthening Europe’s military industrial capacity and streamlining procurement, but progress is slow and the processes cumbersome.

We face an incredibly difficult period ahead in relations with both Russia and China. New Russian weaponry, including hypersonic missiles, are a threat not just to Ukraine but to us all. When we now look back at the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, I would argue that the absence of a powerful and united response was a strategic error. It allowed President Putin to believe that he could carry out the full-scale invasion of 2022. He gambled on Ukraine being weak and divided, as well as on the West’s inability to unite. If he utterly misjudged the response of the Ukrainian people, he also largely misjudged the West’s response. This has, however, been made significantly more complex since President Trump returned to the White House in January this year.

It is hard to know if the current US-led discussions will lead to a ceasefire and an eventual peace. However, I very much hope that the UK will continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that any such discussions adhere to two key principles: namely, that boundaries must never be redrawn by force and that only Ukraine should be allowed to decide upon its own future. I believe that history will harshly judge any solution that does not adhere to those principles.

King’s Speech

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Polak, for that appeal. I associate these Benches with his appeal for the release of hostages.

I congratulate both noble Lords on the Government Front Bench and look forward to working with them. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, on his appointment to carry out the strategic review—that is no small challenge.

I am deeply relieved, as other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have said they are, by the reset of relations with the EU. One can begin to hope that the psychodrama we have been living through since 2016 is finally over, but I hope that the Government will soon feel able to be more ambitious about our relationship with the EU. Is it fair, for example, that today’s young people and students, who did not vote for Brexit, have lost so many of the advantages of studying and working in EU countries? At the very least, I strongly urge the Government to rejoin Erasmus.

I will concentrate my remaining remarks on wider Europe and Ukraine. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, I am very concerned by Putin’s activities in the wider Europe. On Monday this week, I met a Georgian fellow of the John Smith Trust—I declare an interest as a trustee—who was telling me about the deeply worrying recent developments in Georgia. It is a country where young people, particularly, so much want to look west and become part of the European family, but where the current Government in Tbilisi are increasingly controlled by the Putin regime. There is a very real risk of more violence and the repression of civil society, the media and political opposition in the run-up to the elections in Georgia in October. The knock-on consequences for neighbouring Armenia would be profound. Can the Minister say whether there are any plans to impose targeted sanctions on high-level Georgians who are supportive of the Putin regime?

Young people in the Caucasus and central Asia want closer academic and business relations with the UK; they want an alternative to their big neighbours of China and Russia. Most of all, they want to know that we understand their security concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, should be commended for the work he started in this regard, and I urge the new Government to develop a comprehensive strategy towards the countries of the former Soviet Union, including central Asia. The John Smith Trust fellows have an extremely well developed network of young leaders across the region. I am sure they would be very happy to work on such a strategy with the Government.

I will conclude with a few remarks on Ukraine. The continued cross-party consensus on Ukraine is very welcome. It remains the most critical area of foreign and defence policy that this country faces. Ahead of the debate, this week I was in touch with some Ukrainian friends who are close to the Administration in Kyiv, and they asked me to highlight two key issues of concern.

The first is sanctions. There are too many loopholes, and it is debatable whether they are having sufficient impact on the Putin war economy. For too many Russians in the Putin regime, sanctions are just an occasional inconvenience. I believe the UK is extremely well placed to take a lead on a substantial review of sanctions, to see whether there are ways they can be strengthened to be smarter and more targeted against those who support and enable Putin’s war of aggression against the people of Ukraine. The second area is the plight of the energy sector in Ukraine. Russia has consistently and cynically directed its missiles towards Ukrainian power stations. This has led to near-permanent power cuts. At the moment, power is on for two hours at a time in Kyiv and then switched off for five. There is an urgent need to build or rebuild power stations; my Ukrainian friends are already fearful of the winter ahead.

I know we already give generous financial contributions through the Ukraine energy support fund, but I urge the Minister to urgently do more to support the Ukrainian energy sector, including making it greener and more efficient—“building back better”, as the Ukrainian Government like to say. It is an area where we could make a big difference, relatively quickly, and I would be happy to meet the Minister to discuss this matter further. If the power stations are not rebuilt, Ukrainians will face another cold and dark winter, with many forced into another wave of emigration—perhaps as many as 5 million people. The effects on Ukrainian industry will be catastrophic in lost workforce and power. On this, as well as on so many other issues, Ukraine needs and deserves our urgent support.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an important short debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, set out very clearly in her speech, these amendments aim to limit the extent of the Bill in so far as it applies to the courts in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday/Belfast agreement provides that the Government will complete incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law, ensuring direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention. When we debated a different set of amendments in Committee last month, a number of noble Lords raised very real concerns that the Bill, as it currently stands, could potentially be interpreted as undermining this requirement.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out, there are, in particular, concerns that the Bill will not allow for either direct access to the courts or domestic solutions for any breaches of the ECHR for cases that fall under its remit. When we previously debated these matters in Committee, it was made clear that this Bill does not deal with matters relating to Northern Ireland, but I would be grateful if the Minister would none the less address the specific issue of incorporating the ECHR into law in Northern Ireland.

In light of the recent tensions and, indeed, violence in Northern Ireland, it is more important than ever that the Government reconfirm their continued and unequivocal support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, including in all of its practical applications in terms of rights. In Committee on 9 March, I raised a number of other concerns about the Government’s general approach towards legacy issues and asked whether they remain fully committed to the balanced and well-considered approach set out in the Stormont House agreement. Some 23 years since the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed, and well over a year since New Decade, New Approach was published, it is increasingly important that the Government make clear their policies and general approach to legacy matters. This is all the more urgent given recent events, where, all too tragically, we have been witnessing a return to the politics of blame and division.

I appreciate that the Minister, who is always so generous in her replies, is not actually from the Northern Ireland Office, but I asked in Committee whether I could receive a more detailed reply on this subject, perhaps in a letter, or have a meeting with the Northern Ireland Office to discuss these matters in more detail. Unfortunately, neither has been forthcoming, so I would like to add to the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for a meeting so that we can discuss and explore these matters further.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, important issues have been raised on this group and I thank colleagues for tabling these amendments. The Good Friday agreement is central to the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland; we all have a vital role to play in safeguarding that agreement and building on its promise, and we must ensure that this Bill, or any other, protects it.

The Bill raises important concerns over access to justice and it should be improved for the entire United Kingdom. The Government have also promised legislation to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. Ministers need to get this delicate legislation right: it must be in the spirit of the Stormont House agreement; we need victims to be at the heart of legacy proposals; and the Bill must maintain a broad-based consensus on proposals, as outlined in New Decade, New Approach, which restarted power-sharing. I look forward to hearing from the Minister actual details about this, rather than the usual “when parliamentary time allows” line.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments are designed on the assumption that provisions in the Bill might be contrary to the human rights convention and, of course, the Human Rights Act. I regard it as 110% essential that the Belfast agreement is fully respected and implemented. I have therefore supported this amendment on the view that, since a question has been raised about it, it is right that it should be thoroughly checked and that, if necessary, these amendments should be inserted to make sure. I have my doubts as to whether it is necessary but I am all in favour of it being checked in detail by those who drafted the Bill, to make sure that, whatever happens, the Belfast agreement is not damaged in any way by the provisions in the Bill.

[Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]]

This has been an interesting and important short debate. It has previously been made clear that the Bill does not deal with matters relating to Northern Ireland, but I trust that in her concluding remarks the Minister will none the less give full responses to the many important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, this evening. I believe that it is equally important that the Minister acknowledges that these amendments stem from several very real fears and anxieties.

The first of these fears is that, in their actions and behaviour over recent months, the Government have given cause for concern that they are seeking to water down or reinterpret the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In her response to these amendments, I hope that the Minister can give some firm reassurances this evening that this is not the case. The second anxiety at the heart of these amendments is that it is somewhat unclear that the Government remain fully committed to the balanced and well-considered approach to legacy issues as set out in the Stormont House agreement. Given that it is now well over a year since New Decade, New Approach was published, can the Minister update the Committee this evening on the Government’s approach to legacy issues in Northern Ireland?

Given that the Minister is not from the Northern Ireland Office, I suspect that she may not be able to give a full response to my question on legacy, so I would be extremely grateful if it would be possible to receive a letter setting down in detail the answer to that question and arrange a meeting to discuss these matters on legacy in more detail.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Good Friday agreement is central to the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland. We all have a vital role to play in safeguarding the Good Friday agreement and building on its promise, and we must ensure that this Bill, or any other Bill, protects it. However, the Government have demonstrated a reckless approach to the Good Friday agreement. We need only to consider their actions with the internal market Act, which threatened the agreement and resulted in resounding international criticism, including from the new President of the United States.

The Good Friday agreement is one of Labour’s proudest achievements in office. The courage of the people and communities in Northern Ireland made peace happen and has allowed an entire generation to grow up free from conflict. We must build on it, not weaken its foundations. The amendments in this group aim to ensure that the Bill cannot be interpreted in a way that undermines the Good Friday agreement’s requirements for the Government to complete incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law.

Rights and Security International has said that the Bill risks undermining the agreement as the presumption against prosecution

“extends to criminal offences which are also considered violations of the ECHR, such as torture … Under the ECHR, there is a procedural obligation to … prosecute and punish”

these acts, and the Good Friday agreement

“requires that this procedural obligation be incorporated in the law of Northern Ireland.”

Does the Bill make it harder for breaches of the ECHR to be prosecuted? Rights and Security International has also said that the six-year longstop impacts on

“the Good Friday Agreement’s requirement that the UK ensure direct access to the courts”.

Have the Government received independent legal advice on the impact of the Bill on the Good Friday agreement or carried out their own impact assessment of the Bill on the agreement?

When considering Northern Ireland, we must also remember that the Bill does not cover operations in Northern Ireland as originally promised. Last month, the Leader of the House in the other place said that

“the Government will introduce separate legislation to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland in the coming months in a way that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of reinvestigations into the troubles in Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/21; col. 496.]

However, it is now exactly a year since the Northern Ireland Secretary made a statement promising the same. What is causing the delay? When will it be published? The Good Friday agreement must endure, must be strengthened and must continue to guarantee peace. Whether it is in this Bill or any other, the aims must be supported, not undermined.

Brexit: Common Security and Defence Policy Missions and Operations (European Union Committee Report)

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, in her absence, and the secretariat of the committee for producing such an excellent and comprehensive report on Brexit and the common security and defence policy. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Horam, on introducing the report so well. I am afraid that many of the points that I am going to raise are rather similar, but that may be because we are fellow members of the committee dealing with this inquiry.

This report was based on an inquiry carried out in 2017-18 and which was adopted exactly a year ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has said, by the European Union Committee. Yet, one year since the report was adopted, it is still far from clear how the Government envisage our future relationship with the CSDP should we actually leave the European Union. This debate therefore provides a useful opportunity to try to seek some answers and more information from the Government on this matter.

One of the most interesting elements of taking part in this inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, was our visit in February last year to Northwood and the operational headquarters of Operation Atalanta. Since its creation in 2008, Operation Atalanta has been one of the most successful CSDP missions. It has been protecting vulnerable shipping off the coast of Somalia, including vessels from the World Food Programme and the African Union Mission in Somalia. It has deterred piracy and armed robbery at sea and has strengthened maritime security and capacity in the region. Being based in the UK’s principal military HQ at Northwood made strategic and operational sense, and anyone who has had the opportunity to meet Major-General Charles Stickland will know that as commander of Operation Atalanta, his personal drive and commitment have played a significant role in making the mission such a success. Yet in March this year, because of Brexit and because the withdrawal agreement precludes the UK from hosting operational headquarters once we have left the EU, Operation Atalanta and its command moved to Rota in Spain. This is a very real example of the diminishing influence that will be faced by the UK in European defence missions following Brexit. We will no longer be in a position to give the operational drive to such missions; nor, most probably, will we be able to engage directly at the planning stages of future EU missions, allowing us to provide our very great historical and geographical experience to these missions. I do not believe this to be in the best interests of either the UK or the European Union.

It is to be welcomed that the Government have provided a detailed response to this report, and because some time has now passed since the responses were published, I will use the remainder of my remarks to ask the Minister for some additional information. In their response, the Government state that the UK will seek to achieve its objectives,

“through a new form of engagement with CSDP or enhanced bilateral activity”.

Can the Minister say a little more about how the Government envisage this new form of engagement with the CSDP? Current third-country engagement with the CSDP has been encouraged since its creation, but does the Minister regard the current Committee of Contributors mechanisms as being satisfactory and how would he imagine greater involvement for the United Kingdom at the planning stages? Does he believe that our European partners are open to such a “tailored partnership” with the EU post Brexit, including proposals such as ad hoc attendance at the Political and Security Committee meetings in informal sessions? Can he also say a little about the ongoing financial contributions from this country should such an arrangement be possible?

Finally, in their response to paragraph 263, the Government state:

“Since 2017, the FCO has upgraded seven Ambassador posts and created 50 new diplomatic positions in Embassies in Europe”.


Although this is much to be welcomed, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, can the Minister say a little more about how the Government intend to strengthen the role of the UK permanent representation in Brussels to ensure British influence? Can he also confirm that UKRep has recruited 40 new members of staff in Brussels? How many of these people will be specifically assigned to the security and defence brief?

I appreciate that I have asked rather a lot of questions and that the Minister will probably not be in a position to provide comprehensive answers to many of them, in which case I would appreciate a written response. I also appreciate that given the current stalemate on the Brexit negotiations, it is particularly difficult for him to respond fully, but as we approach the elections to the European Parliament next week, it is important that the realities of UK influence in matters of European security and defence are discussed as openly as possible.

The United Kingdom and France have been the EU’s strongest military powers in recent years and as we discuss the potential arrangements for future relations and UK influence, it is difficult not to reflect that any future arrangements are going to be vastly inferior to those which we currently enjoy.