Armed Forces Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, if we are to have a report on the reserve and cadet forces, for heaven’s sake, let us have a report we can rely upon and that is produced by an independent body that has no axe to grind one way or the other except to see that this nation is served, as it deserves to be and as it needs to be, by the reserve forces and cadets association.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, again, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, and in particular to reinforce everything he said about Amendments 50 and 51. On Amendment 51, I will say no more than that it plays into the issues I was trying to highlight in the previous group—to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to just now—about the need to retain a representative and coherent voice for the individual RFCA memberships. My noble friend argued the case for a national voluntary body very well, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments he put forward.

I will, however, make a couple of points on Amendment 50. I mentioned earlier that my wife has the honour of being His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire. In that role, she is ex officio president of SERFCA. We can easily talk about tradition in the context of supporting the work of the Reserve Forces and cadets. However, while I am a great one for wanting to preserve such traditions, I do not regard tradition on its own as the most important reason for maintaining a statutorily based role for lords-lieutenant in the regional councils.

The main argument is that the involvement of lords-lieutenant as honorary presidents or vice-presidents is highly valued by the RFCAs and by the reservists and cadets. Every year, my wife presents meritorious service awards to reservists in Buckinghamshire who have displayed outstanding achievement and commitment to the volunteer ethos. The significance of these awards to the recipients is without question enhanced by the fact that they are presented by the King’s representative. I would go further by saying that the lord-lieutenant’s role in such presentations plays no small part in maintaining the motivation of our reservists and cadets. Exactly the same point can be made in relation to employer recognition scheme awards and how they are perceived by those in receipt of them. The appointment of lord-lieutenant’s cadets is another example. It is an honour that cadets aspire to.

The Minister has said that there will be nothing to prevent lords-lieutenant fulfilling the same kind of honorary function once the Bill has been enacted. However, I for one do not feel that a loose arrangement of that kind would do justice to the well-defined function that lords-lieutenant fulfil in upholding the dignity of the Crown. It is a function that is born of tradition over many centuries, but, much more importantly, it is one that reflects the direct relationship between the Armed Forces and the Crown. Every time the King’s representative meets a reservist on a public stage to recognise his or her outstanding service, it is a reminder that service men and women across the country owe their loyalty, first and foremost, to the sovereign. It is not satisfactory for a statute of this kind to remain silent on that key constitutional point.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and other noble Lords, which seeks to ensure that lords-lieutenants’ involvement as presidents of regional RFCA councils remains enshrined in primary legislation. I support the comments just made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

I should declare two interests. First, I was a deputy lieutenant for Greater London and for Norfolk for over 10 years, supporting the lords-lieutenant in those counties. Secondly, my wife is the current Lord-Lieutenant of Norfolk and president of the East Anglia Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments already made in support of Amendment 50 nor dwell on the historic links, as important as they are, between the Crown and the Reserve Forces and cadets in each county through the role of the lord-lieutenant, but instead to emphasise the leadership role that the lords-lieutenant play in their respective counties—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just referred to that. In Norfolk recently, as in many other parts of the country, we had a lot of fires during the drought period. Norfolk was particularly affected by that. My wife required a number of her deputy lieutenants to visit all the volunteer fire stations with letters of thanks from the county on behalf of His Majesty for their service. Therefore, it is not just Reserve Forces and cadets but the emergency services in the round.

This role is currently enshrined in primary legislation. That is where it should remain. Reducing it to secondary legislation seems unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, said, it is perhaps even insulting to the Crown and to lords-lieutenant. I understand that, perhaps not surprisingly, neither Buckingham Palace nor, more worryingly, the Association of Lord-Lieutenants have been formally consulted on this proposed change. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

At a time of increased threats to our national security, every effort should be made to promote our Reserve Forces and those, such as lords-lieutenant, who support them. That support is, of course, freely given and at no cost to the nation. Moreover, our cadet forces are the largest youth movement in the country and provide great character training and personal development for those involved. That many cadets go on to join our Regular or Reserve Forces is a most welcome by-product, and, as has already been mentioned, initiatives such as the annual appointment of the lord-lieutenant’s cadet is a much-cherished accolade in most counties and an incentive to excellence.

The Bill as it stands serves to weaken the hugely important links between the Crown, through His Majesty’s lords-lieutenants, and communities throughout the nation at a time of great insecurity. I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to think again. I firmly support Amendment 50.

Armed Forces Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, set out so clearly and cogently. I do not intend to repeat them all, as I agree with everything he said, but I want to make a couple of wider points centred on the requirement for a regional approach to our reserves and cadets.

There has been wide acknowledgment of the benefits that such an approach would bring. However, a couple of things have not been mentioned to the extent that they should be. First, there is the matter of footprint. The Reserve Forces and cadets allow us a military footprint across the United Kingdom that is no longer possible with our sadly depleted regular forces. This matters. It means that defence and defence issues can be represented locally by people who are local; the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, pointed out one example of where this has been an inestimable benefit in Scotland. That is one very important point.

My other point concerns the matter of identity. Within military organisations, identity matters—identity of the group. In the regulars, it is perhaps identification with your ship, your regiment or your squadron but, as far as regulars are concerned, it is identity with your locality. That is fundamental to it, and that identity is fundamental to the effectiveness of any military organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, said that the Bill does not seek to destroy the regional aspect of the Reserve Forces. That may be true to an extent, but he knows as well as anyone here that the regional nature of the Reserve Forces is not just about the wiring diagram. It is about the authority that those regional forces have; that is absolutely fundamental.

In response to an earlier amendment, the Minister said that devolution is achieved through overarching strategic direction and that mayors cannot do what they like. Actually, though, that is the whole point: within certain limits, they can. The point of devolution is giving them authority along with responsibility. There is overarching strategic direction, although it will not necessarily work in the case of mayors because you could have a Conservative mayor and a Labour national Government; I am not quite sure how far the Conservative mayor would follow the national Government’s overarching strategic objectives, but we are not discussing that matter here today. So I accept that there is an overarching strategic directive, but it is strategic. It is not operational or tactical. Therefore, local authorities will have a great deal of freedom to decide things, but they will need the authority to carry through on those decisions. Authority goes along with funding in many instances, but with other things besides. That is one of the reasons why Schedule 6 is potentially so damaging for the Reserve Forces.

This speaks to what we would term “mission command” in military parlance. You give overall direction on the broad objectives that you want to see achieved, but you leave a great deal of freedom open to your subordinate organisation—in this case, the regional forces—to decide how it is to be done. Yet they must have authority along with that responsibility. If mission command is to operate effectively, at a superior level, you need to listen to your subordinates’ concerns when they tell you that something simply will not work so you must come up with a different plan. At the moment, as the legislation is framed, the link between the subordinate and superior formations will be, at best, neutered and, at worst, cut off completely.

Amendments 46 and 47 seek to ensure that the RFCAs are properly represented at a senior level and that their voices can be heard. However, that plays both ways. If their voices are not heard, they will lack authority at the local level. If they lack authority at the local level, it will have an impact on recruiting and retention, with lower morale and lower effectiveness. Nobody in this Chamber wants to see that, I know.

Equally, Amendment 49 seeks to ensure that the RFCA’s wider membership is enshrined in primary legislation and that its breadth and diversity are retained so that, again, the wider community and regional links are retained and have credibility across that regional community.

As I said earlier in Committee, I have concerns about Schedule 6 overall. If we are to retain it, I plead with the Minister to take these issues away and correct those bits of it that will restore the authority and the voice of the local Reserve Forces and cadets, in particular through the RFCAs.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene very briefly in support of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I declare my interest as a former Defence Minister and as the Minister who was responsible for piloting the Reserve Forces Act 1996 through your Lordships’ House; I suspect that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is the only person present who might remember that, having directly witnessed it. I declare a further interest in that my wife, who is the lord-lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, is the president of the South East Reserves Forces’ and Cadets’ Association.

In mentioning my part in giving birth to the 1996 Act, I do not wish the Committee to suppose that I am opposed to changing it. I am not an old reactionary—at least, not in this regard—as I am the first to recognise that the world as it was in 1996 is not the world we are confronted with today. When it comes to the Government’s stated aim of placing greater emphasis on our Reserve Forces in creating a more lethal and integrated force model for defence, I am wholly in favour.

However, in acknowledging the deficiencies of the 1996 Act against that policy backdrop, we should not at the same time downplay its strengths. One of its major strengths, as other noble Lords have emphasised and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, so well described, is to acknowledge the importance of ensuring the buy-in of the civil community in the delivery of well-supported, well-motivated, administratively efficient reserves and cadet units.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Earl Howe Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Smith and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bethall.

A number of themes have emerged from the discussions over the past 50 minutes. The amendments were eloquently outlined by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and that set the tone for the rest of the debate on group five. There has not been a voice against the amendments and I would not like to be in the noble Earl’s place in trying to respond across the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, touched on the rebuilding of civic trust. He is absolutely correct. There is a misconception about the restoration and renewal project among those outside who do not know much about it that it is about us improving the place for the benefit of parliamentarians and spending large amounts of money in doing so. We all know that it is actually about maintaining the heart of our democracy and the benefits it brings as a centre of education and heritage.

A number of noble Lords spoke about education. I have been in the House only for a year and one thing I went straight into was working with the education and schools engagement team. For those who have not had that opportunity, I highly recommend it. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about reaching out to all secondary schools, but some of the most engaging conversations I have had have been with primary school children. My noble friend Lord Adonis is correct that not enough schools are coming into the House, and we should encourage that more. We should use this as an opportunity to reach out further; the sponsor body should have the ability to do that and should hold it at the forefront of its mind when thinking about what the Palace should look like once we go through this process. It should think about engagement with education and schools. That would be to all of our benefit.

There are other organisations across civil society, including the trade unions. To go right back, the Joint Committee’s recommendation was that the sponsor body should,

“promote public engagement and public understanding of Parliament”.

When this was in its infancy and being pulled together, there was talk of a public understanding of Parliament.

We all know what happens with large infrastructure projects—and this will be a large infrastructure project. Too often, sometimes for unforeseen reasons, they overrun in time and expenditure. Parliament will not have the time to do the work on this—there is a lot of other work that Parliament needs to do—so putting it in the Bill and adding it as a responsibility for the sponsor body will help us to deal with some of those issues. If we do not get out there and tell the story of restoration and renewal, we could see many of the criticisms and problems that have arisen with other large infrastructure projects.

To touch on another amendment, we should ensure that businesses across the UK benefit from the economic advantages that the project will bring. Some of the contracts should go out across the UK, and that should remain at the forefront of the sponsor body’s mind.

If my noble friend Lord Adonis gets his wish and we end up with a coffee shop in the Royal Gallery, I am more than happy to help out as the first barista. I support the amendments.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Bethell for tabling these amendments. As has been clearly explained, they seek to require the sponsor body to promote public understanding of and engagement with the restoration and renewal programme. The amendments would also require the sponsor body to have regard to these matters and to develop a strategy for consulting the public.

The first thing for me to say is this: the public will absolutely and undoubtedly want to understand how the restoration and renewal of the Palace is progressing and what it means for them. That is exactly why the shadow sponsor body is already engaging with the public on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. It is doing that because one of its main strategic priorities is to:

“Open up the Houses of Parliament, improve access and encourage a wider participation in the work of Parliament”.


Those are exactly the things that noble Lords have been advocating. That priority is not just about filling the Public Gallery. It is very much about securing public buy-in to the work of Parliament, and you cannot do that without making the public aware of the biggest thing to happen to this building for 180 years: the R&R programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

I am a bit confused because the Minister said that accepting my noble friend’s amendment would divert the sponsor body’s activity from the main activity, which is to build a new Palace, but he also said that it is doing it anyway. If it is doing it anyway, the amendment is surely all right.

[Earl Howe]

The point I was seeking to make is that if you set out in the Bill something that looks quite distinct and separate from the main task that the sponsor body has before it, you risk distracting it. What we are saying to the sponsor body is, “Yes, public engagement is vital, you are already doing it, so you should do it in the best way you can because you know best how to deliver R&R”. That is the position I come from. Therefore, there is no need to change the wording of the Bill. We should not be frightened of leaving the Bill as it is because we know that the sponsor body has its heart in the right place in a way that reflects exactly what noble Lords have been talking about this evening.

The restoration and renewal of the Palace should increase the number of visitors and see that visitors have an even better experience. I absolutely agree that R&R also provides the opportunity to re-engage the public in how democracy functions in the UK. The programme will develop better educational facilities, and it has been suggested that the additional chamber in Richmond House can be used to engage schoolchildren in our democratic process. That would be added value from the R&R process.

I just want to say something about building in a statutory duty to consult. I have talked about the need to avoid being over-prescriptive but, over and above that, the Government are concerned that placing a statutory duty on the sponsor body to consult the public, as prescribed in the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Bethell, is a particularly onerous requirement. Public engagement, as I have said, is essential for the works to succeed, but a duty to consult, I would strongly argue, would divert resource and time from the essential job at hand, which is to formulate proposals on the design, cost and timing of the works for parliamentary approval.

Let me turn briefly to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, requiring the sponsor body to have regard to non-cashable benefits when assessing whether the programme delivers value for money. Clause 2(4) (b) to (h) contains a wide range of non-monetary benefits to which the sponsor body must have regard. They include safety and security, the environment, accessibility, educational facilities and the spread of opportunities to secure economic or other benefits across the UK. These benefits, which are, of course, important, have got to be balanced against the need to ensure that the works represent good value for money, as required under Clause 2(4)(a).

Value for money is core to the programme, and we consider that that has to remain explicit in the Bill. If we go on adding other non-monetary matters to Clause 2(4)(a), we run the distinct risk of watering down the explicit imperative of achieving value for money for the works, which is something that the Bill as drafted ensures the sponsor body must have regard to. Therefore, I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would be detrimental to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

8: Clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(ga) the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster;”

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park. Noble Lords will be aware that Members in the other place considered an amendment that proposed that the sponsor body should have regard to the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster, including the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site.

There is no disagreement on the Government’s part about the sentiment underlying this. We agree that the works undertaken during R&R will need to ensure that the architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster is preserved for future generations. Originally, as I explained at Second Reading, we were of the view that the best way of achieving this was through the existing planning processes, which will be legally bound to safeguard the grade 1 listed status of the building. We have also been cautious about the idea of including the UNESCO heritage status of the Palace of Westminster in the Bill, given that this designation also covers Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church.

Nevertheless, we recognise that there is support in both Houses for the Bill to specify that the sponsor body should have regard to heritage. Because of that, the Government committed in the other place to bring forward an amendment on heritage in Committee. We have therefore tabled this amendment, which we consider strikes the right balance between the preservation and protection of the Palace’s heritage, and the need to deliver the renovations and accessibility modifications that would improve the functionality of the Palace.

The Government have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss this approach with a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Cormack, the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Andrews, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am genuinely pleased that all the noble Lords we engaged with supported the drafting.

The purpose of the restoration and renewal programme is to secure the Palace, and restore and renew it for future generations. The heritage of the Palace is central to this, so this amendment will set into the Bill a duty on the sponsor body to have regard to the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster. This is one of a number of matters for the sponsor body to have regard to, so will need to be considered alongside others, such as disabled access. In that sense, it seeks to ensure that the Bill strikes the balance between restoring the Palace of Westminster and renewing it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak relatively briefly, I hope, on this issue. I welcome Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and I thank the Minister for his comments. My noble friend Lady Andrews spoke at Second Reading, as did other noble Lords, about the historical significance this building has, and I am pleased that that has led to the amendment today to ensure that a duty is placed on the sponsor body to have regard to,

“the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster”.

The amendment addresses the concerns felt across the whole House and we welcome it.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in a sense, what he is saying is the very basis of the restoration and renewal programme. I said before that we all recognise that there is that line to be trod between the necessary changes to the building and preserving its historical fabric. The whole basis of this programme is that, while we recognise the historical and archaeological implications of the building, we adapt it for modern use. He made a point in his amendment about us returning to the building. If we were not going to return to the building, we could just have a museum and patch everything up as it is now. However, because we are returning to the building, we need to have those types of adaptations and improvements. The only reason so many of our historic buildings have survived is because they have been adapted to modern use. If you go back to history, the reason why we have so many old buildings is because they have been kept in use and modernised over many years. I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, makes reference to the building’s status as part of the UNESCO world heritage site, as that is an important distinction to make. The point of his amendment, which is well made, is covered in Amendment 8, so we are grateful to the Minister and the Government for bringing it forward.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for their welcome of the wording of the amendment before us. It resolves very neatly the concerns raised by many noble Lords and indeed many Members of the other place, and I am genuinely glad that noble Lords feel that it is entirely appropriate.

I hope that I can briefly give some words of comfort to my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on their perfectly understandable concerns about the condition of the medieval cloisters. First, I assure them that Cloister Court is part of the Palace of Westminster. That point is material, because it means that it will be included in the restoration and renewal works. Furthermore, however, the House authorities are planning some exterior conservation works in Cloister Court before restoration and renewal begins. Following that, the whole Palace, including both the external and internal spaces of Cloister Court, are in scope for the restoration and renewal works. With those words, I hope that my noble friend in particular will be at least partly reassured on his concerns.

Amendment 8 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I feel that we have already segued into later debates. With due respect to my noble friend, I have to challenge his “back of an envelope” assessment. If he comes to my office, I will show him a huge amount of paperwork—documents that some of us have worked on over the last couple of years. If it was all on the back of an envelope, the envelope would be enormous.

We have gone a little wider than the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, but I do think he is on to something. I understand that the question of the Ministry of Defence and the car park has now been resolved—but, I suspect, given the extra cost that would have been involved had it not been resolved, that public attention might well have encouraged them to move a little more quickly than they did. Again, we come back to what we are really talking about here: engagement, information and openness. The more that we can say what is intended to be done, the greater will be our ability to monitor the project.

In most large projects that I know, there is some slippage. Noble Lords are right that this project is at a relatively early stage, but quite a lot of planning has gone into it already. We do not need to say, “This will happen on 3 January 2022”, but it should be possible to have an idea of a timeframe for when certain things are likely to happen. That would help with public engagement and the engagement of colleagues around the House.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his amendment on the important issue of decant and its timeline. His amendment would require the sponsor body to provide its best estimate for the timeline of the Palace restoration works when consulting parliamentarians.

As noble Lords are aware, the full decant, restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is scheduled to take place from the mid-2020s until the mid-2030s. I absolutely recognise that noble Lords are seeking further clarity on those dates. It is very much my hope, and that of the Government, that the work will be completed expeditiously and that we will move back to the Palace as swiftly as possible afterwards. Under the Bill, the delivery authority is required to formulate proposals for the works, including the timing of those works. This will form the outline business case, the OBC, which Parliament will need to approve before the substantive works commence. If for any reason the timings change significantly, the sponsor body will need to come back to Parliament for further approval. It is at that stage—the presentation of the OBC—that the timing of the works will become clear.

The Government have of course thought about requiring the sponsor body to provide its assessment of timings at the consultation stage, even if it is just a best estimate. The trouble with that is that the sponsor body at that stage will still be in the process of formulating the OBC, and any forecast timings will be at best a very rough estimation. I argue that this would risk setting expectations prematurely. Those expectations would then inevitably need to be revised when the sponsor body placed its proposals before Parliament prior to approval.

I shall give a simple illustration of that. We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate on what noble Lords would like to see from a restored Palace. Those aspects of the plan are not the sort of thing that can be nailed down a priori. They are therefore bound to affect the length of time that the works will take.

Furthermore, one essential first step for R&R is the works to Richmond House, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, to enable the decant from the other place. The timing of those works will inevitably affect the start time for R&R—so clearly we would not want to decant before those works had happened. The noble and learned Lord asked where we were in the planning process for Richmond House. All I can say is that the Northern Estate programme is currently consulting the public on its plans for Richmond House. We expect it to make a formal planning application to Westminster City Council by this autumn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

My Lords, Amendment 22 brings our attention to the relationship between the sponsor body and both Houses. The sponsor body must remain engaged with the wider Parliament throughout the work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, made a number of points in this regard.

Amendments 24 and 25 seek to create within the body a new champion for education and a champion for participatory democracy, as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. The benefits of Parliament for educational and participative democracy purposes are well established and were discussed earlier, so I have no need to go back over them. I hope that the sponsor body will agree to promote both these aspects.

Meanwhile, Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith would introduce the idea of a report to ensure that the Palace is maintained beyond the works. This is an attempt to look to the future and ensure that the Estate cannot fall into its current level of disrepair. The can has been kicked down the road for far too long and work must begin as soon as it has been agreed, but there would be great benefit in reporting on how these works will preserve the long-term future. Be it in a separate account or as part of the pre-existing reporting arrangements, this issue should be given consideration.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for these amendments, which, as they have explained, are about placing further duties on the sponsor body, namely: appointing spokespersons for that body in each House; appointing champions for particular purposes; and to underpin maintenance planning. The amendments are grouped to reflect the fact that they relate to the relationship between Parliament and the sponsor body. I am sure that we can all identify with the arguments advanced for these amendments and I will address each in turn.

The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord would require the sponsor body to nominate spokespeople for both Houses. The Government agree that it may well be necessary to have political figureheads on the sponsor body. However, we come back to the question of how prescriptive we should be in the Bill. The Government’s view is that it is for the sponsor body to determine the role of its parliamentary Members, whether acting as political figureheads or spokespersons, or answering Parliamentary Questions, and that we should not prescribe these things in the Bill.

Having said that, I reassure the noble and learned Lord that the chair of the shadow sponsor body will be invited to consider and agree its preferred approach to the appointment of spokespeople in the autumn, ahead of its transition to the substantive stage. I am sure they will be receptive to that idea. Apart from responding to Parliamentary Questions, subject to procedural discussions within both Houses, the possibility could also be explored of the spokespeople making Written Statements and moving resolutions to agree the outline business case required by the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I always have a sense of déjà vu when discussing this issue. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lady Quin for contacting me prior to the debate. My noble friend Lady Quin’s amendment is somewhat different from those we have seen before. It is not about relocating Parliament but about a temporary relocation while the works are being undertaken. I have listened carefully to what has been raised today, and I wonder whether we are almost having two separate discussions. There is a challenge with this project so that all nations and regions of the UK feel engaged with it. I might have made a slightly different argument in pushing for this.

We face three things as a country: economic inequality, democratic disengagement and a loss of confidence in the political system. They have been raised at different times when talking about this issue. However, I am not convinced that moving Parliament necessarily addresses them. Having said that, the proposal before us today is about the restoration and renewal of this building to provide a home for a 21st-century Parliament. My noble friend Lady Quin referred to the comments I made at Second Reading about the administrative capital and the plans to build it on the Yorkshire moors. Other countries have done that. That is a completely separate issue from what is facing us today, which is the restoration and renewal of this building. There is nothing that says that in future, if as a nation we want to take that decision, we could not do so, but we would have to accept that the cost would make the cost of restoration and renewal pale into insignificance because Parliament does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as part of a system involving government, civil society, business and the Civil Service. I have always taken the view that we need to keep those elements of governance of the country together and have those communications.

A huge challenge to this programme is to address the issue of benefiting the regions. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in particular, has some interesting ideas and I hope the Government will pursue them and will be a little more positive than they have been to date on engaging young people and others throughout the country. However, issues of confidence in the political system cannot be addressed by this programme. The costs would be greater than if we have to do the work here. However, there is nothing to stop Parliament at any time looking at creating a new administrative capital if that is what it wishes to do, but I do not think this Bill is the right place to address that. If there had been new arguments that could have persuaded me otherwise, I would have been happy to take them on board, but I am still not persuaded that this programme is the right time to be looking at a different site, even temporarily.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for their amendment, which brings us back to the vexed issue of decant. The amendment would require the sponsor body to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving an assessment of relocating the Houses of Parliament, for the duration of the parliamentary building works, to a location outside London.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster suggested that the Commons should decant to the Northern Estate, including Richmond House, and the Lords should decant to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. I can only underline the words of my noble friend Lord Haselhurst: those recommendations were based on substantial analysis of where Parliament could be relocated during R&R. This included a pre-feasibility study commissioned by Parliament in 2012. Just to clarify what I said at Second Reading, that study looked into the preliminary business case for R&R and considered whether Parliament should decant and, if so, whether it should be to a location outside Westminster, whether temporarily or permanently. It concluded that because the,

“geographical proximity of Parliament to Government is of significance … substantial additional costs would be incurred”.

On the back of the pre-feasibility study, the House authorities commissioned the independent options appraisal. This was scrutinised by the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which considered the various options for R&R. In its report the committee noted that it had considered the proposal to temporarily relocate Parliament during R&R. It concluded, as was well summarised by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, that,

“the option of temporarily locating Parliament outside London during the works, while attractive in many ways, carries an unacceptable burden of cost and inconvenience, which would otherwise be avoided”.

It reached that decision as Parliament currently owns a number of buildings around the Palace of Westminster, such as the Northern Estate and Millbank House. These buildings provide both office space for Members and many committee and meeting rooms. If Parliament were to relocate during R&R, it would mean abandoning these buildings, thereby increasing the costs associated with decant.

I listened with care to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. In its report, the Joint Committee brought our attention to the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who served as Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service for a decade. He described how he had,

“no doubt in saying that Parliament needs ready access to Ministers and vice versa. Departments also need ready access to Ministers and vice versa. It is an old-fashioned syllogism. The three need to be closely co-ordinated if Government is to work properly”.

I hope to convey that there has already been substantial work to assess whether the permanent or temporary location of Parliament should be outside London. On the back of that work, the matter was decided by Parliament in the Motions passed in 2018. Furthermore, contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I have concerns that the noble Baroness’s amendment, however well intentioned, might seriously delay progress on R&R. Significant work has already been undertaken to identify the decant locations and to formulate designs for the Northern Estate. If we were to decide to decant to somewhere else at this stage, we would need to start the process all over again.

I just do not think that we should go back and unpick the clear decision taken last year or the substantial work that has already been undertaken. To do so risks delaying this important, and urgent, project. Many of us would say that the work is already overdue. We absolutely must secure the Palace of Westminster—a grade I listed building, part of a UNESCO world heritage site and the home of UK democracy—for future generations. I am sure that I do not need to remind noble Lords of the problems that this building faces. Falling masonry, sewage leaks and the alarming number of fires caught just in time all demonstrate the pressing need to pass this Bill and get on with the job. We simply do not have time to delay.

So, for the reasons I have set out, I am afraid that the Government must express significant reservations about this amendment.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I thank all Members who have taken part in this short debate. To describe it kindly, I would say there have been mixed reactions, with some thinking the amendment far from modest and quite over the top, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley feeling it did not go far enough. The issues raised will not go away. We need to think imaginatively about how we rebalance our country to tackle overcentralisation and overconcentration. I will reflect on what has been said but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Defence: Expenditure

Earl Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether current defence expenditure is sufficient to meet the United Kingdom’s responsibilities (1) nationally, and (2) to international partnerships and alliances.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, we continue to meet our commitments, both to our defence strategic objectives and to our international partners. The Government have committed to meet the NATO defence investment pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence every year of this Parliament. We have the largest military budget in Europe and are the second largest spender in NATO behind the US.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, those are soothing assurances, as always, from the Dispatch Box but, in reality, we have weekly warnings from the noble Lord, Lord West, on naval stretch, the number of combat of aircraft has fallen from 210 in 2007 to 119 today, and the Army has serious deficiencies in manpower, logistics and equipment. Encouragingly, Boris Johnson, in a letter to Julian Lewis, chairman of the Defence Select Committee, said:

“I can give you an absolute commitment to fund defence fully … I guarantee, of course, that we will exceed the minimum 2% NATO spending target and the defence budget will continue to grow at a minimum of 0.5% annually”.


Given Mr Johnson’s reputation for integrity, consistency and preciseness, how would the Minister prioritise these promised extra resources?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, it is undoubtedly true that the spending review later this year will be an important event for defence. It will build on the modernising defence programme, which will take forward our threefold agenda to mobilise, modernise and transform defence so that the Armed Forces can tackle new threats. As for equipment, we expect to publish our financial summary of the equipment plan in the autumn, and we will address the longer-term affordability of the plan in the spending review.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel considerable sympathy for the Minister because he is defending the indefensible. The Foreign Secretary, who I think probably has a reasonable understanding of our foreign and international commitments, has said that we will double the percentage of GDP spent on defence. The former Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, continually argued against me, saying that there was lots of money for defence, but three weeks after coming out of the post he said that there was a crisis and we needed to spend a lot more on defence. His successor said the same. Clearly, there is a real problem. Come this summer, will we make sure that there is no further hollowing out of our Armed Forces—I emphasise that they are hollowed out—to ensure that we meet our procurement budget?

[Earl Howe]

I think we can take some reassurance from the fact that the last Budget settlement gave defence a substantial boost, enabling us to say with confidence that we do not have to make any cuts, particularly on the equipment front. However, it is true—as I have said publicly before—that the forecast cost of our equipment plan exceeded the budget over a 10-year period, and if we took no action the plan would not be affordable. We are taking action, however, particularly through effective management to control costs and drive efficiencies, and, as I said, there is additional funding in the Budget. However, the spending review will count for a lot.

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Notwithstanding the Minister’s reassuring words, the well-documented pressures and the level of risk in the defence budget are real. Can the Minister provide an assurance that the stock levels of the department’s weapon, ammunition and stores inventories will allow ships, planes and soldiers to deploy with the necessary resilience to conduct sustained operations?

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, and can tell him that resilience is one of the priorities of his successor, the current Chief of the Defence Staff. We are acutely aware of the need not to run down munition stocks and a programme is in train to ensure that those matters are addressed.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday the Defence Select Committee report found that MoD expenditure has been cut by an eye-watering 25% since 2010. The former US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs said that during this time there has been,

“a steady decline of Britain as the partner of first choice for the US military”.

Does the Minister accept that austerity has undermined the UK/US defence partnership and that ultimately you cannot do security on the cheap?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, no, I do not think it has undermined the partnership. It is true that defence expenditure has declined as a proportion of GDP since the 1980s, but we have seen total defence expenditure steadily increase again since 2014. I would add only that, when we look at defence spending, it is not necessarily appropriate to try to compare like with like, because the nature of defence spending changes year by year, particularly the nature of operational spending. As I said, the core defence budget has been increasing and is currently £39 billion.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, the defence of the realm is the very first responsibility of any Prime Minister and not a laughing matter. Over history, the frigate has been absolutely key. The old ship of the line, the battleship, gets all the glamour but the frigate is key. Taking into account what happened last week with HMS “Montrose” and HMS “Duncan”, does the Minister agree that, with our global responsibilities coming up in the very near future, we need about 25 frigates ready to do the job properly?

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I am not sure about the number he cites but I agree with the tenor of his question. We can be proud of what defence has achieved and the investments it has made in recent years, but we must also be vigilant. We must respond to growing threats, especially more persistent and aggressive state competition, and the disruptive effects of rapid advances in technology. With those things in mind, the MoD has established a set of policy approaches and capability investments designed to keep us on track to deliver the right UK defence for the coming decade.

Royal Navy: Frigates

Earl Howe Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government remain committed to a surface fleet of at least 19 frigates and destroyers. The Royal Navy will have the ships it requires to fulfil its defence and policy commitments. All ships rotate through planned operating cycles involving maintenance, training, deployment, leave and capability upgrades.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. As he well knows, there are 13 frigates. I was in the yard at Devonport a few days ago, and five of the Type 23s were there. That is not unusual—one was in deep refit and four were coming back from operations and preparing. It effectively means that this great maritime nation of ours has eight frigates available for operations, one of which is being used in the Gulf at the moment. The nearest major warship to that one is on the other side of Suez, which I find rather worrying. We are planning to order the Type 31e. I cannot see how we will be able to get the first of those ships in commission, having done its first-of-class trials, before 2024. Yet the first of the Type 23s, the “Argyll”, pays off aged 34—it has a planned life of 25 years—in 2023. Is it possible, as a matter of urgency, for the MoD to look at the speeding up of the build rate of the Type 26 frigates? Then we can ensure that we are getting frigates in place, because we have too few as a nation. It makes us less secure and means that wars are more likely. It is really important to move forward.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I take very seriously the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue. As I have said on earlier occasions, we want the first Type 31e in 2023, with five ships delivered by the end of 2028; that is to replace the five Type 23 general purpose frigates. As he knows, the Type 31e is being procured through competition between UK shipyards. We will not have the result of the competition until the end of this year, so until then, it will not be possible to make predictions about whether the delivery date that we have charged industry with is definitely deliverable—but we hope that it is.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, since the noble Lord raised the question of the Type 31e, I remind the Minister that when it was first promoted, it was described by some as a cheap frigate—a description which appears increasingly inept, to use the word of the moment. Originally, the price was to be £250 million. Do the Government now accept that a figure of £350 million is much more realistic, and that such a figure will require additional funds from an already overstretched budget and will make the obtaining of the promised export orders much more difficult to achieve?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I do not agree. As I said, we want the first ship in 2023, with five ships delivered at the end of 2028, and we are still setting industry the target of an average production cost of £250 million per ship. All the information I have had says that that is still realistic.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to back up the noble Lord, Lord West, in his question on how effective our present fleet can be. As noble Lords will have seen, the frigate now in action in the Persian Gulf goes by the name of “Montrose”, and I have been fortunate enough to have contact with all the captains since it was launched. It has done duty chasing pirates in the Gulf of Arabia, protecting shipping in the China seas and now in the Gulf. I understand that the present arrangements are for quite a long spell in that situation. Do we have enough of these very effective vessels to carry out the duties that ensure our security?

[Earl Howe]

As I am sure my noble friend would expect, we keep our fleet deployments under constant review to adapt to evolving security situations around the world. That is the case with the current situation in the Gulf. Having said that, the recent actions of HMS “Montrose” demonstrate that we have the right assets in the right places. I stress that our priority now is to reduce tensions in the region.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, can I build on that point? Does that incident in which HMS “Montrose” was involved indicate the probability that more frigates will have to be deployed in the Gulf and, if so, what tasks elsewhere will be left uncovered?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord should ask that question, but it is hypothetical. At the moment, we think we have the right assets in the right places but, as I said, we keep our deployments and our tasking under review.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, with no disrespect to my excellent, gallant and noble friend, is it not the case that we now have two admirals for every ship we have serving? Is it not about time we did some trimming of the admirals?

[Lord West of Spithead]

Noted!

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Navy has already reduced the number of senior officers across the piece, including its admirals. We believe we have an appropriate number of senior officers to take charge of the various responsibilities, not all of which directly relate to ships of the fleet.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I am admonished that I should not ask a question which could cause a Minister to answer in a way that contains secret information. However, in view of the ambiguity of the noble Earl’s Answer to the Question, perhaps I may ask this: will the Royal Navy continue to control those 13 frigates in future, or are the Government subject to some private arrangement under which they intend to transfer the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to the control of a central European defence force as soon as we have reached a Brexit solution—a resolution or a remain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Government will never give up our sovereign control of our Armed Forces. I can give my noble friend that absolute assurance. If he found any ambiguity in my Answer, I am sorry, but, as he knows, it is not uncommon to have planned, temporary, small fluctuations in overall numbers when transitioning from any class of ship or submarine to another.

D-day Memorial

Earl Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what ongoing support they are giving to the construction of the memorial to those under British command at the D-Day landings in Ver-sur-Mer, and in particular to the creation of an education centre.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence was extremely pleased to provide the inaugural event for the British Normandy memorial at Ver-sur-Mer during the commemorations for the 75th anniversary of D-day. We continue to liaise closely with the Normandy Memorial Trust, a wholly independent body, and have made suggestions for ways we might best support the trust with its fundraising efforts for further facilities, such as the education centre and ongoing maintenance.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

I thank the Minister very much indeed for his positive reply. Does he agree that the planned education centre, while commemorating the valour of the troops who lost their lives on D-day, should also highlight decisive events in the Battle of Normandy which followed? For example, will it make known that the American troops encircled a huge army of German soldiers who were retreating and attempting to escape through the Falaise gap? Did not 1,500 Polish soldiers with tanks and artillery block the only useable way out? Come what may, the Polish soldiers stood their ground. Were they not down to their very last rounds of ammunition when, on 21 August, with direct Canadian assistance, about 50,000 German soldiers were taken prisoner, and was not the liberation of Paris only four days away?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to acknowledge the gallant and important role played by the Polish 1st Armoured Division under General Maczek, and the sacrifices that it made in the final defeat and destruction of the enemy forces in Normandy. Its determination to hold the line and block the retreat of the German army from the Falaise pocket was a major factor in the capture of some 50,000 enemy personnel. Its efforts are marked by the monument that crowns Mont Ormel, but the construction of an education centre may well—subject to the wishes of the trustees—provide a means of telling its story in a graphic way.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ricketts]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I declare an interest as chairman of the Normandy Memorial Trust. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, for raising the issue with the House today, and for the generosity that the Government have shown towards the memorial project so far. Does the Minister agree that the project to commemorate the 22,500 under British command who fell during the Battle of Normandy has been very much adopted by the public with widespread support, following the launch event on 6 June, as evidenced by the fact that we have since received over half a million pounds in public donations? Can he reassure the House that as we move to finish the memorial in time for next summer, we can continue to count on the support of HMG?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and his fellow trustees, who include the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Janvrin, deserve great credit for the way in which they are taking forward this important project. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, knows, the Government have already provided significant support through the Libor fund, but we are naturally keen to assist the trust in other ways, so far as we are able.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, this is a good news story so far, and I too thank the trustees. This is not before time. We have had lots of little memorials around Normandy, but nothing specific that covers all three of our services in one place—and that is extremely important. One of the joys for me is that listed on the memorial will be the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy people who died on the beaches and offshore, as no memorial does that at present. It is interesting that, of the 5,500 British ships off Normandy, the biggest was HMS “Rodney”, whose 16-inch guns destroyed several Waffen SS battalions that were trying to advance. She of course was built well before the war, and there is a need to have ships before wars happen; they stop them happening and, if they do happen, we need them. Does the Minister not think that it is about time we ordered some frigates so that we will be in a good place if something does happen?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I agree fully with the noble Lord that the Royal Navy plays a vital role in the defence of the nation and of our interests around the world. As he will be aware, the first Type 26 frigate is now under construction, and we look forward to seeing the Type 31 emerging over the next few years.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, at the same time as commemorating the fantastic event of D-day and those who lost their lives, should we not look five years back to the 80th anniversary of the sending of the BEF to France? The BEF fought valiantly but not very successfully in the end, although it did defend the beachhead at Dunkirk. The remaining survivors are now getting on for 100 or more, obviously. Should we not commemorate their sacrifice in some way, perhaps with a small reception?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very constructive suggestion that I will take back to my department.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the importance of the Polish contribution in this respect. I have found on several occasions, in the referendum campaign and since, that people argue that we British beat the Germans in two world wars and now they are trying to tell us what to do. I have tried to argue that we had some help from other countries. I think that there were troops of 30 nationalities under Britain’s command at Normandy. Can we ensure that the memorial and the education centre stress the collective activity that made this a tremendous success?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my understanding from the trust is that that is exactly its intention. The overwhelming majority of the 22,442 names on the memorial will be British, but troops of 38 different nationalities will be commemorated. Predominantly they were from Commonwealth countries and Europe, but there is also provision to record the contribution of the Merchant Navy, French agents who were parachuted in to observe German movements and the SOE, as well as war correspondents.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that as well as acknowledging and commemorating the valour of all those who died in the past, it is equally important that we safeguard the institutions of Europe which were devised to try to make sure that war like that never happens again? Will he therefore recommend to people who talk about recalling the valour of the past that they should not capriciously destroy the institutions of the European Union, which are there to prevent war happening again?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have sympathy with the spirit of the noble Lord’s question but of course we now have the NATO alliance, which represents the values of all western nations. Although we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe in terms of the values that we share with our European friends and the defence of the international rules-based order.

Schools: Cadet Expansion Programme

Earl Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Lingfield for securing this debate. I pay tribute to him in his role as a chairman of the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation and to the fine work it does to ensure that the skills gained through cadet forces are recognised and rewarded. I am particularly appreciative of his personal contribution in supporting Army Cadet Force musical activities. He will, I am sure, wish to join me in thanking other noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate.

Young people today are growing up in a complex world. We need to help them to develop the key skills, such as those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Robathan, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and others: self-confidence, resilience and determination, which are qualities that they need to make their way in life. We need to give them opportunities to develop the leadership, teamworking and other social skills that are so vital to employers. Independent schools have for many years looked to military-themed activities to give their pupils a sense of discipline, adventure and achievement. But we believe such life-changing experiences should not be the preserve of the fortunate. It is young people in our most disadvantaged communities who most need help in developing greater strength of character to cope with the challenges they face.

This Government have sought to see as many pupils as possible benefiting from the same quality of life-changing military-themed youth activity offered in many of the best independent schools in the country. That is why we have delivered the most significant expansion ever of the number of school-based cadet units, starting from just over 250 independent and state school units. The Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education have been working closely together since 2012 on the Cadet Expansion Programme. This ambitious programme has a target of adding almost 250 new cadet units in state-funded schools, to bring the total number of cadet units parading in schools across the UK to 500 by next March.

I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Freeman. The Government firmly believe in the important societal benefits and social mobility that cadet units can provide. Those are significant drivers for our continued investment in the cadet forces, both in school units and in the wider community. The Government have been able to put LIBOR fines to excellent use by committing £50 million to the Cadet Expansion Programme, with the priority being to set up units in areas of high deprivation. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will be pleased, as am I, that the Cadet Expansion Programme is firmly on track to achieve the target of 500 cadet units parading in schools by March next year, with over 450 units currently parading.

The noble Lord spoke about a fall in the number of cadets. I am pleased to say that the number of cadets within the community has increased again in the publication of the cadet annual statistics. However, there has been a reported decrease in the numbers within the Combined Cadet Force, both for cadets and for adult volunteers. This is because CCF Army has approved its approach to accounting for cadet numbers this year, which makes comparisons with previous years less reliable. Some of the earlier data input was found to be incorrect.

I want to address an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the split in numbers. At the start of the Cadet Expansion Programme, there was a split of approximately 75% CCFs in independent schools and 25% in state schools. The programme is focused on increasing the number of cadet units in state schools in areas of high deprivation, and that focus has meant that we currently have 40% of cadet units in independent schools and 60% in state schools. At the end of the programme—that is, March next year—we will have 37% in independent schools and 63% in state schools, so we have turned the majority of cadet units in schools from independent to state.

Can we improve on the number of 500? The advice that I have received is that the number of 500 school cadet units represents the upper limit of what the three armed services are capable of managing and overseeing, short of a marked growth in their own numbers. The key issue is not money; it is the capacity of the Armed Forces. Should there be additional demand beyond the 500, schools will be guided to channel their pupils to opportunities in local community units, a point rightly made by my noble friend Lady Scott.

[Lord Robathan]

My Lords, my noble friend was talking about the split between private and state schools. I applaud the intention to increase the state school CCFs, but would he not agree that one of the dangers of this, as has been suggested quite often, is that people damage and perhaps even destroy that which works—namely, the CCFs in private schools—and then in fact do not establish good CCFs in state schools? That is what we must beware of.

[Earl Howe]

That is certainly a risk. It is one that we are alive to and determined to prevent.

Head teachers of all the new schools that have come forward have done so because of the benefits that they see for their pupils. Many head teachers can give testimony to the positive impact of their cadet unit on attendance, behaviour and discipline. Head teachers have commented, for instance, that, “the pupils are more confident and attendance has improved”, and that their cadet unit, “brings out self-discipline, team work, working together, ambition and wanting to be the best”. Head teachers also speak of how others look up to the cadets in their school and how their cadets provide excellent role models for other pupils.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and break up the harmony that had lasted until the Minister’s speech. He said a moment ago, rather to my concern, that his department is setting an upper limit to the number of state schools that will be able to have Combined Cadet Forces, and that the capacity of the Armed Forces to manage more than 500 units was not there. Is he aware that that will be greeted with widespread disappointment in the state-school world? Effectively, he is saying that private schools, most of which have CCFs, will maintain them and a relatively small number of state schools will get them—that is, the 300 or so that will get them as a result of the expansion programme—but the 3,000 state schools that do not have Combined Cadet Forces will have to make do with Community Cadet Forces because the MoD says it is not capable of taking on more responsibilities. Could he indicate to the House an open mind about keeping this issue under review? I can tell him that his remarks will be greeted with very serious disappointment in the state-school world.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this is a time-limited debate and I have lots to say, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I am not saying that 500 is the absolute upper limit; of course, we keep that under review. We continue to push the envelope and would always want to do that in a geographical area where we have capacity to increase the number of cadet units in schools. I was simply pointing out that capacity is a challenge, which is why we are looking to increase numbers in the particular kinds of schools that we are targeting, but the figure of 500 is not fixed in stone. I hope that corrects any impression I gave earlier.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the Ecorys report. It is several years old and we regard it as having been superseded by newer studies, such as that currently being undertaken by the University of Northampton. So far, this work has been published in two interim reports which clearly set out the benefits of the cadet experience. This research gives head teachers, who have a crucial role to play in enthusing parents, pupils and staff about the benefits of a cadet unit, the evidence to convince others of the value of having a cadet unit in their school.

However, despite the clear benefits, schools can face significant challenges and barriers to establishing and running a cadet unit, particularly in relation to funding and human resources. Unfortunately, along the way towards meeting our Cadet Expansion Programme target, a number of new units have not flourished and have had to close. These closures have occurred for a variety of reasons which neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Department for Education has the leverage to influence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised a number of important points, but one I would like to pick up on is that the key to the success of a cadet unit is the enthusiasm of the head teacher. If a head teacher who is in favour of cadets is replaced by one who is not, there is a clear risk to the survivability of the unit. Head teachers must also be able to attract and retain sufficient capable and motivated individuals, either from the staffroom or beyond, to run the cadet units. Given the responsibilities and workload of teachers, this is not always easy—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. We also recognise that difficult decisions sometimes have to be made as head teachers balance priorities while needing to live within their budgets.

We are therefore continuing to support schools through the cadet bursary fund which provides additional money, where possible, to meet the costs of cover for teachers who are away on courses training to become adult volunteers, and helps schools afford to employ staff to administer their cadet units. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked how much money has been spent through this fund. As at 23 May, the figure I have for money paid out since December 2014 is just over £5,900,000.

One thing that has frustrated schools in the past has been the perceived lack of recognition that they receive, despite the significant commitment and effort involved in establishing a cadet unit. I am sure that head teachers will welcome Ofsted’s new framework, which places clear importance on personal development and positive attitudes. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the school staff, and others, who volunteer to support their cadet unit. We encourage school staff to take part in running the cadet unit so that it becomes an integral part of the school, but there is also an important role for adults from outside the school community.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether we could consider introducing a review of awards for cadets and adult volunteers to ensure they are recognised in the honours system, particularly the volunteers. Where possible, and in the majority of cases, cadet and adult volunteer courses already result in recognised national body awards, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, the Royal Yachting Association and St John Ambulance. This ensures that they are recognised outside of cadets and assists cadets with their CVs.

Adult volunteers are recognised through the honours system and are included in the military honours system. While there is no quota, when compared with regular and reserve Armed Forces personnel, cadet adult volunteers do well. Adult volunteers who do not wear uniform are recognised through the civilian honours. They also do well. Adults can receive recognition through various other awards, such as the lord-lieutenant awards or RFCA awards. The mechanisms are there; we just need to remind people that they should nominate deserving individuals.

I also thank all those schools with established cadet units that have partnered with a state school to enable them to offer the cadet experience to their pupils. This is of particular value where staff in schools setting up new units have no prior military experience and helps to transfer important skills. To date, of the schools that have established a new cadet unit under the expansion programme, over 70 are benefiting from such partnerships.

I hope noble Lords will allow me a little extra time, since we have some in hand, to finish my speech, bearing in mind the interventions we have had. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked how we encourage greater participation by young females and those from BAME backgrounds. We do not have targets for either category and the associated numbers are not measured. Any cadet unit, self-evidently, will be composed of young people who are representative of the local area. Having said that, areas with a high BAME population often correlate with areas of high deprivation.

My noble friend Lord Lingfield asked how we can build on what we have achieved, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others. The Government’s ambition is to increase cadet numbers in school cadet units to 60,000 over the next five years. This can only be good for our young people, but as we work towards this ambition, we must ensure that legacy schools continue to thrive. We must also continue to support our 3,000 community cadet units across the UK and ensure that we keep the offer relevant, up to date and appealing to today’s young people. I am pleased that improvements to a number of cadet training facilities funded through the programme are also available to cadets from the community cadet forces. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the single services are committed to sustained funding of cadet units.

Cadet units have a vital role to play in building the character and resilience of young people. The Government remain committed to supporting all cadets and the adult volunteers, who are the lifeblood of the cadet units. I firmly hope that in the coming years, we can build on the success we have achieved to date and continue to give many more young people the life chances they deserve.

House adjourned at 6.27 pm.

Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz: Merchant Shipping

Earl Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK works closely with the shipping industry through the maritime trade organisation and other regional partners to share information on the risks in the maritime environment. At this time, we are working through diplomatic channels to de-escalate tensions in the region that threaten the free flow of shipping and the wider international community.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for his semi non-Answer. There is no doubt that protecting and defending one’s people and ships always risks escalation, but that does not mean that one should not defend and protect one’s people and ships. Is he absolutely sure that we have enough assets in place and that we are approaching this in the right way so that we do not have a recurrence of the disgraceful surrender of royal naval personnel in the northern Gulf in 2007 to a swarm of Republican Guard vessels, because the Iranians have form on breaking rules at sea and then lying about exactly what happened? We should be working with the Americans and other allies to look at taking convoys of ships through. Six have been damaged so far. When the next couple of incidents happen, if we have not done anything, we will be culpable.

[Earl Howe]

I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point about ensuring proper and adequate force protection for our people and assets in the region. As he knows, the UK has a permanent presence in the Gulf in support of international maritime security operations. We conduct routine deployments to the region. Royal Navy vessels, including the frigate HMS “Montrose”, four mine countermeasure vessels and the RFA “Cardigan Bay”, are currently deployed to the Gulf region to assist international efforts to protect trade and shipping. But we are in no doubt that in seeking to de-escalate the situation, as I described, those assets need to be properly defended.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that 95% of the oil going through the Strait of Hormuz goes to Asian markets and eastwards, rather than to the West? Should we not be consulting closely with the Chinese and Japanese, who are the big consumers most affected by problems in the strait, before planning any further action?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is entirely right. As he may know, the UK is a member of the Combined Maritime Forces, which was created back in 2001 to help counter the threat from international terrorism. It has 33 member states from across the globe, with active support from the Gulf Cooperation Council. We routinely contribute personnel and assets to the CMF to conduct maritime security operations throughout the region.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, mentioned the danger of escalation. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said:

“We do not want a war in the region ... But we won’t hesitate to deal with any threat to our people, our sovereignty, our territorial integrity and our vital interests”,


US Secretary of State Pompeo has said that the US,

“is considering a full range of options”.

In the light of those comments, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to de-escalate the situation in the Gulf, and are we working with our European partners to talk to Iran?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, my Lords. Our aim, as the noble Baroness says, is to de-escalate the situation and reduce tensions, and we are acting with our E3 partners, France and Germany, to that end. However, it would be foolish to claim that the dangers have now disappeared: they are still very real and we are alive to the possibility of further incidents.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. I support part of what the noble Lord, Lord West, said. This is an extremely dangerous situation and I condemn what Iran has apparently done. Will my noble friend the Minister bear in mind that the country with the greatest stake in keeping the Strait of Hormuz free and the Gulf of Oman navigable is Iran itself? Although this does not justify it, it is therefore not surprising that, when America has decided that Iran should not be allowed to sell a single barrel of oil on the international market, Iran is less interested in keeping the Strait of Hormuz free. Will my noble friend therefore concentrate on a political, rather than a military, solution to this issue?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is entirely right in everything he has said. That is exactly why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the other place that our efforts would be focused on a diplomatic solution. We are working actively to that end.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, building on the theme of accidental escalation, following reports that the UK is sending additional marines to the Strait of Hormuz, can the Minister give us an overview of the rules of engagement for British forces in the area? If he is minded not to do so, can he at least assure us that specific rules of engagement have been issued and inform us which member of the Government approved them?

[Earl Howe]

I should correct the noble Lord on one point. Contrary to some media reports, we have not deployed any additional forces to the region as a result of the latest attacks. I completely understand why the noble Lord asked about rules of engagement, but I hope that he does not expect me to set out what those rules are. However, I can assure him that appropriate force protection measures are in place and are subject to regular review as the situation evolves.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, has been very helpful in this area and that we should be proud of all its work, whatever the Daily Telegraph may say about a potential Tory leadership candidate?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on security matters, but I can tell him that investigations into the incident in the Strait of Hormuz are ongoing. Further information should be forthcoming in due course.

Afghan Interpreters: Security Clearance

Earl Howe Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, we are reviewing our national security vetting policies alongside wider work on the Government’s vetting reform programme. The MoD’s review will include an assessment of the criteria applied to interpreters, specifically those deployed in operational theatres.

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, surely the loyalty and trustworthiness of these Afghan interpreters has already been tested beyond doubt. The benefit of relocation to the UK under what I agree is a very good redundancy scheme is seriously undermined by reports in Saturday’s Times that some interpreters have been reduced to taking low-paid work in fast-food outlets instead of the specialist linguistic work for which they are uniquely qualified. Can the Minister confirm that the security clearance criteria of 10 years’ residence and five years’ British nationality are discretionary? If so, does he agree that there is an overwhelming case for speed, flexibility and generosity so that these interpreters can do the jobs that we must need them to do as much as they want to do them?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Cabinet Office policy contains guidelines for appropriate nationality and UK residency periods for prospective applicants, but they are not absolute requirements and should be considered on a case-by-case basis for each individual. It is important to understand that the process of security clearance is a matter of assessing not simply an individual’s trustworthiness but the degree of risk to that individual in the circumstances of the employment that they seek, and the security measures that would be needed to protect that individual and potentially their family as well.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the way in which the Government have treated Afghani interpreters is an absolute travesty. During the UK’s 13-year mission, they risked their lives in support of our Armed Forces, but have since been forced to work in low-paid jobs as well as struggling to secure security clearance and family visas. It has been reported that vacancies remain for interpreters with NATO forces in Afghanistan, so does the Minister accept that the Government’s decision not to speed up the security clearance process has hampered NATO’s continuing mission in that country?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I hardly accept anything that the noble Lord has just said. I do not believe that the Government’s scheme for previously employed interpreters is a travesty. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, endorse the quality of the scheme because uniquely in the world it is there to provide for our former staff and their families, who have played such a generous role in supporting UK and NATO staff in Afghanistan. In total, through our ex gratia redundancy scheme, around 500 former staff and their families have relocated to the UK, which represents around 1,295 individuals in total. In June last year the then Defence Secretary announced that the criteria had been even more generously expanded. We are the only nation with a dedicated investigation unit in-country to investigate and provide solutions to intimidation.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that I have to speak from these Benches rather than my friend the late Lord Paddy Ashdown, who would naturally have spoken on this Question and knew so much more than I do. Can the Minister confirm that so far we have accepted, I think he said, some 500 out of a total of 3,500 interpreters that the British had in Afghanistan, while the United States has offered asylum to 9,000 Afghanis? It does not seem that the British position is quite so unique. Can he also comment on the fact that the leading candidate for his party leadership is deeply and publicly committed to British forces spending more time in more conflicts east of Suez? If he becomes Prime Minister, it is likely that in future conflicts we will need local interpreters for the languages spoken, so our reputation as regards how we care for interpreters afterwards matters for the future as well as for the past.

[Earl Howe]

I agree, which is why we have been careful to create not only one but at least two very generous schemes for former interpreters. Those schemes do not necessarily involve relocation to the UK. They may involve relocation in-country, they may involve financial compensation, or indeed they may involve retraining for another career altogether, and we provide the means for them to do that. In the majority of cases, I would be very surprised if complaints were raised against the UK, although I take note of the report in the Times last week, to which we are paying close attention.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, as one who has been privileged to give support to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in this very worthwhile campaign, can I put it to my noble friend that we are dealing with some of the bravest of the brave? In the most difficult circumstances they put their own lives at risk, and very often the lives of their families as well. Does he therefore agree that we really must try to deal as expeditiously as security allows with all those whose cases have not yet been adequately dealt with?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, I agree very firmly. The Government remain grateful to all locally employed staff who played pivotal roles in Afghanistan. Many served bravely alongside our military forces on patrol in dangerous situations and we regret deeply that some had to pay the ultimate price for freedom. We use our best endeavours to expedite these assessments as quickly as possible, but my noble friend will understand that sometimes it is important to get to the facts of the case, which does take some time.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, with respect to the Minister—whom we all respect—this has been dragging on for a very long time. Can he confirm when it was first raised?

[Earl Howe]

The issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was brought to our attention only in the Times report. Of course, the wider issue of the packages available to former Afghan interpreters has been long-standing, but I believe the Ministry of Defence has a very good case to present.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My noble friend must surely realise that it is not as good as it should have been. Can the House expect a Statement within a reasonable time—a couple of months, say—on exactly what the situation is, otherwise, as was said earlier, our efforts elsewhere in the world will be hampered?

[Earl Howe]

I sympathise with my noble friend’s question, but it is important to understand the point I made earlier: it is not easy to make a general statement here, because each case has to be treated individually. As I mentioned, it is often not the person’s trustworthiness or nationality that is at issue, but what their degree of vulnerability would be were they to work in the operational theatre they are seeking to be employed in. That is not a question that admits of a standard reply.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I accept everything the noble Earl has said, but is there not a pragmatic dimension to this? It is one thing to have a scheme, but if the scheme takes a long time to be implemented is that not likely to discourage others from offering their services?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, it may, and the noble Lord is right that that is certainly a risk if it is perceived that the UK is treating anyone unfairly. We are very conscious of that. At the same time, it is not fair on the individual who applies to work—in these cases, for NATO in Afghanistan—to overlook their personal security, that of their families and the measures that would be needed to protect both the individual and their families in those circumstances.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Earl has said on three occasions now that security clearance is a matter of assessing not just the individual’s loyalty but their personal safety and that of their family. Can he explain how the individual’s personal safety is at greater risk now than when they were in Afghanistan?

[Earl Howe]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

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

[Earl Howe]

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

Defence: Expenditure

Earl Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Foreign Secretary’s speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet on 13 May represented a change in their policy on defence expenditure.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to meet our NATO pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence every year of this Parliament. We are one of only a small number of NATO countries to spend 2% of GDP on defence. We have the largest military budget in Europe and are the second-largest spender in NATO, behind the United States.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, that is a somewhat disappointing response from my noble friend. I will not blame him; I will blame the people who wrote it. The Foreign Secretary is in a position to see the threats and dangers that face world peace in general and the interests of this country in particular. When he called for a decisive, significant increase in defence expenditure, possibly doubling defence expenditure up to 4% according to the Guardian, which I do not often quote, many in this Chamber would have been very pleased. The relatively new Defence Secretary supports his leadership bid. The previous Defence Secretary pleaded for more defence spending. Will my noble friend please go back to the Government and to whomsoever becomes the next Prime Minister to say that many in this Chamber and across the country who show an interest in defence desperately want to see increased defence expenditure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am in considerable sympathy with my noble friend. We can be proud of what defence has achieved over the last few years, but we must also be vigilant. We must respond to growing threats, especially the more persistent and aggressive state competition we face. The question my right honourable friend said we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be spending more on defence. That is precisely the question that will be asked in the forthcoming spending review.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, is it true that additional resources will be required to fund the existing proposed defence programme?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we recognise that there is an affordability gap in our equipment programme. I have said this before. If we did nothing, the programme would be unaffordable. But we are taking action and, with careful management, particularly using the contingencies we have and budgeting for efficiencies, which we are already scoring, we believe that the equipment programme will be affordable.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Earl’s Answer was rather complacent. There is no doubt that this is a clarion call from the Foreign Secretary. As was said, he is in the best position to judge what the balance between hard power and soft power should be. Soft power is very important, but we have whittled hard power down since 2010. It has reduced and reduced. We have a surface shipbuilding strategy with only three ships in the next 10 years, so far. If you have a shipbuilding strategy, you need ships. There is a hollowing out of defence. Can I ask the noble Earl what the plans are now within the MoD, bearing in mind that there are huge shortfalls because the savings measures to make good the figures that they are balancing are just not there, and the comprehensive spending review seems to be shot to ribbons? What are the MoD plans for actually moving ahead? Are they planning more cuts, or are they planning to enhance the areas where there have been reductions and hollowing out?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we should not overlook the fact that we have a £39 billion core defence budget. That will rise to almost £40 billion by 2020-21. The Ministry of Defence’s budget will rise by at least 0.5% in real terms every year of this Parliament. However, we come back to my noble friend’s Question about the percentages of GDP that we should be spending. If there is a right number for defence, it is the amount of money that is necessary to fund defence outputs. What should those outputs be? The answer—which I hope the noble Lord takes comfort from—is that the modernising defence programme has established a set of policy approaches which will help keep us on track to deliver the right UK defence for the coming decade, against the background of the threats facing us.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl remembers, the Foreign Secretary, in his Guildhall speech, not only called for new capabilities and higher spending, but went on to set the point of these new capabilities when he said that,

“strength is the surest guarantee of peace”.

Furthermore, last week, in the D-day proclamation, 16 countries, including the United Kingdom, committed to,

“work together to resolve international tensions peacefully”.

Given those two aims, of strong defence as a sure base for peace and the proclamation, does the noble Earl agree that the formation of the joint reconciliation unit within the Stabilisation Unit in the Foreign Office is a major step forward, in that averting war through orchestrated means—including both hard and soft power—is much cheaper than fighting it?

[Earl Howe]

I agree, and am grateful to the most reverend Primate for drawing attention to the point he made so clearly and well in the debate we had a few weeks ago on the theme of reconciliation. This takes a mixture of efforts across Government, not only from the Ministry of Defence but also through DfID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All those budgets contribute to doing precisely what the most reverend Primate is advocating. I fully concur with the prescription he laid out.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is clear that leadership elections give Ministers the opportunity to stray into other briefs. The Foreign Secretary was obviously talking about defence. There seems to be a lacuna in policy discussion in the current Conservative leadership debate—other than on Brexit. Maybe there is an opportunity for Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere to ask the Conservative leadership candidates what their commitment to increasing defence expenditure might be, and who they are likely to have as Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if they do not agree, defence expenditure will not go up.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness speaks wise words, as ever.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether we could build on that point, as I am a little confused. In the good old days, when a Secretary of State made a speech, one had reasonable assurance that he was speaking the policy of the Government. That is not so clear at the moment. Have the various statements by the Foreign Secretary been more in his role as a candidate for Prime Minister than as a representative of the Government?

[Earl Howe]

As I said earlier, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was suggesting that it is right for the Government to ask themselves the question of how much they should be spending on defence. That is the question we are asking ourselves, or will shortly be doing, in the spending review that faces us this year.