King’s Speech

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and to welcome the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Young. I hope that they, like me, will welcome the degree of unity that we often find across this House. I used to have arguments with Lord Geoffrey Howe, who used to say to me that I ought to be more contentious and pick arguments so we could get to the bottom of things. I used to say to him, “Tell me what you would like the argument about, we’ll rehearse one and then we can play it out in your Lordships’ House”.

I would guess that there are few United Kingdom Jewish families without relatives who are caught up in the unfolding tragedy in Israel and Gaza, and I am no exception to that. The solidarity across this House in the face of the events and the growth, which is absolutely manifest, in domestic anti-Semitism, the unity that we have and the way in which it has been expressed, have been inspiring and I am deeply grateful for that, just as I am grateful when the same comments are made about Islamophobia and our need to deal with it.

Hamas has created this catastrophe, assisted by Iran and Russia—but it created it, and the impact of the barbaric terrorist attack on 7 October, in which fellow British citizens were killed, just as there are fellow British citizens abducted as hostages. We want them back. The problem cannot be overstated. About 1,200 to 1,400 babies, children, families and old folk were butchered, overwhelmingly on the grounds that they were Jews. It made no difference to the Hamas terrorists if you were Thai or of any other nationality. On the day, they burned people alive, dismembered them and filmed them in their agony—and some of us, sadly, have seen those films.

To understand the scale of the shock that there has been to the community which I come from—I know numbers tell only part of the story—on 9 November 1938, almost an anniversary, the Kristallnacht pogrom took 91 Jewish lives. On 7 October, it was 13 times worse, and if you pro rata it, well over 100 times worse. This has to be central to our understanding of why people feel as they do. I am not going to pretend to your Lordships’ House that I feel a lot of personal fear—I do not pretend that I do—but I tell you now that I will not let my daughter go into central London on her own, although it is her home town, because I fear for her.

That, of course, is just the start of the horror that Hamas has caused, and we have to able to hold two contrasting thoughts in our heads at once, although it is not always easy: this is not a monochrome tragedy. The babies and civilians in Gaza are also lives taken—invaluable lives and futures destroyed—and when anybody uses the words “human shields”, they do well to remember that the word “human” is at the beginning of that phrase. Hamas is monstrous, but those who are rightly battling to free the 240 hostages have to remember that the shields are human. They have not chosen to be shields, they are not simply collateral damage and they need fuel, water, food and medicines delivered consistently through humanitarian pauses and safe routes. It is quite right that Israel should try to defang Hamas. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made the point earlier that it was essential to know how. It is also right to defang the settlers on the West Bank who are so intent on not allowing Palestinian communities to develop their own political institutions.

I think there are other things we can do. We could certainly starve Hamas of some of the money that is rolling through the cryptocurrency world, which it is possible to regulate and stop. That hidden and illicit money is there. Plainly, this cannot be allowed to be a mechanism for terrorists to regroup and repeat their violence and, incidentally, nor does it excuse the grotesque threat by a senior Israeli Minister to use nuclear weapons in the region. It is high time for a political initiative, and for us that political solution has always involved the two viable states being created. I am sure that that is the right path, and I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, when he says it is not.

We need to grasp that political discussions must involve people with at least a basic view, which Hamas will never be able to accept, I know, and will never discuss in the form of a peace treaty—but then nor will Mr Netanyahu. He is rigidly antagonistic, and his Government alliance is even worse. Some adversaries, of course, have found a capability to talk about peace, whatever the precedents, but I must say that neither of these leaderships can. Both abhor a two-state solution, and we need to find a way to talk to others.

My closing comments—I am aware of the time—are that, throughout my adult life, I have counted on the architecture of our relationship with the United States. I think it is absolutely fundamental. As many have said today, NATO is fundamental, and Five Eyes is fundamental to our well-being. I believe that President Biden will be re-elected, but it is possible that he will not. I did not believe that President Trump could beat Hillary Clinton—which shows what I know. If he is elected, almost all of that architecture is liable to be destroyed, and I ask the Government what kind of contingency thinking they are doing to ensure that we have reliable alliances on which we can depend and where our defence is sacrosanct and durable, because, if we cannot plan for that possibility, I fear very greatly for where we will end up.

Ukraine: Update

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

On training, I do not think that there is much more I can add. What we know from our experience of Operation Orbital, which was the UK’s close training relationship with Ukraine prior to the conflict, and the subsequent Operation Interflex, which is the ongoing, very successful training programme we have been engaged in in the UK—we are now attracting international support for our efforts—is that the Ukrainian armed forces have shown themselves agile, receptive, quick to understand and responsive to training provision. I seek to reassure my noble friend that every aspect of training has been looked at, and it is anticipated that that will not be an impediment to the effective use of the equipment which has been donated.

On the situation within Russia, the sanctions regime both imposed by this country and in concert with other allies is certainly having an effect on Russia. At the end of the day, any change of attitude by the Russian Government has to emanate from the Russian people. As sanctions continue to bite in Russia and impact on what it is able to do—not least a predicted drop in its GDP—Russian people may begin to question, as that recent poll suggests they are already doing, what is happening and what the Government are doing in their name. Frankly, if that is a question that the Russian people start to ask, I think it is healthy. As I said earlier, we have to be very clear that our opposition is to the activity of the Russian Government; it is not in any way a hostile reaction to the Russian people.

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister comment on what progress is being made to seize the assets and to deal with the financial movements of cash of those who have appeared on the sanctions list? Are we making progress and are we beginning to hurt their ability to operate?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The information I have is that we have sanctioned more than 1,200 individuals and 120 entities; and, with our allies, we have frozen over 60% of Putin’s war chest foreign reserves, which is worth about £270 billion. Open-source evidence indicates that several of Russia’s weapons manufacturers have suspended their activities completely or partially due to sanctions and the lack of spare parts and components. Sanctions against companies such as Kronstadt, the main producer of drones used in Ukraine, is certainly making it far harder for Russia to resupply its front line.

Defence: Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the statement made on 9 July and the proposal in tonight’s Motion. I support the view that four submarines will make a key contribution to the alliance upon which our security architecture relies. The Minister has put the issues very effectively, though I share my noble friend Lord Robertson’s anxiety that we are coming to a critical discussion perhaps without the seriousness that it merits—a three-hour debate, late in the evening, with 23 of us present on an issue of this kind and no opportunity in this House of course to vote to show our consent to the proposition that the Government are making.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons will support this position although, candidly, I am not holding my breath. My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe did a really remarkable job of trying to explain our labyrinthine positions but I think that it is fair to say that the party’s policy is surprisingly clear. It is and must remain that we support a wholly effective nuclear deterrent. We know in any case that the people of the United Kingdom will not trust their Government to leaders who will not adequately protect them. I also associate myself with the expressions of appreciation to those who have protected us and who should be properly acknowledged.

Nuclear deterrence remains a necessity. It is not just because the world is more volatile but because threats emerge with grater rapidity. There are not the pauses that allowed lengthy deliberations as messages historically moved by hand over distance. Communications and weaponry are built around immediacy, so it is critical in advance that everyone understands and reduces the risk of paying the price for what would never be a victory. This balance, however daunting, is struck by the prospect of mutually assured destruction. It can be understood instantly, and obviously has been in recent history.

I see no evidence of restraint on the part of those who observed our own weapons reductions. In a world where proliferation is the more dominant possibility than multilateralism, and unless and until we can manage to swing the pendulum in a different direction, we must make our decisions realistically. All recent government studies—Labour studies, coalition studies—reach the same conclusion. Of course, some—perhaps all—threats by terrorists and non-state actors are not affected by this balance directly. The statement also carried some information about conventional forces, although I sincerely doubt that there is anything like adequate provision being made, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, so eloquently put it. In a non-partisan way, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a concern for our wider security; it is not a party-political point at all. Trident is not an alternative to conventional capabilities; we need them both. Plainly, the need for planning for the whole is important, as is the need for a contingency plan in relation to Scotland.

I believe that the statement on Trident also provides a continuing rationale for the United Kingdom’s permanent membership of the Security Council with veto powers. We may have decided to weaken drastically our global standing. Whether any noble Lord agrees or disagrees with that observation, I hope we can all agree that we should try to remain influential, as advocates of our values in the international community. That point was raised and questioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. In my experience, when seeking agreements on matters that seem a long way from nuclear deterrents, such as on Darfur or on the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia, our standing in the world community was significant, even on those occasions when we did not succeed. The Security Council and UNGA’s key mission has been to maintain peace and, despite the grim history of mass death in industrial-scale wars—the Somme has already quite properly been mentioned—it has dampened the risks that are run between the major powers. The cost of this insurance—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, did not like the word—is prudent. It is a policy that my noble friend Lord West rightly describes as cost effective and militarily effective and my noble friend Lord Hutton is right to ask whether there is a better option.

I conclude with a different point. Current relations with Russia are poor and becoming worse. Given the lateness of the hour it is quite inappropriate to start discussing that in detail or apportioning blame, but I want to start with the facts. Relations are in bad shape. Whatever the developments in hostile armaments, whether nuclear or cyber, it cannot be sensible to have only this kind of relationship with Russia. Too few politicians or their officials know each other well. Too few people in education, health or civil society have any adequate contacts or links. Some channels of communication will not work and at the moment some work poorly. This is not a plea for business as usual because I recognise that that is not possible, but having no channels is still worse. Of course, some discussions have been resumed. My hope is that we can find ways in which there are wider groups in our populations who can engage with each other without enmity to discuss health or university exchanges or those things that bind people of good will together around values that can and should be shared. I hope the Minister will agree that this does not damage our defence architecture.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, the summons that we each received to attend this Parliament, however traditional or quaint some of its language, contained some forbidding words about the weighty and perilous issues that we would be asked to consider. In our international relations, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his introductory speech, those words seem accurate and probably prescient.

I start with Europe, which I recognise is both a domestic and an international policy issue. I also recognise, of course, the electorate’s clear decision and I welcome the decision taken by the leadership of the Labour Opposition to support an in/out referendum. Nothing else would be legitimate. The need for reform in the work up to that referendum on Europe is absolutely clear. I should say today that it is of course not the only international organisation in need of deep reform, and we may well return to that later.

However, several vital subsidiary issues flow from the position that we are now in. In my view, it would be hard to choose a worse or more problematic year than 2017 in which to conduct the referendum. The burden of my argument last year in your Lordships House, when the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was moving his Bill, remains something that we need to focus on. First, conducting negotiations over a period that could be almost two years, without the certainty of knowing whether other countries will also need to hold referenda on the outcome of negotiations, runs some very plain risks. Those hostile to EU membership will argue for certainty about the outcome on the part of everybody else who has taken part in the negotiations before we come to decide. Will other nations abide by the decisions flowing from the negotiations? Will we be asked to decide before certainty is achieved elsewhere? Will the propositions flowing from other countries—the Prime Minister is quite right to say that they will also have their views—be encompassed in the detail upon which we will be asked to vote?

Secondly, if 2017 turns out to be the referendum year, these discussions will culminate in a moment of decision at the same as the French presidential election campaign is under way or the election is taking place. Francois Hollande and his opponents in mainstream France will be dealing with the emergence not only of their own economic crises but of a large fascist party in their own country. In its way, that is an existential issue for France. The question of whether, even given its history, that kind of politics will become mainstream in France is certain to be one of the obsessions of 2017 in France. Victory in Europe, so recently remembered, is remembered not just because of its military significance and the heroism of those who achieved the outcome, but because it was the defeat in Europe of a barbaric dictatorship that robbed many of us of large parts of our own families.

Also in 2017, there will be major elections in Germany—fortunately, of course, now a very mainstream European democracy. On balance, do we expect Chancellor Merkel to focus on the United Kingdom, whatever is happening in her own country or in the eurozone itself? Maybe she will—she seems to have that breadth of vision—but on balance it is not the ideal moment to ask any politician to be concerned with the internal affairs of another country.

Thirdly, in my view it is hard to overstate the risks of prolonged uncertainty in the markets. I refer noble Lords to my interests recorded in the register. Those involved in investment finance and structuring, who are used to lengthy and increasingly rigorous due diligence processes, will know that it is now true that a key due diligence set of questions appears in almost every transaction in which potential inward investors seek knowledge of the likely consequences of leaving the European Union for the business they are proposing to transact. The EU, in this setting, provides us with new and powerful questions to ask.

I must say that I have given up listening to those who say that we will be perfectly all right and that nobody will change their investment patterns. That is just a view—it is a guess about the future. These days, I just observe what businesses considering inward investment to the United Kingdom in growth areas of the economy are actually doing, rather than focus on speculation.

These points bring me to a view that I wish to put to your Lordships. The Foreign Secretary said this morning that it is better to take a thorough view than a fast decision, and I really do take the point, but what we surely really need now is both rigour and speed: a thorough and fast decision. If we are looking at the referendum date, it makes sense to avoid 2017, and I suspect that means that the only sensible option, in view of the pressures on us, is to look for a decision in 2016.

If that requires flexibility on the issue of whether there needs to be a treaty or some other durable arrangement, we in this country have the imagination and diplomatic skills to craft that outcome. Vital in all this are two factors: first, the economy and its future success; but also, of course, as several noble Lords have said in the debate, the structure of peace. Europe is not a place where competition and co-operation have existed together very successfully over very long periods. We need an historic balance between competition and co-operation. It is not optional for us in Europe; it is fundamental. Our broad security stance is more significant than any lurid account the media may produce about regulations demanding that we straighten our sausages. My late father used to remind me that in his youth the only times when he saw other young European men was looking down the barrel of a gun. The peace that has been achieved in Europe is one of the fundamentals of what we need.

The gracious Speech set out the prospect for fundamental changes in the economic decision-making powers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If these powers are to be broadly based and those envisaged in the statements of the leaders of most of the major parties, before and after the Scottish referendum, it cannot be realistically stated that Scotland, for example, can gain those significant economic powers and potentially lose the most significant macroeconomic framework of all: the ability to operate within the European Union.

If the home nations are to have the powers outlined and are taken out of the EU—should that happen— because of a decision taken across the United Kingdom, it is hard to think of a worse blow to the prospects of the union of the United Kingdom as a whole. Everybody will draw their lessons very rapidly. That means, I suspect, either that the home nations will have a veto or that the union will be in deep trouble. I am not predicting that we will end up leaving the EU or that Mr Cameron’s negotiations will fail—not at all; this is an attempt to work out the consequences of all the serious potential outcomes, and to be prepared politically for them, whatever they may be. In this light, I welcome the starting of the negotiations and wish the Prime Minister well in them. A truly successful Union will have to meet the aspirations not just of us but of other countries.

In the gracious Speech, Her Majesty said, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace pointed out earlier, that the Government will continue to play a leading role in global affairs. I share his view that that role will best be undertaken in Europe, including in its relationships with the trading blocs and rising powers which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, described earlier. Of course, we are no longer a great imperial power, and no amount of posturing will remake that history, but if we are to be at least a second-order power of some significance, let us be the very best one we can be. Let us be a power that is properly provided with Armed Forces capable of executing what is needed; a power that, fortunately, enjoys an exceptional Foreign Office and remarkable intelligence services. Let us make sure that we exercise that authority in the parts of the world that do constitute an arc of uncertainty. Let us make sure that we are influential and have an impact.

If we are to have that kind of international role, if we believe it right that we should be a permanent member of the Security Council, that we are a nuclear force, and that that brings us into the global security picture in a very distinctive way, let us accept the responsibility that goes with all that. Let us not be afraid of taking the steps that, among other things, will help to resolve conflict in other parts of the world and to stop some regimes butchering their people—for whatever religious, cultural, economic, ethnic or other reason. Let us accept that that is part of what we are and part of our values. For the first time in a long time, let us get closer to deciding to have a committee that deals with international affairs and security, because these issues need fine, granular discussion and will not be dealt with in just a few minutes, whenever we have this kind of opportunity.