Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Soames of Fletching Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and, before him, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, to our wonderful committee staff and to all those who took the trouble and time to give us evidence for this important and substantial report.

I start by saying, across the political divide, that our Prime Minister has handled events thus far with exceptional calm and confidence. It gives great strength to our case that the nation is united in its support for Ukraine and its determination to ensure that we are prepared to make a greater contribution to NATO, which is long overdue, and thus to European security. It is a great pity that we no longer have a seat in the Councils taking place today in Brussels.

I strongly support President Trump’s determination that this should be the case, but respectfully remind him that the Atlantic alliance, which is the most successful defensive organisation of all time, is not something just to be dismissed at the flick of a switch. We will get further quicker if we undertake the vast amount of work that has to be done in an orderly way without the baleful histrionics. He should also realise that, whatever agreement he thinks we may be able to reach with President Putin, the Kremlin will continue to view the West as an enemy. We must therefore take all necessary steps to continue to be aware of the danger it represents and its activities, which are harmful to ourselves, our people, our country and our allies. To this end, we need, as everyone agrees, to build up our defences and our resilience. Investing in our security is in our interest and we need to recognise our urgent obligation to the country to do it.

The wake-up call—now an alarm call—that this committee deals with is extremely timely. It will affect this country’s military activities across all domains and mean profound changes in the military and civilian establishments, in particular in the reordering and encouragement of our defence industrial base, which has so much to offer. I agree strongly with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on this. To this end, I urge Ministers to study the case histories of the Americans, who do this sort of thing extremely well, particularly businesses such as Anduril, which I saw the other day and is doing so much in the private sector in R&D and production and at far lower prices than the conventional manner.

I also support strongly an urgent look at how the reserves in all three services can play a bigger role and bring into the defence field many more people who would otherwise not be involved. I strongly—very strongly—support the comments from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in this regard. Of course, we await the outcome of the strategic defence review from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Although we can, I think, all be pleased with the intention to raise spending on defence, to be frank, what is planned at present is nowhere near enough, as several noble Lords have said.

In the months ahead, it will be increasingly important that the public understand that this country is going to have to change its dispositions. I think that it would be a wise step to establish a ministry of civil defence, which would accelerate the planning of the kind of unforeseen circumstances and eventualities that are clearly going to arise; it would be a focus for urgency in building our required, but much overdue, national resilience. Incidentally, I wonder whether the Minister will consider whether it is entirely sensible to send the carrier strike group to the Far East when it may well be required for urgent duties nearer home. It seems to me foolish to dispatch so much of our limited naval power such a long way from its home base at a time of considerable tension.

In my view, the reason why the events of the past few weeks have come as such a tremendous shock in this country is because the Article 5 commitment—and NATO’s solidarity behind it—allowed a billion people in 32 countries to sleep easily in their beds at night. To be frank, that is no longer the case. They will continue to be able to do so only if deterrence is real, robust and understood by friend and foe alike. Deterrence means having the right capabilities and the right forces, with the right equipment, at the right place and at the right time, to defend our people and to frighten off those who wish us ill. In Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine, we have been reminded vividly of what is at risk. We must take all necessary steps. The stakes before us are sky-high and, as this report makes plain, we need to wake up to them.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Lord Soames of Fletching Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. As I suggested in an earlier answer, the sequencing of all of this is extremely important. Of course, we need the defence review, which is taking place within the context of the 2.5% budget figure that the Treasury has set. As I said, we will make an announcement about the pathway to that and how we intend to reach that point at a future fiscal event in the spring. The noble and gallant Lord is right to point out the importance of sequencing.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, were any instructions or guidance given to the SDR team on guarantees about the financing of what will inevitably be the findings of the SDR?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The SDR team know the context within which they are working, which is the 2.5% envelope. There will be choices in that, and they will lay out those choices. It will then be a matter for consideration and decision following that. Laying out the threats for us to properly consider what they are and how we meet them is an important function of the SDR.

King’s Speech

Lord Soames of Fletching Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the new Front Bench team, and congratulate them on the smooth way in which they have moved swiftly into government. I offer every good wish to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as chair of this very important review. I echo the views of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Stirrup, about what needs to be done.

It is a great honour to take part in this debate on His Majesty the King’s gracious Speech. As we debate these issues here today, I do not believe that, as other noble Lords have mentioned, we can ignore the appalling terror attack and hostage-taking by Hamas on 7 October. Neither can we ignore the terrible consequences: more than 39,000 Palestinians have been killed, including around 15,000 children, and more than 10,000 are missing under the rubble. Revenge is not a strategy.

I am not here to question the undoubted legal right of Israel to defend itself. I am here to remind noble Lords about the importance of the international rule of law, to ask this Chamber if we still believe that it is worth defending and, if it believes it is, to be clear about some very difficult facts and our responsibility in the face of them. Even before the terrible events of 7 October, our proclaimed ally, Israel, had long been in defiance of the jurisdiction of international organisations and treaties, and been in breach of more than 30 UN regulations and the Geneva conventions. The catalogue of violations and rulings is dismal: whether it is the 1980 UN Security Council Resolution 478 condemning the annexation of Jerusalem, the ICJ 2004 advisory opinion on the illegality of the separation barrier, or the various UN Charter resolutions concerning the occupation, the illegal settlements and the forcible and unlawful annexation of land.

Beyond the customary verbal condemnation, the West turned a blind eye to these breaches. We made it clear by our apathy that Israel was an exception to the rules. We in the West are now dangerously exposed by that apathy. In September 2022, the UN independent commission concluded in its report to the UNGA that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory

“was unlawful under international law owing to its permanence and to actions undertaken by Israel to annex parts of the land de facto and de jure”.

The commission stated that the permanent occupation and annexation by Israel could not remain unaddressed, and the General Assembly requested that the ICJ provide an advisory opinion. That opinion finally arrived on Friday. It stated that the occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal under international law. This ruling was welcomed as historic, clear and unambiguous, but it only formalised what we already knew.

Make no mistake: Netanyahu’s Government are accelerating their lawlessness. While eyes have been fixed on Gaza, almost 600 Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank since 7 October. Settlers have reported that they carried out more than 1,000 attacks on Palestinians with apparent impunity, allegedly often with the protection of the Israeli security forces. Dangerous rhetoric is being ratcheted up by extremist elements within the Government. It is reported that Israel has recently approved or advanced plans for around 5,300 homes in dozens of illegal settlements across the West Bank. This is the kind of lawless behaviour we might expect from a rogue state, an enemy of the West, an enemy of the rules-based order; but I remind noble Lords that this is a first-world state of immense sophistication and a proclaimed ally of the UK, the US and the West. If the West is to maintain any hold or credibility in upholding the rules-based order on which we all depend, the rule of law must apply to all equally.