Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Anelay, have outlined out in some detail why this Bill is necessary—I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on sponsoring it. We should also congratulate Maria Miller in the Commons, who has brought this issue forward time and again and been persistent in ensuring that progress was made. It is clear from what has been said already that we need this legislation to give extra protection to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I want to say a few words about why the CPA is worth supporting and assisting in this way. It is unusual legislation, as has been mentioned, but it is justified, and I am really pleased that this issue will be resolved.

I think that many Members know that I had a long parliamentary career in another place. During that time, I did not have a great deal of contact with the CPA; I did not go on many delegations, but I occasionally met people who were here. That was partly because I had young children; it was also because I was on the Front Bench—the successful one and the other one on different occasions. That is very time consuming—I see the Whip nodding—and Members of Parliament do not always get the time to think of these wider issues in the way that they would wish.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, especially when I was Minister for Defence and International Security, I did travel—and on those ministerial visits you very often meet other Ministers and members of the Executive, or speaking at conferences. All that was very useful and could be productive; it could be frustrating, but it was productive at times as well. During my time on the Back Benches in this House, I have had the time and privilege to be a member of two or three CPA delegations and I have to say that it opened my eyes to the fact that a CPA delegation—parliamentarians to parliamentarians—is actually somewhat different from any other contact that we have, whether as Ministers or in any other role.

Perhaps it is hard to put a finger on it, but you can see areas of joint concern, such as codes of conduct, registrations of interest and things of that kind. That two-way discussion has a different dynamic from the ministerial Executive-to-Executive discussions. It is a great help to parliamentarians, and I think it will continue to be important as parliamentarians around the world face new challenges, such as those that come with social media, which are affecting all of us and which we need to think about together as we consider how to prepare and defend ourselves in those circumstances.

Another aspect of CPA work that has been particularly valuable has been learning from each other and spreading best practice. It can be interesting and it can be challenging. I recall chairing a mock Select Committee hearing, where I was asked what I would like the topic to be. I said that I would like it to be domestic violence, because that was a particular problem in that particular country. Bringing people together and showing how a Select Committee can be constructive even in difficult circumstances was very valuable there. I recall meeting a new chair of a country’s PAC and inviting them back here to meet and talk to people here. We also have a network of clerks from the Commonwealth who reinforce each other’s experience and have a camaraderie, which is very important.

I also want to emphasise that this is not one way. When I was Leader of the House of Commons in 1997 and established the modernisation committee, one thing that we heard about was another Commonwealth country that had a second Chamber to allow debates on constituency issues and particular topics. It was that experience and that learning that led to the creation of the Westminster Hall debates, which have been very valuable for Members of Parliament. So the CPA helps us as well as it helps other people. If we are intent on protecting parliamentary democracy, we should continue to give the CPA all the support that we can.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the existence of Princess Elizabeth was borne in on me in 1947 at the time of the royal wedding. It was a blaze of sudden colour—and I still have the souvenir illustrated magazine that my mother kept—in a post-war world of austerity and ration books. “But where did she get the coupons for that dress?”, the grumpy ones said.

After the shock of the death of her father, it was a struggle to find a television in our street where we could watch in black and white the Queen’s Coronation. However, the following year, I remember pouring out of school to greet her and her consort when they came to my home town of Wrexham on her coronation tour.

I have no anecdotes. On the few occasions I met her personally, I was too tongue-tied to do much more than mumble my name. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred to the first day of the opening of the Welsh Assembly, in which I played a less distinguished part. I found myself in the corridor leading from the front door to the Chamber, which was empty. At the far end, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the then Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly, was greeting Her Majesty. There were no doors, but I spotted the choir of the Welsh National Opera in an alcove; it was about to deliver a motet especially written for the Queen. As she passed along the carpet towards me, I joined the choir and did what was known in those days as a John Redwood: I opened my programme and mouthed the words as the choir of the Welsh National Opera looked at me in some astonishment.

I knew the Queen and her family better than any family save my own—the media saw to that. She went through many highs and lows during her long lifetime. I have followed half a generation behind with my four children, encouraged and supported through the triumphs and disasters in my own family by the knowledge that she, though a Queen, had passed through similar personal difficulties with courage and determination. That is what is meant by the many people who are saying today, “She was part of my life”.

I will speak of Balmoral. I first visited the castle and its grounds as a member of the public, as thousands do, in 1963. Ever since, I have spent much of every August in the valley of the Scottish Dee. I have walked around and above Loch Muick many times. I have climbed Lochnagar celebrating with friends in the June twilight, sitting at the summit and waiting for the sun to rise. I scaled it more than 20 years ago from the Glenshee road in solitary grief following the death of my wife, Nan. I have fished there since with my wife—my noble friend Lady Walmsley—below the famous, old military bridge across the Dee at Tulloch on the estate. On 18 August, only three weeks ago, my grandson caught his first salmon from a pool directly opposite Balmoral Castle.

If I love that area as a tolerated visitor, how much more did Balmoral mean to the Queen? Where else could she enjoy peace, tranquillity and the absence of ceremony? I have never understood metropolitans who regard its glinting waters, dappled woods and wide, open hills as cold and boring. For me, it was entirely understandable that Balmoral should be the place where Her Majesty finally came home.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, the opening comments today have set the tone exactly right on how this House wanted to make its tributes to Queen Elizabeth. The Leader of the House, the shadow Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, all presented, in their own ways, the whole feeling that we all have of respect, sorrow and pride in what Her Majesty had achieved—alongside the human side, which is also extremely important for us all to remember at this time. I thank noble Lords for those comments; it was the House of Lords at its best and encapsulated all that we feel.

I will say a few words from my own personal experience. In 1997, I became the first woman to be appointed President of the Privy Council—it was an honour. It was also a strange event; the title had to be changed because previously it had been Lord President, and I am told that there were many discussions with the palace and the Cabinet Office as to whether that word—“Lord”—could be dropped. Indeed, the first time I met the Queen, she commented on the change, and we had a nice exchange of views as to what was going to happen in the future for more equality—she was very interested in that.

Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices (EUC Report)

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am happy to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I am pleased that his committee has been established. I will say a few words as chair of the Constitution Committee to give some background as to why we took an interest in this issue.

The Constitution Committee launched an inquiry into Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of treaties in October 2018. We did so for three basic reasons. The first and obvious one is that we believed that treaty scrutiny mechanisms were not adequate, had failed and were flawed. That was based not just on the Ponsonby rule, which has been mentioned. We of course also looked at the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, but we concluded that more needed to be done, and not just because times have changed and current procedures are no longer adequate. The fact is that Parliament has little or no chance to influence treaties while they are being negotiated and, indeed, only a very limited opportunity to potentially block ratification at the end of the whole process. That stops Parliament fulfilling some of its obligations and responsibilities to hold the Government to account.

Added to that is the fact that treaties have changed in nature over the years. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith pointed out that modern trade treaties touch on a wide range of policy issues that have a very significant and direct impact on everyday life. That is becoming increasingly clear when we see the treaties currently being discussed. So there was a strong case for change.

On top of that, we have the third factor, which might change urgently, which is, of course, Brexit. These issues have become more pressing because Brexit is now a fact of life and because Parliament will have many more treaties—indeed, some very complex ones—to scrutinise once we are in the situation, as we are now, of replacing EU trade agreements.

The committee worked hard on this issue and we published our report in April last year. I place on record our thanks to Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor Mark Elliott and our excellent parliamentary team of Matt Korris, Matt Byatt and Lloyd Whittaker. I am sure that my committee would want me to express our appreciation for the work they did to help us.

Our report concluded that there was a very real degree of urgency about this situation and that Parliament really needed to act quickly to deal with all these issues. One of our recommendations was that there should be a committee along the lines of the one just suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. That committee has to scrutinise treaties, as he said, but it also has a responsibility to bring to the attention of the House some of the issues that are important and have to be considered by us all.

However, as I think my noble and learned friend indicated, establishment of the committee in itself not enough. A lot depends on what happens from now on and on the Government’s attitude. Indeed, most of the successful working of the committee will be dependent on the Government’s attitude. We have had some signs of potential progress, but, again as my noble and learned friend touched on, we must make sure that there is sufficient time for the treaties committee not just to look at a treaty’s proposals but to complete its work before things come forward to the House. We are talking about very short timeframes on occasion. This is something we have to be wary of, because Parliament is being bounced into making very hasty decisions on a lot of issues at the moment, and this should not happen so far as treaties are concerned.

The second point is very important. Again, my noble and learned friend touched on this. The Government must provide more information about trade negotiations, and must do so at the appropriate time. The Constitution Committee was not naive about this. We accept that there are areas where there is sensitivity about negotiations and there are times when perhaps things will have to be withheld from the committee, but it is important that we get the balance right. So we recommended that there should be not a legal requirement for transparency but a general principle in favour of transparency throughout the treaty process—a general principle that disclosure to the committee should be the norm and that withholding information should be the exception. The Government have made some comments, some of them potentially helpful. I am sure that the new committee will seek to get the right balance. It is possible for a committee to deal with sensitive information. As someone who chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee for some years, I know that that procedure is possible.

I must highlight one other issue: the question of devolution. The Constitution Committee has on many occasions commented on the difficulties of this Government and the devolved institutions working properly. There have been many times when we have had to comment on the shortcomings of intergovernmental relations. This is a very real and current problem that will cause many difficulties. We really do worry about it. Indeed, in our most recent report on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill last week we said:

“It is extraordinary and profoundly disappointing that the official review of inter-governmental relations has yet to reach any conclusions.”


That has been going on for a very long time. We also urged the Government to publish the Dunlop review as soon as possible. We are seeing real problems in this area and the Government have not been taking the issue as urgently as they absolutely need to.

To conclude, we welcome the new committee and I welcome my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith to his role. There will be a great deal of work because of Brexit, and it is pertinent to so many areas of life. There are some important issues to contend with, as my noble and learned friend said. The sifting process is right, but we really need to get the right attitude on the part of the Government if the committee is going to be able to fulfil its role.

Government Departments: Soft Power

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

To call attention to the level of co-ordination between Government departments on the use of soft power in the interests of the United Kingdom; and to move for papers.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords, the two debates today might almost have been merged into one because they cover very similar ground. I look forward to the contributions that are going to be made, and I know that many noble Lords have had a long-term interest in this area. I must mention, although I do not think it is particularly relevant today, my interest as a patron of the Africa Educational Trust and that I am a member of the advisory board of Thales UK.

We could spend the whole of this debate trying to define the term “soft power”, and many academics do exactly that. I noticed that Joseph Nye will be speaking in the Commons next month, so I will leave it to the academics to hold the theoretical discussions and concentrate today on what I think is important. I want to talk about the use of all the avenues of influence that add up to soft power, and I was interested to note that at Question Time today, the Minister, when talking about NATO and the EU, said that peace was also about stability and shared values. His comments were, I believe, very relevant to the theme of this debate. I also wanted the House to have the opportunity to discuss the use of soft power, in particular the need for government co-ordination in this area, partly because of my experience in government and because of my concern that the comprehensive spending review might lead to rather short-sighted cuts that might have long-term consequences for Britain’s influence in the world.

Many people will immediately think of the British Council, the BBC World Service and of the importance of overseas students in this respect, and I will mention those issues later as, I am sure, will many others. But I want to start my comments by referring back to the Green Paper produced by the last Government entitled Adaptability and Partnership—Issues for the Strategic Defence Review. It was written by the Ministry of Defence, but crucially in close consultation with the Foreign Office and DfID. One of the themes of that Green Paper was “understanding and anticipating”. That theme is very relevant, especially at a time when domestic security cannot be separated from international security, and the pace and nature of the changing threats we face are increasingly challenging.

In the section dealing with defence diplomacy and security co-operation, the Green Paper acknowledged that defence investment in the range of activities that we know as defence diplomacy is modest. That may be something of an understatement. These activities—contributing to conflict prevention, capacity building, training, advice on security sector reform—can all play a significant part both in understanding the nature of emerging threats and in helping other countries to co-operate with us in tackling them. Yet we spend less than 0.5 per cent of the defence budget in this area, although I think it could legitimately be questioned whether all that spending should come from just the defence budget.

Some significant steps were taken by the previous Government. The Foreign Office established a strategic communications and public diplomacy board, and I would be interested in any progress on that. We also saw a very important step in the establishment of the stabilisation unit, which brought together not only funding from the Ministry of Defence, Foreign Office and DfID but personnel from these three very different departments, enabling them to work together in one unit. A visitor to the unit would not be able to identify the home department of those working there, which is a very significant step forward. As I understand it, there will soon be a stabilisation strategy which we all look forward to.

That work was very good and those steps were significant—they did represent progress. However, I am not convinced that there is a total buy-in from everyone in all the departments nor that everything is quite as joined up throughout the piece as it perhaps should be. That is why I would urge Ministers to take a very active and personal interest in ensuring departmental co-operation. Moreover, I fear that when it comes to squeezing budgets, it is often the areas of small spend that become the easy targets. It is easy to think that if the spend is low, then so must be the contribution. That is simply not the case with soft power. During my time at the MoD I saw increasing pressure—which I am glad to say was sometimes resisted—to squeeze things such as defence diplomacy, training budgets and so on.

Perhaps I may disabuse anyone who thinks that this area simply involves defence attachés going to cocktail parties. I am glad to have the support of my noble friend Lord Boateng in this, as he will know from personal experience that that is not a true image. I put on record the fact that almost all the defence attachés whom I met were modern, focused and well respected in their host countries for the practical help that they gave on issues such as stabilisation, security sector reform, training and, very importantly, establishing democratic accountability of the armed forces in those countries. I would also emphasise the need for co-operation between government departments. I do not think that every embassy achieves the same level of integration and effort or that every embassy works as much as a team as it should. There is some scope for improvement there.

Of course, I came across some specific problems when I was a Minister. As I mentioned in the debate initiated last November by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I believe that those who work in the field of aid and development are sometimes too apprehensive about working with colleagues in military uniforms. I have a particular example in mind where the only way to get aid delivered was to improve security on the ground, which in itself required in-country security-sector reform. Although that could be delivered only with the help of our military advisers, the local DfID official was totally opposed to any military presence.

I think that some advances have been made, and I was particularly pleased when the DfID White Paper was published some 18 months or more ago. As it pointed out, unless you have stability and security on the ground, it is often impossible to provide the necessary aid. I do not want to exaggerate the problems, but ensuring a joined-up approach is definitely an area where ministerial leadership is important.

Perhaps I may get the Minister’s reaction to the fact that the United States has for the first time published what should become a quadrennial diplomacy and development review which oversees all the various contributions made by the State Department and others responsible for aid. Although I do not think that we should copy everything the Americans do, I also wonder whether we should not consider having our own version of such an overview of all these activities to ensure that we get the maximum impact from all of them.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, many other areas are important in respect of using soft power to extend our influence. I am sure that others will mention the BBC World Service. I have long been a firm admirer of the work that it has achieved. Yesterday I received a letter—I am sure that others have received it as well—from Peter Horrocks at the BBC. In respect of the World Service, he writes:

“We know that our content has been enthusiastically consumed by audiences in the Arab world in recent months. Our online audiences have gone up by 300%, makeshift projection systems showing BBC Arabic TV have been erected by protestors in the capital cities of various Middle Eastern countries, and our radio broadcasts have been relied on when TV or online has been disrupted. But in just a month’s time, we will need to cut back dramatically on our services as a result of the funding reductions”.

This is a very serious situation and I must ask the Minister for specific assurances that he will look at it. This is a critical time for that region and clearly the work that the World Service is doing is very important indeed. Quite frankly, I do not care whether the money comes from the Foreign Office, DfID or anyone else. We need clarity on the role of the World Service and certainty about its future. Recent events have highlighted its value yet again, but it cannot fulfil its potential if it is going to stagger from funding crisis to funding crisis. I hope that Ministers will not close their minds to looking at this issue again.

Nor can the British Council stagger from crisis to crisis. It has made a fantastic contribution to the world’s understanding of Britain and the promotion of our culture and heritage. Yet it, too, is facing very severe and real cuts which will undermine much of the reputation it has established. I am sure that many people in this House also share my concerns about the future of overseas students, whose presence here has brought this country many benefits once they have returned home.

In addition to co-operation between government departments here, there is one other point that I want to raise with the Minister—the scope for co-operation with other countries in the field of soft power. We all agree that prevention is better than cure and that should be the first objective. We have long acknowledged the need to co-operate on hard power through institutions such as NATO. But it is important to remember that, as in Afghanistan, you cannot win by hard power alone. No one would say that soft power is a substitute for hard power; we need both, and we all need to recognise that. However, I should like to ask the Minister about co-operation with other countries in this area. Many allies are reconsidering their level of diplomatic presence and military representation with a view to closing posts. We could end up with a situation where many allies are pulling out of the same country and leaving a vacuum in terms of understanding what is happening there. That might be unwise and could be dangerous.

I would also like to know from the Minister the extent to which there have been meaningful discussions, and how near we are to getting conclusions, on the role of the European External Action Service and our contribution to it. What are the Government’s thoughts on the progress here? Are we linking our work on this to a proper assessment of what we should be doing collectively and what we must continue to do by ourselves? When the Prime Minister launched the national security strategy he said that it is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world. To do that, I hope that Ministers are fully sighted of all the work that increases the influence of this country in the world. The challenges that we face are daunting. I think that it is crucial that we use all the influence for good that we can and that soft power must be a mainstream part of government considerations, not just in defence and the Foreign Office but throughout government as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords, very briefly, I want to thank the Minister for his response and for the information he gave us to show that the Government are taking this issue seriously. I want also to thank all those who took part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that we would not get the headlines tomorrow. I think we can live with that because one of the purposes of the debate was to demonstrate the breadth and depth of the influence that this country can have and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said earlier, should have and should not be worried about putting forward in the future. Sometimes our history pulls us back on this and we should not be inhibited.

The debate has demonstrated the very wide range of topics that are covered here. The noble Lords, Lord Hall and Lord Smith, both gave us very good examples of the cultural and artistic dimensions and I will remember the phrase that the British Council provided that “bubble of oxygen” as well as the example the noble Lord, Lord Smith, gave us of the response of the Chinese.

We had mention of the contribution of overseas students. We could have spent more time on that, but time is always limited. I think that we enjoyed the entertaining reflections of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on his time in the Foreign Office, which gave an insight. He mentioned the possibility of revisiting the issue of whether the Foreign Office and DfID should be split. I might be one of those who would also be interested in revisiting that question, because I am not sure that we have always got the balance of responsibilities right.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for reminding us so bluntly of the pressure on resources and some of the difficulties, for example, of the scholarship programmes, which have been so valuable in the past. I must admire my noble friend Lord Soley for getting in a mention of football before I could, which is unusual to say the least. He also reminded us that soft power is very significant in stabilisation and transition phases. We will have to give more attention to that in future.

Strong pleas, led by my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, were made throughout the debate for the BBC World Service. We understand some of the constraints on what the Minister could perhaps say this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that no one would blame the Government for not foreseeing the situation that has now arisen in the Arab world. Many of these decisions were taken before those events. As many noble Lords have said today, it is important that the Government think again. I heard what the Minister said about the possibility of there being some difficulties with using DfID money, but I hope that those can be explored further because where there is a will, there is a way. The significance of the contribution of the BBC World Service, particularly at this moment, is so enormous that the Government will have to revisit the matter in some way.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that soft power was underemphasised and underappreciated, and that we needed leadership. I think that it has been appreciated and understood. The Minister said that the debate was timely because of the work that is going on within government. I hope that the contributions today have helped him reinforce the message that soft power is important and requires co-ordination throughout government as well as with other institutions. I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I seek leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Diplomacy

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on initiating this debate. I agreed with most of what he said and was particularly pleased that he sought further clarification from the Minister on our response to the EAS. I am glad that those remarks have just been echoed. I was also particularly pleased with his comments on cross-departmental co-operation, a subject to which I shall come back in a moment. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Monks. I do not know how many noble Lords noticed that he managed to slip in a reference to Manchester United in a debate on diplomacy. We may hear other such interventions in future but I am sure that they will be welcome, even on the part of those who do not support that team.

I wish to take up the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, who referred to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Patel of Blackburn. My noble friend spoke about a topic that he knows well. I suspect that few noble Lords have experienced the difficulties to which my noble friend referred in connection with hajj pilgrimages. When representing my former constituency in another place I was very well aware of those problems. I congratulate my noble friend on the very significant improvements that he has made. It is important to recognise that these are very real problems, not least because of the language difficulties that sometimes arise when people attend this important event. I hope that the Minister will look at that issue again as it is very important.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that this debate was timely given the announcement of the comprehensive spending review. It is also timely as tomorrow we will debate the strategic defence review. While that debate will rightly concentrate on aircraft carriers and Harrier jets, the two issues need to be considered together as we want a joined-up approach. It is important that we concentrate on that. In that context I remind the House of the Ministry of Defence Green Paper published in February this year entitled Adaptability and Partnership, which is a very important reference document for today’s discussion and tomorrow’s. Today’s theme is active diplomacy. One of the questions posed in the Green Paper is how we can deploy the Armed Forces more effectively to support wider efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen international stability. In the section of the Green Paper on adaptability and influence, mention is made of the work carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and DfID in order to understand better the contribution that defence diplomacy and security co-operation can make to wider government efforts.

My purpose in intervening today is to underline how important it is not to lose sight of the very important, sometimes critical, and often unique, role that defence diplomacy can play. During my time at the MoD I saw many examples of this work. I understand that we cannot always talk openly about this but defence diplomacy makes significant contributions across a wide field that people sometimes forget. I shall mention just one. The British Military Advisory and Training Team, based in the Czech Republic, works with it and others to provide multinational training courses both on peacekeeping operations and on the wider basis. It is important to realise that we are not just working with NATO allies in that; there are 31 partner countries, from central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans and north Africa. Indeed, when I visited, I was impressed to see someone from Azerbaijan sitting next to an Armenian, which you would not get in most circumstances. That approach shows the influence of soft power and the fact that this country can be extremely important in making sure that such things happen.

Time is short, so I shall just say that I think that those working in aid are sometimes apprehensive about people in military uniform providing advice in a country. However, as the DfID White Paper of last year pointed out, unless you have security and stability on the ground, it is often impossible to provide aid. Very often, people in fragile states who are in uniform will take advice only from other people in uniform. It is important that we build on that sort of thing.

I emphasise a significant step forward—the establishment of the stabilisation unit. That brought together not just funds from the FCO, MoD and DfID, but many of the personnel who now work together in a productive way.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that, in this compelling case for an active diplomacy, there is also a compelling case for defence diplomacy, and that the words in support of that uttered by Ministers will not just be words but will be translated into very direct and very positive support.

Foreign Policy

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords, I must join in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, on his debate today, particularly, as has been mentioned, for its significant timing. I am sure that he was mightily relieved by the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s speech, which was somewhat different from the tone that we heard just a few weeks ago. I hope that that new realism will be maintained, but we will need to see other signs of it—including, perhaps, a movement away from some of the so-called allies that the Conservative Party has found in the EU.

On the EU, there was one thing about that speech this morning; I thought that there was an implicit criticism of some of the UK representatives there. Having worked with them quite closely for the past year or two, I did not take that well. We should be talking about how we increase engagement, not suggesting that we need new big hitters in Brussels in order to extend our influence. I have one other word about Europe, which is to welcome what has just been said about Turkish membership of the EU. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also mentioned Turkey, which has a pivotal role and is a secular state. It is not a perfect society but then, what is? We would be foolish to turn our backs on Turkey and I seek reassurances in that respect.

I appreciate that many people in this House have a lifetime of experience in foreign affairs. I think that most of us come to these debates with a certain degree of hesitancy. For the past few years, I have worked closely in the Ministry of Defence with the Foreign Office and, previous to that, when I was chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I got some overview of foreign affairs.

I start by reminding the House of the Green Paper that was published by the Ministry of Defence earlier this year—Adaptability and Partnership. That sets out the global trends that are being talked about and which my noble friend Lord Desai began with earlier, such as the rise of Asia Pacific, the challenges of globalisation, climate change and the inequalities in the world. It goes on to discuss threats to our national interests as well as to this country. That document is as good a backdrop for debates about foreign affairs as it is for debates on defence. There are a few points that I would like to raise in response to the challenges that we face.

First, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about international institutions. Many of us grew up—perhaps slightly naively, thinking back to the 1960s—with great hopes for institutions such as the United Nations, which we thought would make a significant difference. Those international institutions have, as has been said, been very slow to respond to a rapidly changing world. We need to continue to press for reform in that area, as the previous Labour Government did.

Secondly, we need to re-evaluate and impress on people the scope and importance of what has been called soft power. My noble friend Lord Desai said that we need hard power as well, but the two go together. If you get soft power right, you will need to exercise less hard power. Foreign Office and defence diplomacy have not been appreciated enough in recent years—perhaps over a long time. When such issues as the Five Power Defence Arrangements—which involve the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore—come up, many people think that such agreements no longer matter because they hark back to the past. In fact, they give us an entrée to an area which will be pivotal in the future, as we have heard today.

Much of the MoD’s work through training and advisory groups makes sure that people who do not normally talk to each other work in the same area. In the military training on peacekeeping that we do in the Czech Republic, we have had people from Azerbaijan sitting next to Armenians. We are breaking new ground there. In the long term, this can put us in a very strong position, not least because all that teaching and work is conducted in English.

Something has been said today about resources and about DfID. I would like to bring the two together. It seems that we all now support the aim of spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on aid. That is good and something that we should support. It is an achievement of the Labour Government, the spending of the past few years and DfID itself that I am very proud of. However, it is right to question—as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, did—some of the ways and projects on which that money has been spent. Some has been spent on consultants and the like. This may seem like heresy to some but I wonder if the concentration on DfID has taken too much away from the Foreign Office and other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, suggested that there should be a merging of some of these budgets. One small step has been taken with the Stabilisation Unit, but we need to do more to make sure that spending on influence now does not neglect long-term investment at this critical time. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, mentioned some of the very interesting figures. I said in this House a few weeks ago that when I was in the MoD, I thought that if there were sufficient noughts at the end of a project it was much safer than if it had a tiny budget, which could somehow slip through and disappear.

I welcome the debate. We need more talk about how we exercise influence. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, asked if we should have global diplomacy. My answer to that would be yes, but we have to invest enough in soft power. That is the key to avoiding the need for the use of hard power in the future.

Queen's Speech

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to those in our Armed Forces who do so much to command our admiration and respect. I pay particular tribute to those serving in Afghanistan and, most of all, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. We must never forget them, or indeed their families.

Several people have commented that debates in this House on foreign affairs and defence are always extremely wide-ranging, knowledgeable and—speaking from experience—very challenging for the Minister, who aims to reply to the many and varied points that have inevitably been raised. It is, I must acknowledge, an almost impossible task. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on his appointment; I welcome him and wish him well in the future. I also thank him and the House for the tolerance and assistance that I received when I was in his place at that Dispatch Box. We will continue to have differences of opinion but I think our objectives, particularly in foreign affairs and defence, are the same. We may disagree on the means, but our objectives are to promote national security and our national interests. The good will that should go with that common objective should see us through some of the disagreements that we will have.

It is right that I should start with Afghanistan, an area that has such a high priority in the Ministry of Defence because of operations. Mention has already been made in today’s debate of the recent visit by the new Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for International Development. As has been mentioned, that visit seems to have led to some confusion about whether we need to redefine or clarify our roles. That was not a particularly auspicious start. I hope that the Minister this evening will ensure that he clarifies exactly what happened and, perhaps more importantly, will use his good influence to make sure that stories like that do not appear again. It cannot be in anyone’s interests—ours, those of our Armed Forces, or those of the people in Afghanistan—if the Government send out mixed messages about our mission there.

I said repeatedly in government, and will continue to say in opposition, that we are in Afghanistan for the sake of the security of people here in the United Kingdom. The danger of Afghanistan once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists is very real and it is not just the UK that believes that. We are there under successive UN resolutions and with more than 40 other countries. We will achieve our objective partly by beating the insurgents and partly, and essentially, by creating the conditions for stable government and development to be established. Some may try to divide these objectives but we have to get Afghanistan into a position where it is no longer a threat to us in the long term. That is the challenge that we face.

I have seen the Statement by the Secretary of State today—I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for sight of that—and I am glad to say that I did not detect a new strategy there. I am pleased about that because we need to consolidate and build on the progress that we are making. We have to be clear that Afghanistan has been challenging to all of us all through. It will continue to be challenging and it is not a static situation. One of the frustrations of being a Minister in the Ministry of Defence is the simplicity with which some in the press seem to present complex issues.

I noticed that during his visit the Secretary of State made some general but rather sweeping statements about equipment. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Dean pointed out that he made a general statement about operational allowances. I give a friendly word of caution that we will be looking at all the details that will come from this. There are no panaceas, easy solutions or decisions that can be made at one time which will see you through the whole of the rest of that situation. We are fighting an insurgency where there are ever changing tactics and challenges and we have to work very hard indeed to be able to retain the upper hand and make the progress that we want. We cannot always anticipate what the next priority will be, so Ministers are wise to be cautious about any solutions which are offered.

I wish to say a few words about the Strategic Defence Review. A lot of work has already gone on in preparation for this, but I should like to make a few points. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and others said, much of which could be very constructive in terms of the way forward. I hope that the SDR—or the defence and security review, whatever we call it—will be policy-driven and not cost-driven because otherwise I do not believe that we can get the right answers. What we do in defence is based on our view of the world and the threats that we perceive exist out there which could be damaging to us. It is about our security and our foreign policy and it has to involve the whole of government.

The Green Paper Adaptability and Partnership, which we published in February this year, was well received on all sides of the House. Its analysis of global trends and its questions about the role that the UK must play to protect our interests is a very good basis on which to conduct the review. I am not pretending that affordability is not an issue though I remind the House that we have just seen, under Labour, the longest period of sustained real-terms growth in the defence budget for decades, and that is before we add the Treasury money that has come from the reserves for operations. What I am saying is that policy must be determined by threat analysis and then we must work out how we counter those threats, what we can do alone, what we have to do with others and in what circumstances. We cannot just say, “This is the equipment we have or we want, and so this is what we will do”. When I was in the MoD, I said that the SDR had to be policy-driven, and I say it again.

However, on a slightly different matter, I hope that it will be possible for the Government to continue what was started with the Green Paper—namely, to widen the debate—because these issues are important and deserve widespread consideration. The work of the Defence Advisory Forum, set up during the construction of the Green Paper, was extremely useful, and the themes in that Green Paper, including adaptability and partnership, will stand everyone in good stead when they are looking to the future and to the review.

I mentioned affordability and I want to say a few words about equipment procurement as a process. There is no doubt that a great deal of work has been done to improve procurement processes within the Ministry of Defence. There is also no doubt that the National Audit Office will still produce reports that are critical of certain projects for being over time and over budget. Some, although by no means all, of that criticism will have some justification. However, some developments within the MoD in the past few years have been helpful and we should build on them. The move to through-life capability management has been a good thing and must be developed further. There is still some way to go, but some progress has been made in terms of thinking about capabilities rather than platforms. Not everyone is totally sold on that idea, but it is there to stay and should be built on. There is greater scope not just for open architecture in design—with the concept of “fitted for”, not “fitted with”—but generally for a more incremental approach to procurement. All these, together with what we learnt from the very successful urgent operational requirement procedures, mean that we can move forward. I should be interested to know what the Government’s line will be on the commitment to transparency which the Labour Government gave in terms of future defence procurement plans.

However, I have one concern which I wish to share with the Minister at an early stage. I sometimes thought that if a project had enough noughts on the end of it, it was safe and could not be touched, but that projects with small-scale budgets were all too vulnerable. If we are to look at everything that is costly, we need also to look at some of the big projects.

While on the subject of small-scale budgets, I want to make a plea for proper consideration and priority to be given to what is generally called soft power. This area will be increasingly important, and we will pay a very heavy price in terms of all our interests if we neglect it. Future threats are not predictable. They may come from terrorism, failing states or, indeed, international crime. What we can assess, and what we said in the Green Paper, is that they are most likely to involve distant places, asymmetrical methods, complex political situations and complex security environments. The situation we face will be ever changing and ever challenging. Moreover, personally, I think that the public threshold for military intervention will be even higher. Therefore, we need even greater emphasis on conflict prevention and security promotion—which means soft power. It must be a mainstream part of defence activity, but we actually spend less than 0.5 per cent of our defence budget in this area. We get a tremendous return for it in terms of influence throughout the world, but soft power is so important and has so much potential that we would do well to consider what more we can do in this area. It is not a substitute for hard power—they complement each other—but we must ensure that we give soft power sufficient priority in the future.

Finally, I must say that it was a great experience to work within the Ministry of Defence, with so many professional and dedicated civilians as well as military personnel. I was also proud to work alongside my colleagues, in particular Bob Ainsworth, who, as Armed Forces Minister and then as Secretary of State for Defence, did so much for those in the Armed Forces. The service personnel Command Paper was the first time that any Government had produced a document, given undertakings and done such detailed work to improve the lot of those in the Armed Forces and their families. That work made great strides forward, as did our spending, referred to by my noble friend Lady Dean, on the backlog of housing problems.

We also introduced the compensation scheme, which has been criticised and improved—but we should remember that it did not exist until a Labour Government introduced it. It was right that we made such improvements, but a little acknowledgement is perhaps in order this evening. We created a strong basis in that area for the Government to build on. I do not expect us to get all the details this evening. I do not even expect the Minister to answer all the questions that have been raised on important issues such as mental health. However, I hope that he will continue the tradition of writing to those Members whose questions he cannot answer.

Ministers have big and significant responsibilities, and there will always be new challenges. I am proud of what the Labour Government did. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointed out yesterday, we will assist this Government whenever we think that they are doing the right thing. Perhaps there will be more examples of that in foreign and defence policy than in some other areas. We will also be rigorous in holding the Government to account. We wish all Ministers well in their new responsibilities.