Strategic Defence Review 2025
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McCabe, on his maiden speech, which seemed to be robust and sensible. No doubt we will hear many more excellent words from him. I cannot conceal from noble Lords my extreme pleasure that we are able to hear again the tones of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who guides our thoughts so skilfully on the constant need for constitutional evolution and reform for our society to stay together. Indeed, he begins to cast a beam of light on the whole changing relationship between the state and the citizen, which of course affects everything else, including in particular the nature of defence in our society.
I hope that the excellent and wise reviewers, whom I greatly respect, will not in any way feel I am being deprecatory in saying that I see this review as very excellent in parts—there are many new insights and concepts about the changed nature of warfare in the digital age recognised in it, and about time too—but that, alongside those, there are some very curious omissions and flaws that challenge the value and thrust of the whole exercise. I will come briefly to those.
First, on the positive side, the emphasis the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, put on whole-of-society thinking is absolutely right and, of course, it is the same as the emphasis in the national security review. It is not a new thought; as noble Lords know, the Russians have made an open aim of trying to undermine civilian morale and destroy civilian facilities in order to undermine, in turn, the front-line troops. The aim, in all these things, is to destroy civilian life and morale—to put that first, and the military collapse will follow. That is what has happened in history: the Germans thought they could do it in 1939, and the Russians are trying to do it now. They are trying to kill the supply lines, kill civilian life and kill the nation. It probably fails every time, and it will probably fail again. But it is what the whole thrust of modern, as opposed to traditional, warfare has introduced.
Secondly, there is a marvellous emphasis in this review on new technology: microchips, hyperconnectivity, fundamental change brought on by drones of every shape and size in huge quantities, amazing missile accuracy, and enormous range. As the review itself says, technology is driving the greatest change in how war is fought for a century—I would say almost the greatest change in the whole of our history. Then there is a call for a new national armaments director, something we tried back in 1970 with Sir Derek Rayner and the new ministry of procurement. There were difficulties. We learned from it, but I am not sure we have yet learned enough.
There is the huge expansion of reserves, which the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has just welcomed—that is absolutely excellent—and of course the cadet forces as well. This sounds a bit like restored national service, and I would like to know more; this is a big move in the right direction. There is quicker recruitment and much better force integration, although I note there is no actual merging of forces, which is always a delicate matter with regimental loyalties. There is talk of the hybrid Navy: yes, the Navy will have to concentrate on undersea drones and unmanned submarines patrolling the seabed. These will be features 10 years from now, and they will require a whole new approach via the naval strategy. There were good remarks on space warfare. That is the good part of the story.
The bad side has briefly to be mentioned; I do not think it can be hidden. First, there is no reference in this whole document to nuclear proliferation, which the rest of the world is discussing. We have spent 50 years trying to prevent nuclear proliferation through the NPT, but now, suddenly everyone is talking about it and saying that, if Ukraine had hung on to its nuclear weapons, it would not be where it is now.
There is nothing on the central financial issue of Treasury overdominance, the need for a revised private finance initiative and the sort of ideas touched on just now by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—restoring a central drive to a budgetary strategy system at the very heart of government, one that is not always dominated and delayed by Treasury bean-counting. I would like to see much more island patriotism in this report. I do not mean nationalism; I mean that everyone needs a country to love, and we certainly do. I am worried about placing too much emphasis on NATO first: the next challenge may well come from a new war zone in the Indo-Pacific, which has now become the really dangerous crossroads of world trade and prosperity, with Diego Garcia in the middle of it.
The Commonwealth was mentioned. The coastal and island states of the Commonwealth are the ideal network for the integration of maritime data on movements of all shipping—surface and subseas—and they should be exploited. I could not find any reference to that in this report. Bearing in mind that the Red Sea entrance is now closed, the Strait of Hormuz is now threatened and the Cape route is now also being challenged, these are very dangerous times for this nation on the high seas. I would like to see a much stronger hand stretched out to Japan, which is anxious to merge with us on all sorts of new projects, including AUKUS and the combat aircraft it is working on.
Finally, what about the United Nations? Everyone says that it should either be reformed or replaced because it is not doing its job. We will not be safe until we have joined in and contributed powerfully to what should replace the international order for the new international issues in the present time: climate, energy, migration and all the rest. Populism is more assertive—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the House has been very encouraging of the noble Lord, but he is two minutes over the advisory time, so perhaps he could wind up now.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
On all sides, the international rule of law and rules of war are being broken, and for that, above all, we must be alert, prepared and defended.
UK–EU Defence and Security Co-operation
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think that is in our interests. To run through this, NATO is our prime alliance and something of which we can all be proud—we have been a member for decades. Alongside that, having a better, more secure relationship with Europe and working with it where that is appropriate, whether in Bosnia or in other missions, such as in Georgia or Moldova, is in our interest given the threats that we face. It is in our interest to pursue that. Let us be absolutely clear that, alongside NATO and the security and defence partnership with the EU, the US and the UK standing together is of immense importance to our own security, as well as to the security of Europe and global security. That is the point that we continue to make. It was the policy under the last Government and is the policy under this Government. The US-UK relationship is fundamental to global security. We of course pursue other alliances and agreements where we need to, but let us always remember the US-UK relationship. It has kept the peace for years and will do so in the future.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister take the message back to his department that maritime security is under direct challenge now. With the Red Sea virtually closed and the Persian Gulf about to be closed if possible, that is the real challenge to our security and prosperity and where our attention should be diverted. Does he accept that something such as the Commonwealth network, which can integrate maritime data throughout the entire planet, is an important part of our future and also requires maximum attention—fundamental attention, in fact?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with that. The Commonwealth and the other things that the noble Lord mentioned are of course important. In this Parliament and in this country, we should be immensely proud that our carrier strike group sailed through Suez, through the Red Sea, through the BAM and into the Indian Ocean. It did that to preserve the freedom of navigation and the trade routes of this country, which the noble Lord has mentioned. It is important to emphasise that and point to it as something of which we can all be proud, because it does the very thing that the noble Lord was asking for.
Defence Industrial Base
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords we have heard some very fine speeches, and I shall use my brief five minutes for a personal memory, first, and then reflections on where it has all taken us and where it is taking us now.
First, I was in fact there on the glorious, crowded day of 8 May—there are fewer and fewer of us who can say that. My father had returned from three years away in the desert and Italy. He took me that morning to the top of the park, where we watched the parade along the Bayswater Road and the generals going by waving from their open cars. General Alexander was by far my father’s most favoured and admired leader and general. My father had come back unscathed, but I am afraid this was not the same for my wife’s father, who was killed in that war in the last days, along with all three of his brothers—in fact, an entire family more or less wiped out.
Later that day, my father had to go back to work somewhere in Whitehall, which was very odd, because it was supposed to be a national holiday. Of course, although he never told us or mentioned it, he was not working just in Whitehall; he was in fact in Mr Churchill’s War Rooms by St James’s Park, where the war was still being run from, staffed by a continuous duty roster of which he was part. I discovered this only some 20 years later, when the Cabinet Office released photos of him and his colleagues at their desks in the War Room, which was not open to the public until several decades later—or even its existence admitted. Years later, when I happened to be working in the Treasury, in an absurdly large office, I arranged to go down three floors in the lift to those rooms, which were still frozen in time, with my father’s desk there, and I noticed two lumps of sugar in the drawer, reflecting the shortage world that we all lived in and have long since forgotten.
Anyway, that was the end. There was a little sign on the wall saying that, on the morning of 15 August—VJ Day—two Japanese Zeros had been shot down in the Philippines; heaven knows what they were doing there. It was then blank—empty. The weekend roster was cancelled. It said, “This office is closed as of today”. It was the end of an era.
It is worth reflecting that our fathers and forefathers had learned a lot about peacemaking. They knew what people seem to have forgotten today: if peace is built on temporary factors or quick deals, it is worse than useless. It is no use getting assurances from pariah nations that intend to go straight back to aggression afterwards. The clear lesson from Ukraine about which we have all talked is that something will have to change inside Russia itself, which is now a pariah nation, if we are to get another 80 years—or eight years, or even eight months—of peace.
The foundations of peace have to be learned from 1945, now even more than then. In this age of drones and digital, war is now totally against civilians. It is not entirely the front line at all. The defence of civilians must be the total approach, not just a military matter, including in Ukraine. A vast amount of diplomatic effort is needed to get the whole world to grasp what is now at stake. The UN will of course have to be rebuilt, built on or replaced. Ukraine will have to be rebuilt, certainly with Russian funds.
Even the 56 nations of our Commonwealth are not united in seeing and understanding this. We should be concentrating much more on getting not just Europe but Asia and the vast Commonwealth network agreed on a common course and a common stance. I welcome the India deal that has just been reported, which, despite the obvious problems, shows that the growing Commonwealth is alive, networking and very much part of the settlement that we are working towards for the future. I also welcome the US deal. I hope that it will last more than 24 hours; it should do, but we have to work on that as well. Finally, I hope that the new Pope will bring a dose of wisdom to a volatile America.
So perhaps there are some slim grounds for optimism beginning to emerge, particularly if we pay attention to those lessons from 1945 on how to build lasting peace. Let us hope, let us learn and let us remember.
Ukraine: UK Policy
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I think we should listen quite carefully to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made. I have some agreement with some of them, but I think he is missing one vital dimension that he did not and a lot of people do not mention: that we are living in a digital age, in which the fundamental nature of war has changed and in which the fundamental repository of power and influence and the nature of that influence, throughout the entire planet, have changed. If we had been confined to just two minutes, which I think was the plan at one time, rather than four, I was going to make—and I still will—just two basic points around that proposition.
The first is to plead that we do not overestimate, as we did in the 20th century, the power of the so-called great powers to fix things and to arrange their empires so that the world is fixed to their pleasure, with total disregard for the rest of the world—the smaller countries and so on. That is the language of the 20th century. It is not the language of the 21st century. It completely underestimates the power and influence of a multipolar world and the power and influence of mass hyper-connectivity around it.
My second point is that, just as we should not overestimate the capacity of Russia, one hears President Trump, in some of his more exotic moments, overestimating even the power of America—still a mighty, powerful country but not the automatic leader of the western world, because we no longer deal in automatic leaders; we deal in multi-powers. We do not even deal in a western world, because a great many of the powers that are deeply interested in this belong in the east and south of the planet.
I had a fascinating conversation with a very senior Japanese official last week, and the first thing he said was that if Russia’s unprovoked, or anyway unjustified and atrocious, attack on women and children, killing thousands of civilians—the killing continues, even while we talk of ceasefires—is in any way rewarded, that is the end of the international rule of law. That is the end of safety for nations of the kind that, on the whole, on and off, we have tried to preserve, not always with success, for the last few hundred years.
An equally senior Australian official came to me and said, “Australia is ready to contribute”. This is a world issue, not just a European issue, as Mr Trump seems to think, and some of our leaders here seem to think, although I acknowledge that our present leader and Prime Minister has played the hand very skilfully indeed. This is not just a European issue but an issue that threatens the balance of organisations and power throughout the entire planet.
I can understand the Japanese nervousness. If Xi Jinping gets the wrong signal, which is that having a go—violence of a limited kind—pays off, he will think about the same approach to annexing and suffocating Taiwan. That is the danger. This is a wider world issue. We should not assume that it is just a narrow matter between America and Russia to fix.
I am not a naive, and I do not think Davids will always beat Goliaths. Goliaths are always going to win by size, but the Davids are very powerful. I am told the Ukrainians have 1 million drones in manufacture, processing and deploying. The impact of this on the nature of war, on the nature of bigger and heavier equipment, is enormous. When we realise that the world has changed to that degree, we will have a much clearer vision of which way now to proceed.
Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I was not a member of this excellent committee, but I think that this is an absolutely admirable report that is amazingly timely, very important and, indeed, a wake-up call to us all. Although I was not a member, I take a little slice of pride as a godparent of the committee because the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I had to push the authorities very hard to get the committee set up, which we eventually did, and it has been an outstanding success. This is one of the best reports it has ever produced. I have three points to add, quickly, to the excellent introduction from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in which he covered most of the things I want to say.
First, we should note what he said about reserves. At the moment, our reserves, which used to be called territorials, number 34,280—although I am not quite sure about that; there is a lot of dispute about the number. That is on top of the 74,000 regular Army troops, making the total strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force 134,000, or whatever it is. That can be enlarged very quickly. People forget how rapidly, in the 1930s, the reserves went from being held at about 200,000 into the millions, and then merged totally into the Army. All that happened in a matter of weeks. I cannot claim to remember in the case of my father, because I was two years old at the time, but I am told that he had about a fortnight to transform from being a retired regular back into a territorial, and then went into full combat organisation and was in the desert within a month of the war being announced on 3 September. The whole speed of this thing can be greatly improved, as the report rightly says, and to have bureaucracy slowing it all down is a lot of nonsense. We need to look at that very clearly; the call-up can be much quicker. That is my first point.
Secondly, this report is so good because it brings home that the whole issue is much wider than the picture books and child versions of what warfare is about. We think about the trenches and the front line, and it is absolutely true about the drones that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, just eloquently mentioned. The sheer numbers—the report mentioned 2 million—that Ukraine alone is mobilising can really change the whole nature and drive people back into the trenches like in 1914. I am told that, within 200 miles on either side of the front line, and certainly on the Russian side, anyone who comes out of a trench for a smoke—or, dare I say, a pee—is instantly spotted and probably dead within three or four minutes. This is the changed nature of the whole pattern of the front line.
An even bigger nature change is that it is not just about the front line. Obviously, civilians are targeted, rather as Hermann Göring did with trying to smash all our cities—he failed. Now, of course, Putin has far longer-range rockets of far greater accuracy. All the utilities are targeted, and we want to watch, know and learn from the Minister to what extent we are developing new air defences and missile repellents for, for instance, our power stations. If they can be taken out, and if electricity can be taken out of the system, I am told that, within three days, civil chaos and collapse of morale happens behind the lines. Of course, it is the same lesson that Germany in particular learned in 1918: if morale collapses behind the lines, it spreads to a collapse in morale in the Armed Forces as well. The Russians are well aware of that and are using that strategy in Ukraine at this moment. The concept of having total defence against this kind of warfare, total defence in terms of mobilising people on a far larger scale—regulars and territorials—and having more combat-trained troops ready to add to the regular troops is vital.
On my third point, I differ a little, I think, from the report. The report says that it is all about Europe and how we get together with our European partners. It is not; it is a global issue. There are principles—and fears—that go right through Asia, where all the growth of military, civil and domestic economy will take place over the next 30 years. Japan is extremely nervous about any kind of peace that we negotiate in Europe that gives in to Russian force. They say that that would immediately trigger Xi to have a go at suffocating Taiwan, which would lead to Pacific war and then to world war. We have, but sometimes neglect, our great range of Commonwealth network friends, right through Asia and Africa. They are just as concerned and need to be mobilised just as much. In fact, if you add it up, we probably have more friends—you might say they are soft-power friends and their Governments do not always agree—around the world, outside Europe, than the United States has. The United States might be losing friends at the moment, becoming not America the beautiful, but America the feared, in terms of what it will do next. We need America, but it also needs us.
My fear is that Putin will outwit Trump and offer a peace that looks good to start with but in fact can last only 10 minutes. If he does not do that, he may even offer the kind of peace that leads to the conquest of Ukraine by the Russians. That would of course be the worst of all worlds.
UK Defence: Hypersonic Missiles
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from my noble friend Lord West next, and then the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Chagos deal that my noble friend seeks me to address, let me just say this: the fundamental point from our point of view is that the Diego Garcia military base remains in the hands of the Americans through the lease arrangement that we have got, should the Chagos deal go through. That is the most important part of that deal.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Would the Minister agree that these hypersonic missiles are really the great-great grandchildren of the original V-2 after the Second World War—although obviously with far greater range and far more accuracy? Would he also agree that, judging by current Russian strategy, the targets they will probably go for first are the power stations? Destroy the utilities and you bring about social and political collapse—that is their doctrine. Would he therefore give us an assurance that we are thinking about much better defence for our power station and utility facilities, and that we are thinking about things like a sort of Iron Dome-plus-plus, which again will require American support, in order to ensure that we are not destroyed by these missiles before we have the right defences in place?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not sure an Iron Dome-type arrangement is the best way in which to defend our cities. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that, given the wake-up call we have had from Ukraine and the way that warfare is developing, the defence of critical national infrastructure will be absolutely essential for us as we go forward.
The homeland defence of this country is something that we have not thought about—whatever the rights and wrongs of that—for a number of years. We are going to have to consider homeland defence, whether that threat comes from drones, hypersonic missiles or through threats to underwater cables. The development of that homeland defence will play a crucial part in the way that we defend our country and our ability to work with our allies to defend not only Europe but other places across the world. So, the noble Lord is absolutely right to point that out about critical national infrastructure.
As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, pointed out, this has been a wake-up call to us all. Who would have expected two, three, five or 10 years ago that in this Chamber we would be talking about how this country defends itself against a potential attack on our critical national infrastructure? But that is where we are and that is what this Government will do. We take that seriously and the defence review will address it. It is certainly important for all of us to defend that, and the British public should know it.
Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On VAT on school fees and the impact on military families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, just pointed out, the Government have increased the continuity of education allowance, which now meets some 90% of the increase in fees that military families will face as a consequence of the VAT rise. That allowance is there to support military families in the way she said, and the VAT increase has been met in a way that is consistent with that policy, through the uplift in the allowance to 90%.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister was speaking earlier this afternoon with perspicacity about the changing nature of warfare. Does he agree that when we talk of defence expenditure, we are talking far beyond the MoD budget and the cost of military equipment? New technology threatens and exposes the civilian population as never before, and more directly than at any time in our history. In the Russian attack on Ukraine, it is the attack on its infrastructure, facilities and energy systems that is seen as the main assault, undermining and demoralising the civilian population and destroying any achievements made on the front line. Will the Minister assure us that in looking at our defence expenditure, we are focused on energy and the fact that equipment now exists which would destroy our entire energy system and create social chaos in an amazingly short time?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his important question. Notwithstanding the debate about the total quantity of defence expenditure, he is right to point out the changing nature of warfare. We are looking to see how we can further protect the underwater cables that bring energy to this country; he might have seen some of the debate that took place last week on that. The RFA “Proteus”, which was bought for the RFA by the previous Government, is one example of how we do that. The defence review is looking at the purchase of a second ship, and various other capabilities are being developed. The noble Lord also made the point about our own critical national infrastructure. There is no doubt that we will have to consider homeland security and how we protect that infrastructure, and the defence review will do that. As I said earlier, hybrid warfare and the way systems are impacted by data and those sorts of attacks also needs to be considered.
Ukraine
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is worth remembering that this debate we are having is probably going on in parliaments across the world, and in every single one of them there will be different views on the outcome and what is going to happen. In fact, there is no consensus at all on what the end is going to be. Frankly, although we talk about the end, there is no end in sight at the moment to the hideous, horrible, child and woman-killing, family-destroying, unprovoked and poisonous attack on Ukraine that we are watching. Nor will it be settled on the battlefield, as the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, rightly said in his excellent maiden speech.
Of course the battlefield is important and horrible, but it is a stalemate scene at present, and the breakage and undermining of the stalemate will come from quite different sources. Why is that so? Because the battle with Russia, the autocracies, its Chinese ally and some others is just as much being fought in what is happening in Iran and the Middle East, Turkey, Syria, Egypt and the whole of that region, because this is a war like no other ever fought in history. It has its old-fashioned bit —its Somme, its trenches and all that horror—but it also has an entirely new dimension. A leading figure from Ukraine technology was here in Parliament last week telling us that the system in Ukraine, which is military and civilian bound together, is seeking to organise and manage 1 million drones. Those drones are either in the air or in the supply chain, being directed or not directed in various places, including right over the border out of Ukraine into Russia itself. These are features that have never occurred in battles before.
There is a very good article in Foreign Affairs pointing out that the entire United States arms structure is not ready for this sort of war; it simply is not organised on that basis. Nor, of course, was Russia itself. I think how Putin must regret how he was advised by the generals—advice that he took—that, “It’s just going to be another question of tanks, just like Prague and Budapest: we’ve done it all before”, but of course it has turned out to be totally different, with the amazing combination leading to a drone war and an anti-drone war too, with new technologies on a scale that simply was not envisaged even two or three years ago.
Thirdly, there is no obvious limit on resources. We shall of course go on supplying Mr Zelensky—although he will complain that it is not fast enough for him—with the equipment necessary to stop the Russians advancing to maintain the stalemate. That could go on and on, but I am afraid that any idea that Russia can somehow be brought to an economic halt is for the birds. Here is just one figure: the estimate is that next year Russian oil and gas revenues will rise by 73%. In fact, the Russian economy is doing extremely well. Our planners forget, when we go in for sanctions, that wartime is a fantastic innovator for all economies. In the Second World War, that was what happened even in Germany when it was being bombed to bits, and certainly in this country when we were being bombed. The Russian economy is well-equipped, with its dark ships selling oil right across the world. We are trying to control them but failing to do so. With its enormous development of gas sales in Asia, it is supporting the entire energy drive of the Asian economies. All that provides ample resources.
Chinese exports to the world were $3.7 trillion last year, and to Russia alone they were $110 billion. That tells you on which side China’s bread is really buttered. The BRICS meeting was mentioned earlier. BRICS is to do with Governments and leaders standing on the central stage and making a great noise. By contrast, I remark that CHOGM, of Commonwealth countries, is a meeting of peoples, and on the whole peoples are going to win out in future against the sort of Governments that we are dealing with.
The clear need in our approach is to recognise that these are tyrannies that have huge momentum. They are moving across Africa, east and west Asia and the small islands of the world, and hoovering up the Commonwealth. Tyrannies are smashed by attacking their intellectual belief roots, and that is what we have to do. We have to show that our liberal capitalism is going to destroy and undermine the illiberal capitalisms that they are practising. We can do that if we are really determined, although we are not making much effort at the moment.
We have to show that, in Putin and Xi’s other war, which is in Africa—where, as I say, they are hoovering up Commonwealth countries and invading or seducing large parts of central Africa and indeed Latin America—is where the final decisions are going to be made. That is where we are going to see Ukraine’s endless war brought to a halt. If we operate in those areas—the intellectual, the broader areas of the developing world—then the chances of an end to Ukraine’s horror are there. Otherwise, I am afraid there will be no end at all to the horrors and the killing of young boys and girls for decades ahead.
Relations with Europe
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, and her wisdom and authority, which are well known and will greatly reinforce our counsels.
Following the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, when I look across Europe on matters of stronger ties in culture, diplomacy and security, which I greatly welcome, I find I come not to solutions—because Europe is an organisation of constant bargaining; it never reaches settled places in any of these areas—but to the European Political Community, which has not had much mention in the debate so far. President Macron described the political community as a new space for co-operation on politics, security, energy, investment, migration and the evolving economic situation, with all its revolutionary qualities. My view is that we should do much more to be creative with the European Political Community, and I would like to know from the Minister how it is seen in government. Is this something that we will really work at, produce more plans for and build on? There was a very good atmosphere in the last two or three community meetings, and we should develop that. It has 45 attendees and is much bigger than the European Union, and it is addressing the modern issues of order and survival in an acutely dangerous world in a way that, one sometimes feels, Brussels has not quite grasped yet—but it needs to do so.
Then we come to the central issue: Germany. At the moment, Germany is closing down Schengen—that is what is happening. The free movement throughout Europe has been closed for the time being, and it will be interesting to see when it opens again. Not only that but the German economy has been really badly hit by China and the prospect of its whole motor industry being undermined—as well as ours. It is a deeply divided nation at the moment, in a way that it has not been, as a model of industrial power and strength, for the last 70 years or so.
Germany is ceasing to dominate the EU. That is the important point that I do not think all noble Lords and honourable Members have quite grasped, let alone the press. So, with that question of a new power source bringing together the interests of Europe, and it no longer being just the old Franco-German alliance running everything, this is a time for new ideas. We have a fund of new ideas in this country for developing and strengthening Europe in a totally changed international order, and I hope that we will pour that fund into working in the EPC and creating the conditions in which all these issues can be tackled and some of the obstacles we find day by day overcome.
It is a Europe of constant bargaining, as our wise experts point out, so I am afraid that those who are looking for the future of Europe to be settled are going to be disappointed. I say that to the noble Baroness who brilliantly opened the debate. There is not an immediate settlement. There is, however, the possibility of a great many new ideas, driven and shaped, particularly by technology, being poured into the assessment and creation of a changing Europe, and it is in the forum of the EPC that that can be usefully shaped and decided. I would like to hear a lot more from the Minister on that matter.