Defence Investment Plan

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for both the briefing and prior sight of the defence investment plan, which he provided to me and my colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, yesterday. I doubt any plan was so dogged by delay and preceded by such drama as this one, but that doleful prelude was eclipsed by the gloom and scepticism that engulfed the plan when it became public. To quote my honourable friend in the other place, Mr James Cartlidge, it is “too little, too late”.

The threat we face is now. This plan, lacking in significant detail, is for the next four years. It was intended to deliver the recommendations in the SDR. It does not. It should have laid out a path to the 3% of GDP needed before the end of this Parliament, never mind during the next one. It does not. As for a path to NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, that apparently remains in the mists of the Prime Minister’s imagination: undiscernible and shortly to disappear.

The Prime Minister criticises the previous Government for not spending enough, but I point out to your Lordships that my party responded to the threat as we understood it then, in the wake of a searing economic challenge inherited from a Labour Government in 2010. However, despite austerity, we kept the RAF Lossiemouth air base open; ordered the vital Poseidon planes that operate from there; ordered eight Type 26 frigates and five Type 31 frigates, which are being built now; launched the Global Combat Air Programme to produce the next-generation fighter; and commissioned the Dreadnought programme to renew our nuclear deterrent. I am not going to speculate on Mr Burnham’s Harry Potter powers to wave a magic wand to fix this deficient defence investment plan. Given his projected political strategy to date, fixing defence is not on any wish list I have seen. However, I know that none of this is the Minister’s making. He is here to answer questions, which I know he will do with his customary loyalty, integrity and courtesy.

I will start with the Secretary of State’s foreword to the plan. If we strip out the roseate language, £298 billion is to be spent over the next four years. Some £283 billion of that is not new money; it is simply what is required to keep the doors open, pay the people turning up and ensure that the day-to-day bills are paid. The crux question is: how much is needed on top of that? The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, says that £28 billion of additional money is needed over the next four years to do what must be done to keep us safe. My party is prepared to answer that call and fund it by reinstating the two-child benefit cap, reallocating up to £50 billion currently being spent on welfare and costly net-zero projects, and scrapping Labour’s catastrophic Chagos deal. This Government are not prepared to answer that call and will short-change defence by the £13 billion that they were never going to provide. That is completely unacceptable.

The former Secretary of State, John Healey, has said that this plan leaves the country “less safe”. The authors of the strategic defence review have said that the funding package is “not enough”. What will it take for the Government to listen to the service chiefs, the retired senior officers, and indeed members of their own party, and find the money that they all say is needed to keep us safe?

Even the inadequate £15 billion that the Government are going to provide immediately starts to fall apart under scrutiny. We know from the Chancellor that £4.7 billion is not there. According to the accompanying funding explainer, it is to be allocated at the Autumn Budget, presumably by a new Prime Minister and a new and as yet unknown Chancellor.

If this were not bad enough, page 73 of the Defence Investment Plan is revealing. It discloses that £10.7 billion of the £15 billion is to come from “defence efficiencies” over four years. So, as we speak, that money is not there either. This is accountancy smoke and mirrors. On the defence efficiencies, £1.1 billion is to come from “reform and service redesign”—so what reform, what redesign and what details can the Minister provide? Some £3.3 billion is to come through “workforce and resourcing”. What does that mean and what detail is available? Some £2 billion is to come through “infrastructure”. What infrastructure? How is that money to be provided? Some £0.2 billion is to come through “digital”—how? Some £3.7 billion is to come through “acquisition and supply chain”. How has that figure been arrived at, and what underpins that estimate? The more alert among your Lordships will have noticed that that totals £10.3 billion, not the £10.7 billion that is at the head of the defence reform efficiencies. So we have another £400 million whistling into the blue yonder. Separately, the plan also states that £1.1 billion will come from asset sales, so what assets will the Government flog off?

Unless the questions I have posed can be answered, this plan is meaningless. NATO, the MoD, politicians and the public need clarity about how much money is being given, when it is coming and how it is being provided. Smoke and mirrors and Treasury trickery do not cut it.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is clearly a very delayed and extremely underfunded plan. As we have heard, at £15 billion it falls well short of the £28 billion requested by the defence chief to keep our country secure. But we know that it actually falls even shorter than that, as nearly £5 billion is unfunded and some £11 billion or more relies on undetermined efficiency savings. So, after months of paralysis, resignations and Cabinet chaos, the Government have short-changed the Armed Forces.

However, we should remember that it was the Conservatives who hollowed out our military, leaving the Army and Navy smaller than they had been for hundreds of years. The Tories failed to look after service personnel properly, through a lack of suitable housing and poor mental health support—that was unforgivable.

This Statement is a long way from solving these vital issues and many others. It is a political choice made by Sir Keir Starmer and the Treasury, and it leaves us less safe. Furthermore, it undermines our reputation as a leader in NATO. Last year, all NATO countries pledged substantially to increase investment so that we all hit 3.5% of GDP by 2035. But, even if the missing money is found, the share of GDP that we spend on defence by the end of the decade will be only 2.7%. In media interviews today, the Procurement Minister, Luke Pollard, said that the spending review next year will describe a pathway to 3.5%. That review will need to find an extra £25 billion per year to get to our stated target. Given where we are starting from, this is hardly credible.

This lack of credibility is not just a domestic phenomenon. When I attend NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings, I can sense the reputation of the UK falling back. This is more than just worrying. So I will suggest some ways to increase investment and leverage what resources we have more effectively. The Liberal Democrats’ plan for defence bonds would provide an additional £20 billion at least, funnelling in private sector investment. This is not pie in the sky. Poland’s armed forces support fund, for example, was established in 2022, with the main source of funds being issuing bonds. For context, last year Poland spent 4.7% of its GDP on defence.

There are better ways of leveraging our existing defence spend. The UK could take part in the nascent defence, security and resilience bank. This ticks a number of important boxes: it would be multilateral; it would work with a greater number of allies; it would help project financing to span election cycles; and it would cost-effectively pull in private finance, multiplying our state investment by many times. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, is a major proponent of this initiative. He met with Sir Keir’s envoy, Gordon Brown, last month to discuss it but, disappointingly, there seems to have been no progress.

The Government could also take bolder steps towards working with our European allies. Last month, the Lib Dems announced a plan for a UK-EU defence pact, including our intention to join Security Action for Europe—the SAFE programme. Andy Burnham is quoted as having said favourable things about both defence bonds and the DSR bank. He has also been historically in favour of closer relations with the EU. Does the Minister agree that the new Burnham-led Government should issue defence bonds, work with Canada to deliver the DSR and join the SAFE initiative in Europe?

There are also ways of making our spend on big ticket items go a bit further. For example, GCAP currently involves the UK, Japan and Italy. Canada, Saudi and possibly Germany have been mooted as additional partners. Can the Minister confirm that, through adding to the GCAP group, money could be diverted to other UK defence needs?

Much has been made of the headline spend of £5 billion for advanced uncrewed systems over the rest of this Parliament. I am sure this is welcome, as these systems are at the heart of modern warfare. However, to put this into context, the three-year £5 billion investment is only a tiny percentage of the plan’s £298 billion spend over four years.

We welcome the commitment to establish six new energetics factories by 2030. However, the nine-month delay in publishing this spending plan has frozen procurement and put many SMEs in peril. Now that we have a funding plan, how will the Government change the procurement process to give SMEs the certainty to invest and the cash flow to thrive?

Finally, last year’s strategic defence review rightly stated that national resilience cannot be bought with military equipment alone. It stressed the need for a comprehensive national conversation to shift our mindset and prepare the wider British public, local government and business for the hybrid, cyber and non-traditional threats that we already face. This is a whole of society challenge that spans far beyond the MoD, so what concrete progress is the Minister making with his government colleagues to initiate this national conversation?

Defence Industrial Strategy

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I place on record my support for the enormous amount of work that has clearly gone into the production of this industrial strategy. It is very evident that those at the Ministry of Defence have put their thinking caps on, done the hard work and constructed a plan based around defence’s current and future requirements. There is therefore much to be applauded. The six priority outcomes are absolutely aiming in the right direction and the commitment to strengthening the MoD’s links with SMEs is particularly welcome.

A strong industrial base is vital for the future of our Armed Forces and our defensive resilience as a whole. The need has never been more evident than today, when we have seen a Russian incursion into a NATO ally’s airspace and the largest attack in Ukraine by Russia to date. This escalation is deeply troubling and underlines the importance of swiftly putting Britain into war-fighting readiness.

This is a solid piece of work, but the caveat is this: the solid piece of work crumbles if the bricks are not cemented together. That cement is implementation at a wartime pace. What matters now is that the words on these pages are translated into missiles, drones, equipment and ships. Critical to this is procurement. The chilling reality is that procurement has essentially dried up. There have been promising words in the SDR, but we have yet to see the major procurement contracts that the MoD has promised.

Procurement is the lifeblood of a successful industrial strategy. For example, I ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that the Typhoon factory in Warton remains open and thriving? We have heard that the Government will be opening up six new munitions factories, but they must have orders. When will they be placed?

I understand that the promised defence investment plan will detail much of the procurement endeavour, but when? The defence industry has been waiting with bated breath since July of last year, and industry must have greater certainty. I implore the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that the defence investment plan is published as soon as possible. In that connection, will the UK’s defence orders be joining a queue or with they be prioritised over orders for export?

When it comes to the new structures within the MoD, co-ordination of accountability to the Secretary of State is paramount. At the same time, duplication must be eradicated. The SDR and this strategy both mention the creation of a number of new bodies within the MoD: UK Defence Innovation, the Defence Industrial Joint Council, the office of defence exports, a defence office for small business growth and the national armaments director.

The strategic defence review identified a 10% reduction in Civil Service costs by 2030. Can the Minister clarify how, with the addition of these new offices, the MoD will achieve that staffing cost reduction? What existing structures will be merged or abolished, and who will be auditing progress? While I am on this topic, can the Minister update the House on the progress of appointing the national armaments director?

Page 30 of the industrial strategy details nine milestones to be reached by the end of this year. I do not believe any of these have as yet materialised, and the end of the year is fast approaching. Is the Minister confident that the 2025 timeline will be met?

In conclusion, I raise an issue that will come as no surprise to the Minister—budget. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State and I have raised concerns about the bundling together of intelligence spending within the defence budget. That means that, despite the Government’s claims of spending 2.6% of GDP on defence by 2027, the actual money available to the MoD for defence spending is 2.2% of GDP. I am not trying to catch the Minister out, but I want to make this clear: the Government may have increased defence spending, but this level of spend is simply not enough to deliver everything in the SDR and indeed in this industrial strategy.

The Russian incursion into Polish airspace yesterday and the triggering of Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty serve as a stark warning: complacency is not an option. The contents of this strategy, which, as I have said, these Benches fully support, cannot be a prayer for the future. Wartime pace means delivering from now on and, quite simply, there is no safe alternative.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who has such expertise in this area. We on these Benches also welcome the Government’s announcement of this new defence industrial strategy. We support the objectives of both boosting defence capability and increasing economic activity within our country. As someone who has worked in the sector—I no longer have an interest in it—I can say that, in the main, the jobs in the defence sector are high-quality jobs that pay well over the national average, so they are very worthwhile jobs for our citizens. More than that, they will contribute in large measure, we hope, to the resilience and security of our country.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I will focus on procurement. I will not repeat the questions that she has already asked, although I am very interested in the answers. It is clear that an improved framework is needed and that, in the Government’s own words, waste, delay and complexity have prevailed. Big changes are therefore needed. We also support the aims of involving more SMEs and driving innovation. These are important, but how? Section 7 of the strategy sets out some details of process, but I would suggest that, as well as process, this all requires an entire change of culture across the sector, from the MoD to the primes and the SMEs. How will the Government fast-track the necessary culture changes that we need in order to move at pace?

The implementation of a UK offset regime is welcome and the sections in the strategy are encouraging. I appreciate that consultation is needed, but I also note that there are—we hope—contracts being let already before this regime is put in. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how any offsets will be gained from contracts that are let before then?

Similarly, a buy British focus is really good and very important. However, some contracts are being let at the moment that do the exact opposite. They are contracts that may call into question the future of established capacity in this country: capacity that, once lost, will not be regained. Can the Minister therefore ensure that these are reviewed as soon as possible to ensure that permanent damage is not being done before this strategy is implemented. I will be happy to discuss further details on that with the Minister.

In the Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves confirmed an extra £2.2 billion of UK military funding. This increase will be paid for by cuts in overseas aid, which the Minister knows we deplore. This strategy contains spending of £773 million on the Government’s estimate, but can the Minister confirm that this is not in fact new money, but money out of the pot that was announced in the spring by the Chancellor? At the time, the Chancellor also announced the new Defence Growth Board. Can the Minister say what role this will play, and indeed what role it has played in the preparation of this strategy? How does this fit with the new defence investors advisory group that is announced in the strategy?

I also seek information on the whereabouts of the Defence Growth Partnership, which has been in place for some time and shares many of the same aims, particularly around SMEs and innovation. What is its role? Is it still working and how does it contribute?

A key drag on the success of this strategy will be the lack of available skills. Part of this announcement includes skills investment, which is largely focused on five new defence technology colleges. This is also welcome, as is the emphasis on apprentices. However, what is the role of Skills England in all this, given that it was supposed to be part of the picture on the national skills programme.

Following events, it is very clear that things are moving very fast globally, and moving in the wrong direction. They underscore the vital importance of working alongside our European allies in securing the UK’s defence. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, we continue to play key roles in JEF, E3 and other groupings, while NATO is of course our foremost security defence relationship and always will be. However, more can be done to deepen the co-operation and integration with our European allies. They share security challenges and together we can build scale to rearm at pace. Will the Government, for example, now agree to seek the UK’s associate membership of the European Defence Agency?

While EU institutions have a more limited role in defence, the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—defence fund is being established by the EU Commission. Recognising the opportunity that SAFE presents, the Minister of State, Stephen Doughty, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Monday:

“It is a €150 billion instrument. It is very significant and could lead to significant opportunities for our defence industries”.


Can the Minister therefore update your Lordships’ House on the UK’s discussions with the Commission and the nation states on our participation in SAFE and tell us whether UK industry will be eligible to bid in the first round, which I believe is in November?

I have lots more queries, but I close by saying that this strategy is a first step and I absolutely concur with the noble Baroness that implementation is key to its success. We will happily support and work with the Government to help deliver the strategy and its objectives.

AUKUS Defence Partnership

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 16th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords have mentioned concerns over industrial performance in delivering on this contract. I think I heard the Minister say that, because there are three parties involved, it would be embarrassing if we did not keep up to time. I suspect that that is just one of the things that would be a problem; it would also be extremely expensive. My noble friend asked a specific question about what benchmarking is being done between the industrial complex in this country and that available in both France and the United States. Can the Minister please answer that?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

To be absolutely accurate, I did not use the word “embarrassing”. Nothing on which I represent the MoD on at this Dispatch Box is ever to be embarrassing; it is a privilege to represent the MoD in this Chamber and to do so on such a positive occasion as this one. I do not have details as to how the benchmark will apply, nor an answer on whether there is to be some measurement of appraisal against what other countries do. I undertake to investigate that, and if there is any information that I can share with the noble Lord, I will do so.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Goldie

Report stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I join the noble Lord in welcoming that and also ask that the Minister includes currency because, while inflation is important, currency is actually more important in some cases. It is absolutely clear that a lot of these purchases are made in dollars and the dollar/pound rate will determine quite substantially the rising costs of equipment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I hear both noble Lords. To put a little context around this, the MoD has not been sitting in some splendid ivory tower in isolation as volatile economic circumstances swirled around us. Actually, we have built protective measures into many of our contracts to deal with inflationary pressures—or, indeed, to deal with the currency fluctuations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I appreciate that more detail is sought and I shall certainly look at that, with my officials, and endeavour to return to both noble Lords with some more information.

I was going to explain in more detail what we already do and how the National Audit Office already plays a role in all this. The National Audit Office is independent—we should remember that—and it already conducts a yearly audit on the defence equipment plan and undertakes regular audits of defence programmes. Further scrutiny of the performance of defence programmes is undertaken by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which tracks the progress of projects currently in the government major projects portfolio, not just that of the MoD. The details of these are published in its annual report. As an independent statutory body, the National Audit Office decides, independently of government, where to focus its resources and determines what projects and public bodies it audits and when.

It is important to emphasise that the Government do not direct the NAO; nor should we, because an essential feature of the importance and value of the NAO is that independence. Although it may not intend to do so, I argue that the amendment would interfere with that statutory independence. In addition, it would force the NAO to use its limited resources on a specific examination each year, irrespective of changing priorities: something might be significant one year and of far less concern the following year. It might even not reflect the continuing value of such an examination to Parliament: this is where we have to be very careful.

To reassure noble Lords, as I indicated, the Ministry of Defence continues to take steps to control the rise in the price of defence goods and services over time, including through improving the communication of longer-term priorities and requirements, including, as noble Lords will be aware, through the publication of pipelines. That is an extremely important development and signals likely demand to industry far better. It lets industry reflect on preparedness, instead of what was before probably a rather stop-start process, with industry asking, “Do you need anything?” and us suddenly announcing, “Yes, we do,” and everybody trying to create the thing from new.

The Ministry of Defence is utilising a new approach to industrial strategy. This strengthens supply chains and is driving pace and agility into the acquisition system through a range of transformation initiatives. The department has implemented steps to estimate project costs more accurately, including improving our risk forecasts through the use of reference class forecasts; that is, trying to use procurement as it happens, to inform us—what can be learned from the process? We have risk-costing pilots and we use the analysis of systematic, strategic or operational problems to inform us how the contract is proceeding. The MoD is also driving evaluation into programmes through the use of monitoring and evaluation frameworks and creating a process to capture and share lessons learned.

An important area, perhaps not widely understood, is that the MoD, like everyone else, can be hit by the quality and quantity of skills. That may be a significant impediment to us. Improvements are being delivered through the improved provision of training, initiatives to recruit and retain staff, and audits to identify and fill skills gaps.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that not much has changed. I think he started with the 1980s, then we seemed to regress further, into the Victorian age, when I am not sure we would recognise very much of what our procurement contracts are delivering. I respectfully disagree with him because, in addition to what I have previously mentioned, including the investment appraisal process, we have made other big changes. For example, all category A procurements, which are valued at £400 million or above, go through an extensive internal MoD process before they even get to the Cabinet Office, the Treasury or the Minister of Defence for approval.

Costs are now independently assured by the cost assurance and analysis team, tender and contract documentation is independently assured through the progressive assurance team, and direct award contracts are reviewed and monitored by the single-source adviser team. If that sounds like just verbiage, let me say that behind that are highly trained expert people who are there to identify the shoals, the reefs and the rocks, bring them to our attention, and make sure that we are not inadvertently drawn into areas of contract weakness where in the past we might very well have gone.

We are content that there are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that we achieve best value for money, learning from previous procurements. There are some good examples, and I was very struck by visiting Babcock at Rosyth, where it is building a Type 31 frigate. That really proceeded on a new basis of approach—it was born out of the national shipbuilding strategy. That programme was established in 2017, and following competition a contract was awarded to Babcock in November 2019 for the design and build of the five ships; it is currently under way, with the first ship scheduled for float-off in 2023. With barely three years passed since contract-award, the Type 31 build at Rosyth is well under way, with the first grand block now assembled in the Venturer assembly hall. The build programme is set to meet its deadlines of delivering all five ships off-contract by the end of 2028, and the build contract is on course to deliver the five ships at an average cost of £250 million per ship.

I use that as an example because it seems to me, having seen it at first hand, a very modern illustration of where we have moved to. When I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I do not agree with his characterisation, I also try to illustrate that argument by pointing out that there are different practices at play, informed—I fully admit—by a number of sources like the national shipbuilding strategy, which was an innovative change of direction for how we procure ships within the UK. But we have also had a very good example with the Poseidon aircraft programme operating out of RAF Lossiemouth in the north of Scotland on the Moray coast. It is an absolutely fantastic facility. That fleet comprises nine aircraft, which were all achieved on time, within budget, and to a challenging timeline.

It is very easy to be sceptical, and I fully understand why your Lordships rightly have been sceptical of some pretty poor experiences in the past, but all that I am pointing out is that we have moved on to a better way of doing things, and I hope that your Lordships understand from what I have been explaining and describing that there is a far better structure within the MoD to deal with these complex procurement contracts. These defence contracts are often complex, they are required quite often at speed to meet emerging threats, and are often needed to provide much-needed support to our Armed Forces, to ensure that we maintain operational advantage and to reduce the risk to our nation.

The noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and Lord Alton, all raised the issue of Ajax, and I think I have said before from this Dispatch Box that it was certainly not one of our proudest moments. Intrinsically, it is actually a very good vehicle, and it will provide an important capability. Following agreement from the Ajax safety panel, work has led to resuming the user-validation trials which were paused earlier this year. Results from these trials are being analysed to ascertain whether it is possible to deliver a safe system of work under which to conduct reliability-growth trails. Your Lordships are aware that there were issues with vibration and hearing, and the one thing that we were very clear about was that we were not going to put people at risk; my former colleague as Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, was absolutely insistent. That is why, despite the embarrassment, we paused what was happening until we had a better understanding of what was going wrong; but I make it clear that the MoD will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely for its intended purpose.

Your Lordships will be aware that Clive Sheldon KC is leading the Ajax lessons learned review, which is looking at ways in which the Ministry of Defence can best deliver major contracts more effectively in future. That is an important review and we await his analysis, conclusions and recommendations, but I emphasise that any delay to Ajax will not affect our commitments to NATO. That is an important point to observe.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the “Prince of Wales” carrier. Rosyth on the Forth is where good things happen: as well as building the Type 31, that is where the Prince of Wales carrier is currently reposing. She is a state-of-the-art aircraft carrier. She has already proved her capabilities in a number of exercises, but there was an issue concerning the propulsion shaft and investigations are now under way. She is a huge vessel, and it was necessary to take her into dock to have the facilities properly to examine what was going wrong. Timelines for the repair of the shaft are being investigated and further updates will be provided in due course. We want her to return to operations as soon as possible. My understanding is that we have brought forward some routine maintenance anyway, so that can be attended to while she is at Rosyth. I have no more specific information at this time, but I expect we will get a further report when more is known about the underlying condition and how long it will take to rectify.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the Type 26, which is a first-class ship. I have visited the programme in the yard at Govan being operated by British Aerospace. It is a fantastic piece of maritime equipment and it will be pivotal for the Royal Navy. It is proceeding very well. We have just awarded the batch 22 contract to the yard because we were absolutely satisfied about the professionalism, commitment and effectiveness of what British Aerospace was doing with the first batch. It is true that there has been a delay, but there are two reasons for that. Covid was one factor; it has created delays for our defence industry partners and their supply chain. I understand that there were also issues with locating the necessary corps of skills, but it now seems well under control and we hope that the new timeline can be adhered to. British Aerospace is certainly very keen to demonstrate that and to commit to making it happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the issue of levels of munitions. He is quite right that particular demands have fallen on that area due to the conflict in Ukraine. Those of us who listened to the extraordinary, courageous address by Madam Zelenska yesterday—I was among those privileged to be there—could not help but feel huge admiration for her, her husband and the people of Ukraine, as well as a sense of pride that we have been able to come to their assistance. We have been able not just to support them in what they have been looking for but, I hope, to give them the reassurance of optimism and hope for the future; Madam Zelenska referred to that. I reassure your Lordships that, in our supply of anything we have provided to the Ukrainian armed forces, we have never compromised our own levels of stocks in relation to meeting our national security obligations.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to someone—that sounds rather disrespectful; it was someone very eminent—who used to be in RUSI who had certain challenges with the Bill. As a former lawyer, I would say in response that I think the Bill is a welcome clarification and consolidation of procurement law in the United Kingdom. For the MoD, there has been carefully researched tailoring of the Bill to meet the unique requirements of defence. Our industry partners have been positive, so I think the Bill has the potential to introduce far greater clarity to industry—both primes and smaller contractors—and give them a much clearer sense of how they engage, what they can do and what the rules are. That is absolutely to be commended.

In conclusion, I am under no illusions about the challenges the MoD faces in relation to large-scale procurement. We recognise these challenges, and that is why we continue constantly to explore additional actions to mitigate the effects of cost escalation and cost growth. I hope I have been able to explain in sufficient detail what we do already—particularly the very specific character of the National Audit Office, which is independent of government—to enable your Lordships to understand why the MoD is unable to accept this amendment, while it does identify with the sentiment with which it was put forward. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to withdraw the amendment.

Royal Navy: Ships

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I do not have that specific information before me, but the noble Lord’s point is noted and I shall make inquiries.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees that much has changed in the world since the OSS was first conceived and the contract let. Would the Minister concede that it is inappropriate to stand at the Dispatch Box and find reasons why this project is being delayed? It would be more appropriate for the Minister to explain how it is being expedited and sped up to meet the new world situation.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The MROSS is not a military engagement ship, per se; it is a ship that will do important surveillance activity, with reference to our subsea cables and energy infrastructure. I do not for one minute disagree: it is an important project; the MoD recognises that, but it is complex. That is why proper regard to due process must be taken.

Mount Everest: Safety

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 18th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank my noble friend. I think that many people will be in sympathy with what he is saying. I reassure him that the British embassy in Kathmandu regularly discusses mountain safety with the Government of Nepal, ensuring that their policies promote safety for all involved. That was most recently done in June, when consular officials met the senior leadership of the department of tourism. My noble friend makes important points, and in fact the FCO travel advice website covers a number of them. But I hear what he is saying and I will certainly take that back.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this is a serious situation. In my experience, one of the roles of the guides is to do just such an assessment of the mountaineers. Some of those guide companies come from this country, so there is a role for this country in that process. When it comes to permits, I am sure that the Minister is aware that, while the Nepal side has increased the number of permits, the number of permits coming from the north side—the Tibet side—has substantially collapsed between 2018 and 2019. Does she agree that there is an element of complicating the situation with the Tibet/China relationship? Can she undertake to continue the Government’s work to normalise that relationship?

[Baroness Goldie]

I am interested in what the noble Lord says. That is an aspect of which I was unaware. The Government certainly endeavour to conduct and sustain a positive relationship with China. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth was saying, this is an issue of fundamental safety. We want people to enjoy an exciting and exhilarating pursuit, but it has to be combined with safety. From the Nepalese perspective, it has to be combined also with the safe and sustainable development of tourism—and some very important points have been made about how that progress may be impugned if proper steps are not taken.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Goldie

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendments. As chief executive of the Environment Agency, I lived through the process of designing and delivering REACH, and it was a joy to work as closely as we did with British industry and industry across Europe in devising a system that was shared between government, regulators and business. It is a bit of an object lesson in how to go about it, and much admired globally. I welcome the Prime Minister’s expression of support, but would just take issue with one thing the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. I do not think we should be aiming at a parallel system in any way—we should be a full and absolute member of the REACH process. It works, it is elegant and I hope we can get an assurance from the Minister tonight that we will move rapidly to find a way to give industry clarity about how the REACH process will operate post Brexit.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for their amendments concerning the very significant issue of chemicals regulation.

The Bill will incorporate current EU law into domestic law and allow it to be corrected in order to operate properly, giving consumers and businesses as much certainty as possible. This includes regulations relating to chemicals. The Bill will convert the REACH regulation into domestic law, meaning that the obligations on duty holders and the environmental standards and principles that underpin REACH will continue to apply in the UK, including in the devolved areas. These include the specific measures included in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

We are working to ensure that we have a functioning chemicals regulatory and enforcement system in the UK for day one. For example, the Environment Secretary has given the go-ahead for the development of six new systems, including one for chemicals. Work has started on delivering the new IT system that will enable registrations and the regulation of chemical substances placed on the UK market. This will provide continuity for businesses after EU exit.

Let me be clear: our priorities are to maintain the effective and safe management of chemicals to safeguard human health and the environment, to respond to emerging risks and to allow trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible. We have been engaging with a range of stakeholders to understand the detailed impacts of Brexit and are grateful for the pragmatic approach that the chemicals industry is taking to Brexit and for its positive approach to working with the Government to understand the impacts and deliver the best possible outcome for the industry after exit. We are committed to continuing this engagement throughout the process.

With regard to chemicals, REACH is underpinned—this is explicit in Article 1—by the precautionary principle. So, once REACH is translated into UK law through the withdrawal Bill, the precautionary principle will continue to exist directly in UK law in relation to REACH. The precautionary principle is also embedded in international conventions relevant to the regulation of chemicals, such as the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants, and the UK is and will continue to be a signatory to the convention in its own right.

Further, our 25-year environment plan sets out our intention to publish a chemicals strategy that will set out our approach as we leave the EU. It will set out our priorities for action and detail how we will achieve our goals, building on existing regulatory approaches and tackling chemicals of national concern. The Government will discuss with the EU as part of the exit negotiations how best to continue co-operation on chemicals regulation in the interests of both the UK and the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, acknowledged, in her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister said we want to explore with the EU the terms on which we could continue to co-operate with the European Chemicals Agency and participate in certain processes, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, sought clarification on. As for the specifics, I think your Lordships will understand that I cannot go into more detail because this is the subject of live negotiation in the negotiation process.

[Lord Fox]

That is very clear, and I thank the Minister for what she has said so far. What is not clear to me is whether the overall idea is to avoid divergence from EU REACH. It does not sound as if the UK is inside REACH in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out; it sounds as if the aim is to run a parallel system. Have I misunderstood?

[Baroness Goldie]

I can only repeat the Prime Minister’s stated intention in her speech, and that is specifically to explore with the EU the terms on which we would continue to co-operate with ECHA and participate in certain processes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that clearly, EU REACH is an EU organisation and to be a member of it you have to be an EU member state. After Brexit we shall not be that, but it is in the interests of the UK and certainly of industry that we work, in so far as we possibly can, in tandem with what is happening within the EU. That is certainly what the Government’s objective will be. The precise detail of that will be the subject of the negotiations.

The UK is strongly committed to the effective and safe management of chemicals and pesticides, and that will not change when we leave the EU. I hope this provides the noble Lords with sufficient reassurance that they will not pursue their amendments.