King’s Speech

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who speaks on these matters with great authority, and I agree with what she said about Iran.

I am not an expert on defence, and I have rarely troubled your Lordships with my views on defence. Indeed, I had hoped that all I needed to do today would be to get up to say how much I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, said in the debate on the gracious Speech on Thursday, and promptly sit down again. I very much agree with what the noble Lord said, and indeed with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, told us just a few moments ago.

Last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said that

“we are underprepared, we are underinsured, we are under attack and we are not safe”.—[Official Report, 14/5/26; col. 86.]

I agree. Of course we must spend more money on defence, but the noble Lord, in his contribution on Thursday, concentrated his fire on the Treasury. I have some sympathy with the Chancellor, whose room for manoeuvre is very limited, so where is the extra money to come from? We are spending far too much on welfare, but the Government have demonstrated that they are incapable of reducing our welfare bill.

Here is something that can be done: the Prime Minister—and only the Prime Minister can do it—today could ask every department to reduce its spending by 1%, and in future years within the plan period by 1% off the current plans. That would not be easy; it would involve painful decisions. But I have been a departmental Minister, and I know it could be done. It would raise a substantial amount of money. If that reduction were to be applied to the relevant departmental expenditure limits, it would raise £6.7 billion in the current year, rising to £7.5 billion in 2030-31, a total of £35.6 billion over the plan period. It would give some meaning to the oft-repeated declarations by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that defence must be an overriding national priority. It would give meaning to the Prime Minister’s statement in his introduction to the strategic defence review that it was his

“first duty … to keep the British people safe”.

But that is only half the answer. What is the money to be spent on? Three months ago, I was in Ukraine with a number of colleagues from the other place. We learned of the extraordinary way in which Ukraine has transformed modern warfare. We were told about the robots that can travel 20 kilometres and blow up Russian command posts, we were told of the occasions when Russian troops have surrendered to these robots, and of course we were told about drones.

A few weeks ago, I was at a gathering when I had the temerity to suggest that I did not see a great deal of evidence that the British Army was learning the lessons of the war in Ukraine. A very senior officer was present, and he berated me for my ignorance and told me that I did not know what I was talking about. I am quite used to being berated for my ignorance, so I did not take offence. A few days later, I was in the company of a less senior officer but someone who was nevertheless in a position to answer two specific questions that I put to him. Does the British Army have any robots of this kind? His answer was no. Do you know when the British Army will have robots of this kind? His answer was no.

In my ignorance, it seems to me that these different reactions are not entirely consistent with each other. I hope the Minister will put me out of my ignorance when he comes to reply to the debate and will explain how these different reactions can be reconciled with each other. I look forward to his response with great interest.