Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, today is a very welcome opportunity to consider the defence review. But I am sure that, as the debate develops, it will also cover the wider aspects, including the China audit, soft power and development policies. They all need to be integrated, as they all have a part to play in keeping our country safe and our values protected.

On behalf of these Benches, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team, whom he credited, for all their work on the review. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCabe. Given the fact that all three opening speakers are from north of the border, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that another Scottish voice is very welcome in this Chamber.

My colleagues in this debate, with the experience that they bring, will rightly focus on various aspects in this broad area. I will focus on the wider safety and security landscape. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, in winding up for us later, will focus specifically on defence.

We support a great deal in the review from the noble Lord. In the national security strategy, we accepted many of the judgments of the Government of the threats we face and the changing security landscape, both in potential conflicts and emerging dangers through technological change. We need to address them across all parts of government, the economy and society as a whole. We agree with that.

We have taken safety for granted, as the noble Lord said. There is to some extent a positive element to that. In a vibrant democracy, our people can simply to get on with their daily lives and take safety for granted, because of all the hard work of those within our Armed Forces and our security and intelligence communities. But, with conflict growing around the world, and with the climate emergency, conflicts abroad will have repercussions here at home.

Just yesterday in Grand Committee, we debated the tensions in May between India and Pakistan. That could have been an enormous conflagration, which would have had direct impacts here in the United Kingdom with the enormous diaspora community that we have. The Sudan conflict is being played out within our community here at home. Although geographically we are an island, we are not a security island.

There should of course be a high level of cross-party support. On defence, our Benches have a long and proud tradition of supporting our Armed Forces and veterans, as well as adhering to the view that the principal job of government is the maintenance of our national security. In that regard, I hope the Government will continue to engage and also bring regular updates on the many action plans proposed in the defence review and the national security strategy and the many workstreams that feed into its strategy. As the noble Lord said, this is not the work of one Parliament or one party. We all need to be engaged in that process, to ensure that the decisions made are sustainable and that we here in Parliament can appraise progress.

Parliamentary scrutiny is a part of our freedom that we seek to protect, and that is why many of us have been shaken by the lengths gone to by the MoD and the previous Government to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. I feel that this will have deep repercussions. With regard to yesterday’s revelations about the data breach and the extent to which parliamentarians themselves were not able to consider it, I hope that this Government will never follow that terrible example.

In many ways, the UK has a unique security need, but in most others we can act as a global, open and interconnected country—but only if we secure the support and partnership of others. In response to the publication of the national security review, I mentioned that, as an island nation, our shipping and data cables keep our economy alive. The noble Lord referred to that in his contribution. We were the first country to lay subsea communication cables, 175 years ago. Today, we are almost exclusively reliant on them for communications. Shipping contributed to our growth in the Industrial Revolution, and today our consumers are reliant on shipped imports and key sectors on shipped exports. Conflict between China and Taiwan would have an immediate repercussion here at home.

In order to defend this, we require our naval and maritime capabilities to be enhanced, our reach broadened, our intelligence services bolstered and our cyber resource reinforced. We agree that the way forward comes with the need for increased defence and lethal capability. We support the Government on increased defence expenditure, but it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the breakdown of the sources of the overall 5% that was announced on national defence and security. What is the assumed level of growth of the size of the economy to meet the level of expenditure we expect to be necessary? Will the Minister provide more clarity on the timeframe and the certainty of the level of resources that will be available, rather than on aspirations? We need cross-party talks on this, too, if this is to be a generational approach, and a degree of consensus on planning and investment.

It is interesting to note Germany’s Zeitenwende—“sea-change”—in which Berlin has allocated €86 billion to defence, equal to 2.4% of GDP in this year. By 2029, annual defence expenditure is expected to reach €153 billion, or 3.5% of GDP—the most ambitious rearmament since reunification. Chancellor Merz has signalled a willingness to spend up to 1.5% on defence-adjacent infrastructure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referenced, with potentially a French bridge and the French Government doing so, too. There may be vitally important infrastructure upgrades that are necessary for our whole national defence, including transport corridors and strategic mobility projects, coinciding with NATO’s wider agreement to split the 5% target into 3.5% for hard defence spending and 1.5% for expenditures related to defence.

Bundling may be justified, but we need a plan. It needs to be transparent, and we need to see it because an aspirational approach now needs to come with specificity, planning and transparency on procurement. This is not necessarily something where the United Kingdom has been a world leader in recent years, and how we link our procurement with that in the European continent and the United States will be vital.

We do not, therefore, depart from the level of funding, although we want to see more detail. We say, with respect to the Government, that it should not have been transferred from the official development assistance budget. That is a strategic mistake. We are seeing considerable reductions in programmes that have been part of the UK national security platform—successfully so—for many years. It is no surprise to me that in recent weeks we have seen public statements from former defence chiefs, military leaders, diplomats and heads of the intelligence community in the United Kingdom appealing to the Prime Minister not to cut the very programmes that have been national security-focused in conflict prevention and conflict resolution and in supporting allies to build resilient civil societies and institutions against malign interference.

The western Balkans was raised in the defence and national security strategies. Three times in the Chamber I have asked for clarity on the continuation of the western Balkans freedom and resilience programme funded by ODA, and I hope that that is not under threat. The UK and USAID cuts to the World Service and Voice of America frequencies and spectrums were immediately filled by Russia and are doing damage. We know that in the very sphere that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to, within eastern Europe and in other countries within malign influence, when we cut support for resilient institutions, freedom of speech, freedom of the media and the rule of law, Russia and China will fill that vacuum.

The FCDO network and our excellent diplomats were mentioned in the security review and also by the noble Lord. We agree with that. That is why we regret that year-on-year funding for that very network is now being reduced.

On other threats, such as biosecurity, I believe that we are less of an island than many might hope. I looked back at the UK’s first biological security strategy in 2018 under the previous Government, and I thought it was a good strategy. DfID and ODA were mentioned on almost every page—a recognition that biosecurity in the UK is weakened if it is also weak in the countries where we have a large diaspora community or a travel relationship. There was a reason why 10 years ago Ebola did not become Covid. It was because of the UK, DfID and our official development assistance. Now we have only passing references from the Government. I hope the Minister will be able to say that development assistance is a critical part of our partnerships around the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, and I agree with him, that we are underinsured, unprepared and unsafe. To correct that, we need investment, partnership and for our allies to be safe also. We may well hear about the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, speaks eloquently about our Commonwealth network, but the previous Conservative Government cut partnership support for developing Commonwealth nations by one-third and the incoming Labour Government have cut it further by 40%.

The Center for Global Development has already shown that those very countries are now moving to China, and in east Africa to Russia, for finance and more debt. It is not wise insurance only to spend on the eventuality of an emboldened adversary when we, by our very actions, are bolstering them. Official development assistance, according to the report on Tuesday by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, will be 0.24% at the end of this financial year, the lowest in the 50 years of development statistics. Why is this significant for this debate? It is because we know that conflicts now are never fought on one front, with one technology, one tactic and one means, and that that will always be the case in the future. We need an approach for our defence and security that is also for diplomacy and development. All should be complementary. It is not too late for the Government to ensure that they are not set against each other.

Ukraine: UK Policy

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as events move apace, it is absolutely right that we in this House ask the Government to restate their policy, and in that regard the Government know of these Benches’ support for it. That does not prevent us asking questions or seeking that they go further and faster, and I will end on that point, but there is full support for the Government’s actions on these Benches.

As we have a couple of extra minutes, I thought that, for the benefit of the noble Lord, I would repeat the 10 points that President Zelensky outlined in September last year as the very reasonable and, I believe, fully justifiable points that he considered to be the basis of a peace plan. The first was radiation and nuclear safety for the people of Ukraine. Then there was food security, then energy security and the release of all prisoners and deportees. Fifthly, there was the implementation of the UN charter and the recognition of territorial integrity in any final peace agreement. The sixth would be the withdrawal of Russian troops and the cessation of hostilities. I hope that the latter part of that may well come to fruition. The seventh was justice for the very many war crimes that have been inflicted on the people of Ukraine, then the immediate protection of the environment and the prevention of escalation. The 10th was the official confirmation of the end of war in a treaty.

Those must all be considered sensible and justifiable, because we all, I hope, would want peace to help the victim of aggression, not to reward the perpetrator—otherwise, history will condemn us all. It seems that there is potentially an incentive in a pause for Putin to regroup, recruit and refinance. There are too many nations, many of them allied to us, that potentially see profiting opportunities and will now, worryingly, have carte blanche to trade with Putin because the US’s new stance will not be a block for them doing so. It is also likely that Putin will seek to insist on protracted discussions on concessions unpalatable to us and Ukraine. In the scenario where those concessions may be palatable to President Trump but not to us, how are we navigating that very delicate situation? I heard the Foreign Secretary speak with clarity earlier, but that must surely be the situation with regard to the position of President Trump.

From the American point of view, sometimes unpredictability can work. It is called strategic ambiguity. The key word is “strategic”, but that is lacking, in many respects, from the Trump Administration, especially since his last comments on seeking discussions on land and power plants and dividing up certain assets. If this was between Ukraine and Russia, perhaps we might have sympathy for it, but my worry is that the negotiations will be between Russia and the United States when it comes to dividing up certain aspects such as land rights and energy rights.

So can the Minister confirm that, in this new time of flux, we can move unilaterally to seize, not just freeze, assets; that we can work with a coalition of the willing, even if that means a more diluted American standpoint; and that we can embolden our strategic relationship with our European allies for defence procurement, defence co-operation and defence purchasing? Surely this is an opportunity for us to make sure that the victim does not pay the price for the perpetration from Putin.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Whatever the Treasury may or may not think, and whatever the level of defence spending should or should not be, one of the important things coming out of the debates and discussions and questions from all parts of the House is that Ukraine has shown that the nature of warfare is changing, and the way we fought wars in the past is perhaps no longer appropriate. Of course, there is a need for mass and for traditional warfare. But the way in which the application of drones has changed the nature of warfare; the attacks on underwater cables that my noble friend pointed out; the threats to our homeland and to critical national infrastructure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to; and the data attacks and hybrid warfare that other noble Lords have referred to—all of these require us to discuss not only what the level of expenditure should be, but how we meet those challenges in a way that is relevant to the threats we face now, not those we faced in the past.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that prevention is by far the best investment. The UK has many strategic interests around the globe in areas where there are increased levels of fragile and potentially conflict-afflicted states, which will require us to have more defence resource. Can the Minister please say that the reporting last week that the Government are now projected to cut by one-third conflict prevention work in development assistance funding was an error?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I read those reports, as did the noble Lord—I know that he takes a keen interest in all these matters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those reports, we should reflect on what this country does to prevent conflicts in different parts of the world. The noble Lord has been to many countries where the UK, along with its allies, is preventing starvation, conflict and ethnic cleansing of one sort or another. I was in Nigeria last week and saw the immense activity of the British military and others to stabilise a country that faces real threat from the Sahel and from terrorists such as Boko Haram, Islamic State’s West Africa Province and others.

I accept that there are sometimes questions about what is or is not being done, and what changes are being made to government expenditure in difficult times. But, without trying to deflect from difficult decisions or to say that we should not discuss cuts, sometimes we should, as a country, talk about what we actually do, rather than about the challenges we face.

Air Defence Capabilities

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is another important question from the noble and gallant Lord. We are upgrading the radar on the Typhoon fighters as part of the air defence, we are seeing the F35B capabilities and we are looking at what further investment is needed in air defence. Looking at ground defence in terms of air defence, I mentioned the T45 upgrade to Sea Viper, which deals with ballistic missiles, but there is also the Sky Sabre capability; we currently have seven and are in the business of purchasing more of those.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to technology, I acknowledge the Government’s STORM framework on counterforce, active defence and passive defence. Most Members will have opinions on the volatile and unpredictable views of Elon Musk and SpaceX, and on Peter Thiel and Palantir. The Minister must know that any of our future defence capabilities will be dependent in some form on satellite technology, so can he reassure me that, whatever technological advances we develop in the future, we will not be dependent on a single satellite provider or on any individual provider?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about our relationship with the United States and its importance. Of course we need to ensure that we protect the systems available to us that protect our own country, but I start from the point of view that one of the most important relationships we have—if not the most important—is with the United States of America. That defends not only our freedom but the freedom of Europe and the values that we all stand for across the world. As such, we ought to welcome that special relationship.

Drones: RAF Bases

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that important comment, and I will make sure that it is reflected upon within the Ministry of Defence. He makes a really important point about air defence—of course that is an important aspect of it—but there are other ways of protecting our sites and other ways of conducting warfare. Ukraine has shown us the importance of hybrid warfare, and that certainly is something that the defence review will look at. But I will take his very important comments back to the MoD.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister worked very closely with me and others during the passage of the National Security Act 2023. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was very responsive and worked collegiately across the whole House on a cross-party basis. Section 4 of that legislation is the prohibition of drones in the vicinity of prohibited places, which include these bases. I ask the Minister to reassure the House on two things: first, that local communities are very aware of the national security legislation in these areas; and, secondly, when it comes to a national security threat, that the full elements of law and order will be deployed under national security legislation to ensure that there are no breaches.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his question. He is quite right with respect to the National Security Act. Let us be clear, in various pieces of legislation, not just the National Security Act, it is illegal for drones to be flown over or in the vicinity of these military sites. People should be aware of that, and local communities should be reassured. In terms of national security, the same Act that he and I passed under the last Government ensures that there are penalties of up to 14 years for this sort of activity, and people should be aware of that. All agencies and parts of the state will work to ensure that we identify and do what we can with those who are conducting these acts.

Ukraine

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing this debate to the House and the Minister for his clear opening remarks, on which there is consensus across the House. He knows of the support of these Benches, which my noble friend Lady Smith indicated. I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to his place and look forward to the valuable contributions he will make as a Member of this House.

My noble friend said at the start that we are debating a war in Europe, but the conflict has global ramifications. We have just heard reference to the competing international fora of the Commonwealth of Nations and BRICS summits, with perhaps jarring narratives and, as some have said, competing political relevancies. BRICS has become political rather than a trading co-operative body because of Moscow. As I will return to in a moment, redoubling our efforts in that regard will be important.

We have supported the Government’s actions, most recently the £2.25 billion facility of interest. As my noble friend said, we had pressed the previous Government on this, and we are delighted to see action. I hope the Minister will give a bit more detail on what practical impact that will have and when because, as we know, the timing is imperative.

We on these Benches have been pleased to play our part in the cross-party consensus that it is in the UK’s interests for Ukraine to prevail in its defensive struggle. That is also in our wider interests for global development, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said. Last week, we discussed the SDGs in his debate, as well as the tensions in modern Ethiopia. Next week, we will have a debate on the wider Horn of Africa. Across all those areas, we see Russia’s malign work to destabilise, to misinform and to support terror activities from Yemen to Sudan and the Sahel. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said, we see that closer to home in the western Balkans. The reach of the conflict, therefore, shows the 21st-century nature of hybrid warfare, with the many commercial interests that feed into it. As the Minister alluded to, this is both modern and medieval: in Ukraine, there is hand-to-hand combat in freezing mud trenches, while above in the skies there are drones controlled hundreds of kilometres away, with social media covering it instantly.

Support in the form of equipment and military materiel is vital, as the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Spellar, said. However, we need to do more with our allies on reconstruction in Ukraine, such as providing technical support for restarting air services at Lviv Airport, an area the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke so movingly about. One of the ways we can show that Russia will fail is if the reconstruction following its damage occurs almost as quickly it happens. The resilience of the Ukrainian people must be the resilience of their economy and industry, and the UK can play an important part in that.

We also need to do more on having a greater impact on the Russian war economy. There are headwinds resulting from those willing to continue to trade with, and circumvent sanctions on, Russia. This is where my noble friend’s reference to the BRICS summit is of great importance: we need to deploy greater diplomatic activity with trading partners such as India and the UAE—the latter has not been mentioned in the debate, but it is part of the BRICS fora, alongside Iran—to exact pressure on Russia. We also need to be willing to review our trading preferences and liabilities. We are allies and friends, but we need to ensure that there is pressure on Russia. We also have our standards: if countries have trading preferences with us, they must be based on what we consider to be global norms.

We need to be cognisant that, with some justification, some see double standards in the UK and the West’s position on Ukraine compared to that on Gaza, in our funding of international development assistance, and in our funding for Ukrainians here in the UK but not for those in Sudan. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, all that may be true, but it is no justification for the aggression of Russia and the Putin regime.

Some—I am one of them—have seen the Russian chairing of BRICS as stretching credulity. In the official literature of the Kazan summit, the Russian Government are now trumpeting what they want to see as a development of interparliamentary relations and ties. This is a country with a travesty of a Parliament, systematically seeking to destroy the continuing functioning of a democratic Verkhovna Rada in Kyiv. It has no moral basis to argue that there should be parliamentary strengthening. The Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association need to have their support redoubled, especially when we debate this in our functioning Parliament. We should remind ourselves that Members of our Parliament, including some of those taking part in this debate, have been sanctioned by the Russian Government.

Another thread of the debate that I support strongly is working with our partners in the European Union. My noble friend Lady Smith and I spoke in a debate the week before last, calling for closer security co-operation with European allies. Ukraine shows how important that is. With the coming to an end of Hungary’s presidency of the EU, which is to be taken over by Poland, there is a good opportunity for the UK to take advantage of that—to have closer, structured, treaty-based security relationships, moving away from the blocking role played by Budapest.

Finally, something that has been touched on, but not fundamentally, is the human impact of this, primarily on younger people. If my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield were here, she would have raised the issue of the need for psychosocial support for children as a result of this conflict. This is often underreported, but I believe it is vital that we do more, and not only in this conflict. UNICEF has said that 2.2 million children in Ukraine are in need of psychosocial support but, in the Sudan conflict, 10 times as many as that, 20 million children, are out of school and are the principal victims of the conflict. In Gaza, 600,000 children are out of school, impacted by the conflict as the IDF has damaged or destroyed 90% of schools.

I have previously said in debates that, if the UK has an offer, the offer should be defending education in conflict and its quick restoration if there is some cessation of violence, because immediate trauma support when there is a cessation of conflict will be an investment that is in our interests for the future. Why is it vital? We know that, in this hybrid warfare environment, where misinformation and disinformation are militarised and used as a tool, they thrive when there is no education. A whole new generation of conflict-scarred children in our continent, in the Middle East and in Africa, terrifies me for the next generation.

Therefore, I am very pleased to be an ambassador for an organisation called Do Not Look Away, which is focusing on young people and violence. It published its first video just this week and it includes Yaryna, an 11 year-old Ukrainian artist whose work, as some noble Lords may recall, was put on the side of the Ariane 5 rocket and blasted into space. She and her family believe that Ukraine’s destiny is as part of the European continent, with safety. In the video, her mother said something that struck me. As a Ukrainian who left and sought refuge, she said that she did not want to be called a refugee, because it was not her fault or her desire to leave Ukraine. She said she was just a temporary traveller who wants to go home. We and our allies have provided shelter in a storm for many people, but we now know that our imperative is to make sure that there is a home for her and her family to return to. For the children affected by conflict, we need to play a much bigger role.

Relations with Europe

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, particularly because I agree with him. The speaking order at the close of this debate is like the old days, with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, following straight after me. However, this is the kind of debate in which I will ask him questions rather than generally agreeing with him, as in many of the debates that we have had. I look forward to, I hope, a characteristically positive reply from him to this debate.

I join others in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, to this House, and her moving maiden speech. It had powerful messages, and gave an indication of the issues she will raise with characteristic determination in this House. She is now in a parliamentary Chamber with many colleagues who were senior civil servants that she skewered on the committee, so I am looking forward to seeing the peace offerings of cups of tea in the tearoom.

My noble friend Lady Smith ensured the breadth of the topic of this debate. War in the east of the European continent, the conflict in the near neighbourhood of the eastern Mediterranean, the climate emergency, a terrible humanitarian crisis in Africa that might automatically lead to migration challenges in our continent—all these aspects are worthy of debate. It has also been recognised throughout the debate that the European Union is the key political body in the continent that is tasked with the policy responses to many of those challenges.

The underlying aspect is whether the UK is better out than it would have been if we had stayed in. Some argued during the process that the UK leaving the bloc would automatically mean that the bloc would be weakened. Some almost saw that as an ambition. However, we have not seen that—in many respects the bloc has been strengthened. Indeed, Putin’s calculation that his actions would see a fundamental undermining of the European Union has not come about, notwithstanding the challenges among some of its members. Therefore, from these Benches, we want the Government to be successful in their reset, but we also want to reconnect in many areas. The Minister will not be surprised to hear us wanting the Government to go further.

On Monday, a Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross—told the House:

“This Government want to and will make Brexit work”.—[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1818.]


That presupposes that by “work” they mean that the UK can be better off across business, people-to-people relations, energy, sustainability, security and culture outside the European Union—inevitably influenced by it, but not part of shaping it. We respectfully disagree. Making Brexit work is a bit like getting Brexit done: two falsehoods do not make a truth.

From the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, eschewed dogma and heralded pragmatism. All those debates dominated by that dogma must seem so many long years ago, but the very dogma that was at the fore handed us the hardest of exits. So the debate today is significant, especially since we now know that getting Brexit done is almost an impossibility and making it work is incredibly difficult. We have seen UK border checks with the European Union delayed again under this new Government, and the Windsor Framework is not yet operable.

We have seen, as we heard in this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the impact on trade in goods. UK goods exports to the EU have not recovered to pre-Brexit levels. We were told that this would not happen, that it would be a boon for exports of goods, and that if there were any reductions, they would be more than offset by the riches of non-EU exports facilitated by new trade agreements. Goods exports to non-EU countries also remain below pre-Brexit levels, because the damaging impact of our harder trade with the European Union is that we have made it harder to trade with non-European Union countries as well.

Goods imports from the European Union have fallen, but they have been offset by imports from China, contributing to the UK having the biggest trade deficit in our history with only one country and the biggest deficit with one country of any advanced economy, making us strategically vulnerable. For our geopolitical security, making Brexit work will risk the UK being less resilient and secure, and more dependent on China. In opposition, Labour called for a strategic audit of our relationship with China. I will be interested in whether that is on the agenda when the Foreign Secretary visits Beijing. However, the Chancellor has called for more trade with China—that is, more imports from China.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, in a very powerful message, we now enjoy a less deep relationship with our colleagues in the European Union on security status and military involvement than Canada and Norway. That cannot be in our strategic interests, given what Russia is seeking to do in the western Balkans. If we are to be pragmatic, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked us to be, then it is in our interests to dust off the draft text of the security agreement, use that as a starting point and have it as the basis of many of the talks because clearly, some work had previously been done and we should start from that basis. Indeed, we should make it as cross-party as possible. Let us have some pragmatism here.

Where we need pragmatism most now is for young people. Therefore, it was disappointing that the Government said that free movement for young people was a red line, somehow claiming that the European Commission had argued that it would be equating free movement with mobility. Mobility is not free movement: a mobility agreement is not a free movement agreement. That is why a European Commission spokesperson replied to the Prime Minister’s statement:

“A red line is as if the EU was asking for something. We are not asking for anything”.


As the EU put it,

“the youth mobility proposal on the table is a ‘reaction to the UK request to some of our member states’”.

It is welcome that the Government are seeking bilateral agreements on mobility with member states, but let us ensure that the talks with the Commission progress well for an overall mobility agreement—that is vital. As part of it, we should have regard to student participation. Applicants from the EU to UK universities have dropped by 43%, according to UCAS. That compares with 29,000 applications from China, a number that has more than doubled. What is the Government’s strategic aim when it comes to European students learning in the UK?

We also heard in the debate that red tape on the UK-EU border has prevented children taking part in overseas educational trips, resulting in a 30% reduction. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said this week that any consideration of school trips facilitation would have to be seen in the context of the immigration system. It is as though 13 year-olds will somehow be so enamoured by seeing Buckingham Palace that they will seek to overstay their time in the youth hostels. Surely we can get school trips agreed; I look forward to the Minister’s positive reply on that.

My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter spoke with real passion about the benefit of supporting culture for culture’s sake but also about the need to support the UK as a superpower for the creative industries and the economy. It is in our economic interest—for not just London but Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh and the north-western regions of England. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I felt as though I would not be able to respond to him properly and eloquently, so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did so, and so well. If I may paraphrase his words, I think his message to the Government was: it is just not good enough to change the mood music in our relationship if it is difficult to get the musicians to travel to play the music in the first place.

To conclude, my noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Wallace asked us not to look back but to look ahead for the young people who will have to face the challenges of an increasingly complex world and will have to live with Brexit. Just over 2,000 children were born on 23 June 2016, and at the end of this Government’s term they will be 13 year-olds. They will be living with the consequences of Brexit, but they will have to face the challenges of this difficult world. We need to ensure that they face fewer barriers and burdens and more opportunities. That must be our task, and I hope that the Government see that as their task, too.

King’s Speech

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as this debate concludes, I am delighted to join others who have given very warm congratulations to the new Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who will be winding this debate for the Government commands high respect in this Chamber, and I wish him and his colleagues the best for the role ahead of them. I also wish to add, as others have, my appreciation for the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Benyon, for how they carried out their roles in the previous Administration. They were always approachable, sincere and acted with propriety and integrity, and I am very grateful for their work.

My noble friend Lady Smith spoke extensively on defence issues, as well as my noble friend Lady Suttie, and others, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I am sure that the debates on defence will be significant going forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be a busy Minister in this House in particular. As my noble friend Lady Suttie indicated with regards to Ukraine, I know one of the challenges ahead for the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be how we ensure with our allies that our response to Russia is targeting its war economy—over one third of all Russian spending is on defence. That puts into context the discussions we have been having around 2.5% or 3%. The scale is enormous, and there will be cross-party consensus on supporting the Government for that. For much of the debate, I was looking across at the Government Privy Council Bench and I saw the noble Lords, Lord Robertson, Lord Reid and Lord West—Robertson, Reid and West would be a great name for a smart tailoring outfit—who are three significant parliamentarians who will be scrutinising and supporting the work of the Government.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, indicated, this was a general election campaign in which foreign affairs received scant mention, but the Government have major and profound decisions to make on defence, security, development and diplomacy. These Benches will seek to work collaboratively with them, but we will also perhaps, on occasions, be constructive challengers and questioners. We hope that the Government will use their considerable mandate well.

As the election began, I was with Sudanese civilians in exile at their Taqaddum conference. They were calling for what we benefit from: peaceful, open, fair, democratic elections to decide who governs us and a transfer of power that is smooth and peaceful. This is denied the people of Sudan, who are enduring, as my noble friend Lord Teverson indicated, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with 7.3 million people displaced, 2 million who have already fled across neighbouring borders and 25 million people—half the population of the country—now at crisis levels of hunger. The Minister opening the debate mentioned the name of the country but said nothing yet about how the Government will respond. I very much hope that we can have a humanitarian Statement, when we return in the autumn, about the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

On the wider Africa, we are looking forward to the Government’s positive announcement that we will have an Africa strategy—one that I hope is published and debated in the House. This is a continent of challenges but also of enormous opportunity for the United Kingdom.

In many ways, the dichotomy of the world’s pressing challenges and areas of opportunity is the political choice of our age, for many around the world. The choice, rather than being between left and right, is increasingly between liberal tolerance and extremism. This is the dividing line. We see the growth of reactionary forces, as has been raised in many noble Lords’ contributions, but these Benches might take a little pride that in Europe—in the UK, France and Germany—there is the highest number of liberal parliamentarians since the Second World War.

Our sister liberal parties governing Ukraine and Taiwan are literally on the front line in defending a liberal rules-based order. The Ukrainian Government and Parliament seek to preserve parliamentary proceedings against continuing aggression from Putin’s regime. The Taiwanese Government are conducting their first ever real-time live-fire military exercises, as the belligerence of the Government of mainland China continues. Those countries are also seeking to develop and implement the force of law, not the law of force, in the eloquent words of my noble friend Lord Alderdice.

On the front line of this are individuals such as Vladimir Kara-Murza. I welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s Statement but would be grateful if, in due course, the Government would update us on our activities on and what actions they will be taking. It is about not only individuals but organisations, such as the BBC World Service. I hope the Government consider reversing the decisions of their predecessor Administration on its funding.

Inevitably, much of this debate has been a response to the ongoing diplomatic and political situation in Israel and Gaza, including—as my noble friend Lord Hussain indicated in his powerful contribution—the humanitarian impact. Since this new Government were elected, 1,500 Palestinians have been killed and the Israeli Government continue unnecessarily to restrict life-sustaining aid into Gaza. On a daily basis, little more than 10% of the food and medicine that should be is being brought into Gaza and there is insufficient distribution, both as a result of internal Hamas criminality and as a result of restrictive Israeli practices. That means that the humanitarian catastrophe continues. During this period, Hamas has continued to breach international law egregiously in holding hostages.

The leader of our Israeli sister party, Yair Lapid, described Benjamin Netanyahu’s congressional speech yesterday as “a disgrace”. He said that an agreement should have been accepted that would allow the hostages back home. So what are our Government doing not just to comment but to act with our friends in the Israeli Government? The intentions of new Administrations, by necessity, will need to be replaced by hard choices.

These Benches believe that actions should include expanding settler sanctions, reflecting the recent ICJ ruling, and recognising that the settler and outpost expansions are systematic and being done with impunity. We also believe that sanctioning Israeli Government Ministers who actively fund and facilitate this illegal activity, contravening UK sanctions, should be considered by the new Government. Proportionality should be considered when it comes to arms licences, and we believe that these should be suspended, as we did in 2014. The Government should state publicly that, if arrest warrants are issued by the ICC, the UK will act on them.

We also believe that the UK needs to be clear—and I would be grateful if the Minister was clear, in winding up—what the current position is on the amicus curiae brief on the ICC, and whether the clock will run out tomorrow under the policy of the previous Government. Clarity on that would be welcome today. For the longer term, in due course we would like to know the Government’s proposition for support of the enormous reconstruction effort, including, depressingly, thousands of tonnes of rubble that needs to be cleared.

Fundamentally, we also believe profoundly in a two-state solution, and we believe in immediate recognition, not at the end of a process but now. In fact, we have held that view on these Benches since 1980.

What is the Minister’s view on the agreement reached this week between Hamas and Fatah, which recognises the right of Israel to exist in the 1967 borders? This is a significant event, but an agreement made in China. This speaks to the point by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, with regard to what our strategic position on China will be. In opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was eloquent in calling for a strategic review of our relationship. We will await this from the new Government, and we will work with them on what that review will look like. Already we see a situation where the Prime Minister makes a statement that we will be more robust with China, but the Chancellor is saying that we want more trade with China when we currently have the highest trade deficit with China of any country in the world.

On development, we have raised concerns over recent years about the whiplash-inducing policy-making and the changes to many of the policies, but the reduction in our reputation around the world, particularly in the global South—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, and which my noble friends Lord Oates and Lord Teverson spoke to—has had strategic consequences. If the Government’s intention is that we will have a foreign policy that will be more reliable, dependable and predictable, we will support that; in fact, we will work with them to bring that about. At the heart of this must be the immediate restoration of our 0.7% legal commitment for ODA, including a 15% share of that on education, and a restoration of funding for women and girls and for water and sanitary health. We should return to the all-party consensus of meeting 0.7% and enshrine it in the legislation, not just a Labour-Conservative consensus of reaching it only when fiscal circumstances allow. Surely the United Kingdom, as one of the richest countries in the world, should not be a country whose response to some of the worst famines in Africa for 30 years is that we will restore our support for famine relief when our fiscal circumstances allow. This is a political choice, not a fiscal one.

I agree with the valedictory contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. Never again should this country, as it did last year, spend more overseas aid in the UK on a failed immigration policy than abroad in combating and preventing migration in the first place.

To conclude, we need to restore our reputation, and I wish the Government well for it. There are a couple of practical things that we could do. The first, which was not mentioned in the Minister’s opening speech, is to give full-hearted support for the delivery of the sustainable development goals. This Government will preside over the 10th anniversary of the SDGs; ensuring that they are as on track as possible will send the best signal possible. We should also return to an independent development department and have clear structures when it comes to delivering development. Much of this debate has been about the means of conduct in warfare in the 21st century, but we all know that it is not solely on the battlefield. It is also in the digital cloud, in misinformation and disinformation, and, yes, in the integrity of those who say they believe in rules. As my noble friend Lord Oates said, we must adhere to them ourselves.

The world is in transition on climate and poverty and in conflict. If we are to be a partner of choice, which I hope the Government will seek to be, we will work with them and will wish them well on that endeavour.

Ukraine and Georgia

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support in all that we are doing in Ukraine. The Government and, indeed, the whole House continue strongly to condemn the appalling, illegal and unprovoked attack that President Putin has launched on the people of Ukraine. We continue to monitor developments on the ground very closely, but our steadfast support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is unwavering. That is why the Prime Minister has announced £500 million in additional funding, which takes us to £3 billion of military aid this year. This level of funding will last until the end of the decade and for as long as it is required. While Georgia and Ukraine are separate geopolitical issues, the Georgian people know all too well the proven aggression of Putin—in fact, they have only to look back to 2008. That is why we must support Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is a critical year for the Georgian population. In December last year, the EU announced accession candidate status for its admission to the European Union, and elections are due this October. This is an important time for the young people of Georgia, who have shown their resilience against this measure to restrict civil society freedoms. How will the United Kingdom ramp up support for young people in Georgia, who are very clear that they do not wish for there to be an autocracy? They want open civil democracy.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. The UK is a firm friend of the Georgian people and we have a long-standing defence partnership. We support their pursuit of the legitimate desire for a sovereign, free and democratic future, and particularly their lean towards a Euro-Atlantic trajectory. There is a very high level of diplomatic pressure both here and in Tbilisi to make certain that our commitment is got over and the clarity of our intent is made absolutely clear.

King’s Speech

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is sometimes educative to look back at other contributions there have been in debates on the gracious Speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and my noble friend Lady Ludford made me think about some of the opportunities that could lie ahead for future European co-operation. I stumbled across this contribution, which I will quote from Hansard:

“for five years the last Government tried the patience of our partners by the suspicious way they approached even the simplest and most constructive proposals for common Community action … By contrast, the Government today are determined to engage actively with our partners in developing the Community in the interests of all its members. We believe that it is in this co-operative framework that we can best construct a Europe in which future generations can live and prosper.”—[Official Report, 22/5/79; col. 237.]

That dangerous liberal progressive rhetoric was from the last time that we had a Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords, because it was Lord Carrington’s first speech as Foreign Secretary in reply to the gracious Speech in 1979. As I am of that generation, I hope that the new Foreign Secretary might repeat some of that sentiment when he comes among us.

I also commend the maiden speeches we heard today and the genuine sentiment, which I fully endorse, with regards to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and her work. As a fellow Borderer, I particularly welcome the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to his new role. I am sure that his ancestors as lawless Border reivers will be rather amused that he is now in charge of the British Army, but I welcome him to his post and wish him well for it.

This year, 2023, is proving to be a terribly bloody year for civilian casualties in political conflict, with children bearing the brunt. My noble friend Lady Smith referenced Ukraine, and in Sudan—I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, referenced Sudan very early on in his contribution, and the Minister knows I have an active engagement there—three times the population of Gaza are currently displaced. Half of them are children. This is the highest number of displaced children anywhere in the world. Some 14 million children in Sudan are in urgent need of life-saving humanitarian assistance. This is the gravest humanitarian crisis on the planet. Many are living in fear of being killed, injured, recruited or used by armed actors, and conflict-related sexual violence, including rape and child rights violations, will likely continue to rise.

We have also heard of the continuing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Reportedly, over 11,000 people have been killed. Two-thirds of them are reportedly children and women. Of course, we know that Hamas also targeted children and young people in its brutal murders and taking of hostages. Children are most at risk now, especially girls, when water and sanitary health services are reduced. The United Nations warned this morning that wash facilities are starting to shut down; that includes within the shelters for the UN which are currently hosting over 290,000 IDPs. The urgency is clear.

Children bearing the brunt of conflicts means that the next generation may also bear witness to how Governments have responded. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem powerfully said that our actions now are not just about ameliorating the humanitarian crisis but about ensuring that the next generation does not live with a great level of resentment. I fear greatly this will be the case.

I also wish to pay tribute to the United Nations. UNRWA has been bereaved; over 100 UN aid workers have been killed in this conflict, the highest in the United Nations’ history.

Our Benches believe that a bilateral ceasefire is now necessary, and it should be the basis, as my noble friend Lord Palmer indicated, not only for creating space for humanitarian assistance but also to try and provide some form of political mechanism that may offer some hope, despite how difficult that would be. There are those Israeli leaders such as the former Prime Minister Yair Lapid who addressed the United Nations General Assembly last year, so we know that there are figures who can be peacemakers.

The Prime Minister said in his speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet on Monday that the UK would provide the

“serious, practical and enduring support needed to bolster the Palestinian Authority”.

I agree with him on the need for that, but, as the Minister knows, I have called out the cuts of 90% from the UK to the OPT over the last two years. Also, the UK support for UNRWA has been cut by half.

Some have referenced the new Foreign Secretary, and we will welcome him to his new position. I think the whole House will join me in feeling a deep sympathy with the Prime Minister, who was unable to find anyone from among his 349 colleagues capable enough to hold the post. He will have a warm welcome here. I reflected on the fact that the last time a Conservative Prime Minister was brought back to be Foreign Secretary, it was to help us to get into Europe. As my noble friend indicated, this one helped us get out.

The context that we now have going forward is not just humanitarian crises but the growth of autocracies and the fragmentation of the rule of law. This morning, I had the great privilege of speaking in a ceremony in which Liberal International, the organisation that our Benches are part of, presented the prize for freedom to Evgenia Kara-Murza, the wife of Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is currently serving a 25-year sentence in isolation in Siberia because he speaks out against the Putin regime. That is one indication. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government have sanctioned those who prosecuted him. As well as my discussions yesterday and last week with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Richard Ratcliffe, that was an indication that had highlighted in my mind that, if there could be one area in this King’s Speech where there would have been legislation for foreign affairs and defence, it would be putting on a statutory basis access to consular services for those joint nationals who, unfortunately, are being politically detained but have difficulty securing long-term UK support for consular access. In their names, I hope that the Government will act on that.

As well as calling for the rule of law to be respected around the world, we must respect it here. As has been referenced with regards to the Rwanda judgment, we have yet again relied on the Supreme Court to uphold British values. I have visited the reception centre in Kigali, as many colleagues know. The warnings that I and others have made repeatedly, which were brushed aside by repeated Ministers, have now been upheld by the Supreme Court. If the Government are insisting on bringing a treaty forward, we will do our job here and scrutinise it very carefully indeed. Of course, this will not just be scrutiny with regards to how effective it will be. It is, simply, a morally wrong policy.

Regrettably, I feel that the United Kingdom has now become an unreliable partner, with six Foreign Secretaries in eight years, often with screeching U-turns in policy. We have had the flawed abolition of DfID with the global reputation that it had. We now know from WhatsApp exchanges at the time from the Cabinet Secretary that this was done to a timeframe for political diversion purposes. We did not have a development strategy for six years, and now we will have two in two years. We have been told that the new White Paper will be transformative, but it was not even referenced in the Minister’s opening speech. With regards to how seriously we are taking emerging economies and countries, we have had Africa Ministers with an average lifespan of 11 months in office over the last seven years.

There is unreliability and a lack of dependability, with callous development cuts, often mid-programme. For the first time ever, we are spending more on overseas assistance here in the UK, on failed policies, than on humanitarian bilateral programmes abroad. We are an unpredictable player on strategic issues. Now we are apparently still tilting to the Indo-Pacific to thwart China, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, indicated, we have a Foreign Secretary who says that he wants to see

“the UK as the partner of choice for China in the West”,

and a Government who have deliberately ballooned our trade deficit in goods with China to £40 billion, the biggest ever deficit to a single country in the history of our trading. No wonder the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee described this as a “strategic void”.

We heard also from the Prime Minister in his speech at Banqueting House that

“vital humanitarian aid is reaching civilians in Gaza, and across the Horn of Africa – funded by the British people. This is who we are”.

However, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact in its most recent report highlighted:

“UK bilateral humanitarian aid fell by half between 2020 and 2021”.


ICAI said in its report, as a riposte to the Prime Minister, that this

“has meant that UK support for global relief and recovery efforts … in response to the August 2022 floods in Pakistan and the worsening drought in the Horn of Africa … was significantly smaller and pledged later than in previous years. This has diminished the UK’s ability to play a leading role in the international response to crises”.

Regrettably, we have a situation where we are not dependable, reliable or predicable.

At the same time as we are slashing by half UK contributions to the World Bank development programme, there are 30% cuts to the African Development Bank and 30% cuts to the Global Fund, which fights HIV and AIDS. Further to the references in the debate to women and girls, we have cut our support to UN Women by 77%.

In our view, this all means that we need an immediate restoration of the legal requirement to meet 0.7%—not for the Labour Party or the Conservative Party simply to trot out the Treasury language of “when fiscal circumstances allow”—as well as an independent development department that can again restore British leadership around the world. The Prime Minister said to his party conference:

“You either think this country needs to change or you don’t”.


I love my country, as everyone in this Chamber does, and I am aggrieved by how its international standing has been systematically undermined by the Government. For the sake of my country’s standing in the world, it is the Government who need to change, not my country.