Ukraine
Lord Tugendhat Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to this House and congratulating him on his maiden speech. I had the pleasure of getting to know him some years ago, when we were both on a delegation to Washington, and look forward to hearing more from him in the months and years ahead.
I turn to the war in Ukraine. It is impossible at present to say that either side, Russia or Ukraine, has been the victor. Russia has clearly gained far more territory but that is a far cry from its original aim of taking over the whole country in a matter of weeks. By comparing what it set out to do with what it actually has done, it is fair to say that Ukraine has had the better of the battle. Russia’s army has been shown up as incompetent and its navy has lost control of the Black Sea. Russia has become the junior partner in its alliance with China and, as the presence of North Korean troops demonstrates, it is having to turn to countries which it would once have regarded as satellites to help it keep its army in the field. All in all, Ukraine has done remarkably well.
We are now at a tipping point. Both sides face increasing difficulty maintaining the supply of troops they need. We have seen that in the case of Russia, but there are also newspaper reports about the problems the Ukrainians are having getting people to join the army. It is rather like the press gangs that operated at the time of Nelson’s navy, going round trying to pick up people in the streets and make them join the navy.
Ukraine suffers from the additional disadvantage that its infrastructure is being steadily degraded to the detriment of its military capability, its economic power and, above all, its social cohesion. The question for Ukraine, which comes through very clearly in newspaper reports from that country and from what one sees on the television, is no longer how much territory it can regain but how much it can hold on to. In these circumstances, it is for the Ukrainians to decide what they should try to do. It is not for us to tell them when they should make peace or the terms on which they should do so; it is for the Ukrainians to make those decisions for themselves.
There are, however, three things that Ukraine’s allies, including ourselves, should do. One is to keep up the flow of arms while they continue to fight, and to consider what other arms might be necessary in order to secure the battlefield advantage. Secondly, it is at the same time very important indeed that we should make clear the limits of what we are prepared to do, so that the Ukrainians’ decisions are not based on any false assumptions about the help they might receive. That might well be difficult to do. Thirdly, we must pledge generous help once the fighting stops, in order to rebuild their economy and defence capability. They must know that we, their western allies, will stand behind them in peace and in war and seek to safeguard their security.
In my view, however, this does not mean joining NATO. We think of NATO as a defensive alliance, but we must understand that the Russian people—I emphasise, the Russian people—regard it as a hostile military pact aimed at them. They have been confirmed in that view by the alliance’s expansion eastwards ever since the unification of Germany. One does not have to entirely accept the argument that the Russians were misled on this point at the time of unification and promised that NATO would not expand; but one has to understand that, to the Russians, something that ended at the German border has now been expanded to their border and appears, to them, to be hostile. That provides Putin constantly with the arguments he needs to justify his aggression to the Russian people and to persuade them to support his war, and so it would for his successors. In any case, talk of joining NATO is counterproductive, since clearly, a number of NATO members would veto any suggestion of Ukrainian membership. Therefore, talk of NATO makes it harder to reach a settlement in Ukraine and is disruptive to the alliance.
Middle East: Deployment of British Armed Forces
Lord Tugendhat Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, we do not comment on comments like that.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, thanks to our armed services are all very well, but they are now being very much stretched. It would be good to hear something from the Government about increasing the defence budget rather than the taxes that can be lowered.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that most of the House is fully aware of where I sit on this. We have a finite amount of resource within this country, and it is a question of where that gets allocated. We are spending more this year on defence than we have ever spent before; it looks as if it is going to be about 2.3% or £55.6 billion. It would be fantastic to be able to buy more ships and planes and employ a whole lot more people, but the capability and ability of our Armed Forces protect this country extremely well.
Armed Forces
Lord Tugendhat Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the noble and gallant Lord. Many years ago, he and I worked quite closely together when he was Chief of the Air Staff and I was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. The armed services in those days were a great deal larger than they are today.
The Government frequently boast of the help they have given to Ukraine and all they have done to mobilise support for Ukraine, and I congratulate them for everything they have achieved. That comes at a price, of course, and I should like the Minister to tell us what all our help has meant for the British armed services. How much of what we have given has been replaced? Is it true that stocks that we used to count in days are now down to hours? Is it true that if the supplies to our Armed Forces are not transformed in the very near future, we will not be able to sustain our support for Ukraine, nor maintain the present level of training for our troops? I do not expect the Minister to give me chapter and verse in reply, but I should like her to assure the House that the Government are taking urgent steps to re-equip our own Armed Forces to the level of preparedness that they had before the Ukraine war began.
We have no idea how the Ukraine war might develop. We do not know what diversionary or other tactics Russia might deploy. But just suppose that a threat arises that necessitates the deployment of British and other NATO troops to the Baltic states, to Finland or to Poland. Would our troops in those circumstances be in a state of readiness? Would they be credible as a deterrent force? I should like the Minister to give her view on that.
In the light of the present situation, with a land war in Europe and continuous tension in Asia, can it be right to stick with a target of 2% of GDP for the defence budget? While campaigning for the leadership of the Conservative Party last year, Grant Shapps talked in terms of 3%. I believe he was on the right lines then and I hope he will remain on the right lines now. NATO has a target of 2%, but we have committed ourselves to more than most NATO countries with our nuclear deterrent, our very expensive aircraft carriers and our continued involvement in the Far East, exemplified by AUKUS. If that is the league that we wish to play in, we must put up the money to fund it.
I know that Ministers are very busy people and do not have much time to read books. None the less, I would urge the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to read a slim volume entitled Guilty Men, which was written by Michael Foot and a number of other people and published in 1940. It excoriated the Ministers in the 1930s who, by failing to re-equip the Armed Forces when there was still time, left them in mortal danger in that year. God forbid that we should ever again face the sort of danger that we faced in 1940, but the skies are darkening, and we owe it to our men and women in uniform to ensure that they are properly equipped for the dangers they might face. That is the first duty of the Government.
Ukraine
Lord Tugendhat Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on his notable maiden speech. His eloquence matches the authority that he brings to the subject. I also share the views initially expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, but by others as well, that what frightens Putin is the example that democracy on his borders sets to the people of Russia. The combination of fear of democracy on his borders on the one hand and the desire to recreate the empire of Stalin and the tsars on the other makes for a very dangerous combination. No wonder the Baltic states are worried, and others too. I refer particularly to the Baltic states because they are members of NATO, with all that that implies.
I strongly agree with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, that sanctions need to be more than anticipated, greater than was feared. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that what has been done so far is inadequate and more needs to be done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, that when the sanctions regime is applied in its full force, it must be sustained and not weakened. When it comes to the application of sanctions, a particular responsibility rests on the shoulders of this country and Germany: in the case of Germany, because of its dependence on energy from and trade with Russia, and on this country because of the warm welcome we have extended to the Russian oligarchs and to Russian money. It is very important, if our voice is to carry credibility in the counsels of the West, in decisions about what should be done, that we should be seen to be applying the full rigour of sanctions to the people who have banked their money, spent their money, bought property and sought to exercise political influence in London. It is very important that nobody should feel that we are dragging our heels in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, made a very important point when he said that the country must understand the price that we will have to pay for sanctions. This is not just a matter of the banks, financial institutions, estate agents, public schools and all the other beneficiaries of Russian money, the management of the economy will become much more difficult. Energy supplies will become much more expensive. Inflation will become more difficult to control. Supply chains will become more disrupted. It is very important that the Prime Minister should be absolutely clear and frank with the British people about the price that we will have to pay if these sanctions are to be successful. It is all very well to talk about the wickedness of Putin and how we will stand up to him, but the British people need to understand that, if we are to stand up to him, a price will have to be paid. Unless this point is made clear to the British people, Putin will not take seriously our resolve.
I have just two more points to make. First, we have already supplied Ukraine with weapons, and the anti-tank weapons are very good ones; we must be ready to supply more as and when they are required and to do whatever we can to sustain the Ukrainians in whatever form of warfare they are able to carry out. It is also very important that we should be willing to provide humanitarian assistance on a massive scale, both within Ukraine and to those who are fleeing Ukraine. We must do all we can to alleviate suffering there. Finally, in everything we do, we need to make it clear that our quarrel is with Mr Putin and not with the Russian people.
Brexit: Financial Services Sector
Lord Tugendhat Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I should not need to remind the noble Baroness that financial services in this country go further than the City of—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we have time for both speakers who have been on their feet. We shall start with the Conservative Benches and then go over to the Labour Benches.
Lord Tugendhat
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the range and diversity of markets and services in the City of London, and the extent to which overseas institutions participate in them, means that it would be very difficult to produce a paper of the sort that the noble Baroness opposite has demanded without going into a gross oversimplification, and that it would be much better—as my noble friend Lord Lamont said—to allow these negotiations to progress?
Baroness Goldie
Yes. I thank my noble friend for that intervention. As I have already said, this will involve detailed technical talks—there is nothing straightforward or simple about this. I entirely agree with him that that it would be exceedingly dangerous to yield to the temptation, to which some seem to be in danger of yielding, that we can reduce this to simplistic terms. These are challenging and complex issues and they should be addressed appropriately.
NATO Warsaw Summit
Lord Tugendhat Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has announced a very important commitment to the Baltic states. Can he assure the House that the Governments of all three of these states are behaving entirely as we would wish in respect of their Russian-speaking citizens and people of Russian nationality living within those states? Can he be sure that they are not giving any justifiable cause or excuse to Mr Putin to act, and that they are behaving in a way that is completely consistent with the principles of the European Union?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is a delicate balance to be struck here. We do not wish to provoke Russia into responding inappropriately to these deployments. On the other hand, we do ourselves need to react to the actions of Russia, as was laid out at the 2014 Wales summit, which delivered an effective and united response to Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimea and its actions in eastern Ukraine. The measures taken at the summit will, we believe, provide further reassurance and deter Russian aggression. They are proportionate and defensive in nature. In saying those things, I recognise my noble friend’s appropriate concern that we ensure that the Baltic states in particular are being measured and reasonable towards the Russian-speaking element of their populations. This move is not designed to provoke those people any more than it is to provoke Russia itself.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Lord Tugendhat Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, last week my wife and I were at Waterloo for the commemorations of the 200th anniversary of that battle, and we saw the unveiling of the magnificent new monument to the British Army at the Hougoumont Farm.
When I looked at the memorials, plaques and the other commemorations of those who fell, I was very struck to note that all of them were of officers—not just of officers but of officers from the smarter regiments such as the Guards and the cavalry, not from the Royal Waggon Train. There were no memorials for the non-commissioned officers or the other ranks; they were just the generic memorials. As others have said, it is impossible to overstate the importance of what was the Imperial War Graves Commission and is now the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, in making clear that equality of sacrifice requires equality of commemoration. I think of my maternal grandfather who was a major in the Royal Artillery buried at Cabaret-Rouge—a rather odd name for a cemetery—in northern France. He lies there with the men from his battery who fell in the same engagement and at the same time. This change that the War Graves Commission introduced reflects but also promotes an important change in our society. It embodies the principle that all are equal regardless of race, religion or social standing.
When I lived in Brussels as a Commissioner for many years, my wife and I found ourselves frequently taking visitors from home to the battlefields and cemeteries. They were always moving. They never palled. The shock and horror conveyed by the rows and rows of headstones made an impact whenever one saw them. Those headstones bring home the huge price paid by men and women—the fallen and their families—from all over Britain and the Commonwealth in the fight to resist tyranny and domination on the continent.
We are no longer a very religious country, but just as the great medieval cathedrals stand witness to the piety of an earlier age, and to the enduring values of the Christian religion, so must the graves and memorials of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission be eternally maintained in order to do exactly what the noble Viscount just said. It is very important that they should be maintained just as the cathedrals have been maintained. In this, happily, more peaceful age, we owe it to those who gave their lives to bring that situation about to ensure that this country always plays a constructive role on the continent in which so many of those graves are situated.