(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, gave me a copy of his Salisbury speech last week. I want to quote the final sentence because, in some ways, that speech was a cry of despair that nobody has yet taken seriously the strategic defence review. He said:
“Eighteen months ago, a national conversation about defence was promised by the new government. It is about time to get it started”.
I was very struck when I read the SDR by what a radical set of ideas it presents. It proposes the remobilisation of people throughout the United Kingdom. It also proposes a home defence programme and a new home defence force. A lot of it has to be done at the local level. A joined-up Government would not at the same time have been pushing through a complete restructuring of local government to remove local government to a further distance away from ordinary people, in which there will be lower-level councils representing half a million people, which is slightly larger than the population of Iceland. That is not local mobilisation; it is not even really local government.
What we now need, clearly, is political leadership and money. What I am hearing from those who have already spoken is that we have a political culture that encourages all political parties to attack each other and not to co-operate with each other. We have to change that. It is also a political culture in which anyone who says that we ought to raise spending rather, and that we should perhaps under the current emergency raise taxes, will bring down the wrath of the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and everyone else upon them. Political leadership requires you to change the political agenda and to call for the sort of money which is going to have to be spent on home defence as much as on reviving our ability to operate outside the home territory and home waters. So, there is a huge amount to be done, and it is extraordinarily ambitious.
If I may end, I will quote what the Prime Minister said to Parliament last February, that we should
“use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/25; col. 634.]
I agree with him. I only wish he had done more to make people aware that this is what we need, and to try to create the sort of atmosphere in which we co-operate more with each other.
(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberThe point I was trying to make on Tuesday—I am happy to reiterate it—is that the threat we face needs the country to respond as a whole. The Government’s responsibility, working with others, is to ensure that the population understand that threat and the increasing nature of it. I think that, in response to that, we can expect everyone to come together, as our country always does.
My Lords, I say simply from the Liberal Democrat Benches that I cannot think how many times I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in the last few months. We are fully engaged with this debate, as the Minister knows well. We are anxious that the defence review should be implemented. We regret that there has not been the national conversation led by the Prime Minister that we need. The idea that we are somehow not engaged with this is a little over the top, to say the least.
On the noble Lord’s main point about the national conversations, as I have said to him and in this House on a number of occasions, that national conversation needs to begin as soon as possible, and plans are under way with respect to that. It is essential that it happens: we need to ensure that the British public understand the very real change in circumstances they now face compared with just a few years ago.
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberI thank the noble Baroness for her initial comments. The point about the six people on the atoll we are talking about is that they are there illegally. You must have a permit to go there, the BIOT Administration did not grant them a permit, and so they are seeking to remove them from the island. That is what the current court process is about and the legal process must take its course. The BIOT Supreme Court said that the BIOT Administration do not have a right to remove them; that is being appealed and we will see what happens as a result of the judgment of the BIOT Court of Appeal.
My Lords, the Minister says that this is a vital base for Britain as well as for the United States. Just how vital is it for Britain? Nearly 20 years ago, I did some work and published a paper on the special relationship and US and UK bases. I recall that the number of British military personnel in Diego Garcia was in single figures and there were no naval or aerial weapons platforms based there. Has that changed? Do we now have units there? Are the military personnel from Britain in triple figures at least? Alternatively, is this really an American base with which we have some co-operation?
The noble Lord will know that I will not go into all the detail that he referred to, but the point I am making is that it is a fundamentally important security base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. All across the world, different bases operate under different arrangements and are made up of different armed forces. People do not go into those details because it would draw attention to them and could help our adversaries. The only point I am making is that it is a strategically crucial base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. As such, the Government are seeking to protect that. Others have a different way through which they think they would protect it, but we are seeking to ensure that we have the legal certainty that will provide the security to that base that we think is vital.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberHe always tries to be helpful. Obviously, noble Lords would not expect me to comment in any detail on exactly what is being used, but we have F35s and Typhoons, which are being used to keep our citizens safe. We may have time for the noble Lord to ask the question again; if that was not quite what he was asking, I would be happy to answer him again.
My Lords, we are hearing from administrative figures in the United States, including the Secretary of War, that this is a crusade and that we are fighting a battle between Christianity and Islam. Can the British Government make it very clear that, to quote Tony Blair in his past days, we do not do God; that we think that any suggestion that this ought to be a battle between Christianity and Islam is horrifying and will lead to more than a regional war; that the aims have to be kept clear and limited; and that our support for the United States is also very limited?
That is absolutely not the language that we are using. The actions that we are taking are defensive, as I have explained, and it is vital that we all take extreme care with the language we use around this conflict, not least because it can, and often does, find itself repeated and played out on the streets of the United Kingdom.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberI thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about our British serviceman who was so tragically lost. The whole House will join in her remarks.
With respect to the position regarding Ajax, the previous Minister will be well aware of the various reports and representations that have been made to various Ministers over a number of years. All Ministers, past and present, will want answers to the very questions that the noble Baroness has quite rightly put to us. Like all of us, she will be waiting for the results of the various investigations that have been set up. I assure her that—as she will have heard from my colleague in the other place—when we get the results of those investigations, we will consider all available options on how we move forward.
My Lords, we on these Benches also recognise the responsibilities we have with troops now helping to train the Ukrainian army and we send our condolences; we know that we are committed to Ukraine. Now that we are waiting for further comments on what is really happening with the Ajax vehicle, can I ask three quick wider questions?
First, the Minister in the Commons admitted:
“The Army has a number of vehicles that … have been in service for a long period”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/25; col. 58.]
I think that is saying that both the fighting fleet and the logistics fleet are pretty outdated. Does that mean that in this much more dangerous period we should be investing much more into the Army fleet than we currently plan to?
Secondly, the SDR says that we are now in a very different situation but the Treasury, at the Budget, has said that we will do a little bit of extra investment in the next two years and then maybe a bit more in three or four years. Should we not now be talking about a much more serious threat that requires much more defence investment than we are currently planning?
My third question is about strategic partnerships. The Defence Industrial Strategy says:
“It is no longer affordable for NATO Allies, especially within Europe, to develop their own exquisite capabilities at low production volumes”.
That means much closer co-operation and collaboration with others. Given what President Trump is saying about the NATO alliance, that means hard negotiations with our European partners, difficult though it is. Does the Minister agree?
There was quite a bit in that. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the bravery and sacrifice of our Armed Forces. He will know that we have paused all use of the Ajax vehicles pending the outcome of the investigations as the safety of our Armed Forces comes first.
On logistics, I think he refers to the fact that large numbers of trucks are having to be repaired. They are being repaired, and we expect that to be completed in the new year. On the SDR and the money, he will see the budgets that have been made available and the increase over a period of time. He referred to the aspiration to move even further with that, particularly by 2035.
On the point he made about strategic partnerships, of course they are crucial. We spend a large amount of time negotiating with European friends and partners. He will have seen the recent Norway deal with respect to the frigates, and the arrangements we have made with France, Germany and Poland. They are just some examples, and I hope it demonstrates to the noble Lord that we take seriously the need to negotiate, work and co-operate with our European friends, most of which are members of NATO as well.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberI thank my noble friend for his Question. He will know that we have been to the Treasury and have secured more money for the defence programme and industry. Just to pick up on a point that my noble friend made, I think it is incumbent on us all to praise our submariners for the work they do and the time they spend at sea. We are seeking to address some of the challenges that my noble friend pointed out. He will know that there are now programmes of investment in the infrastructure of both Devonport and Faslane. He will know that the Dreadnought programme has a commitment of £31 billion, with a £10 billion contingency. He will know that we are seeking to invest in AUKUS, and we also have the Astute programme.
Alongside that, with respect to the problems that my noble friend pointed out with respect to the engineers and technicians who keep our submarines at sea, he will know that we have started to ensure that we recruit more of those. I am also pleased to announce to the House that the recruitment and retention submariners have improved as well. I accept the challenges that my noble friend lays out but, with the First Sea Lord and others, we seek to address that quickly and urgently, as the 100-day plan pointed out.
My Lords, could the Minister explain the maintenance problem, which clearly goes back a number of years? On the dry docks that are not ready, are private contractors are failing in their obligations or is there a shortage of money? What is now being done to rectify this enormous backlog of maintenance, which is a very large part of the problem?
It is a challenge. Part of it is investment into the infrastructure. That can take a long time. One of the things that the Navy has looked to deal with that is the floating dry dock concept, which others could explain better than I can. It is certainly something that can be made available much more quickly than the investment into that, but there is significant investment going in Devonport and Faslane. That was something that I indicated in answer to my noble friend. We are also seeking, through the defence technical colleges that were announced as part of the growth deals and other ways, to ensure that we get engineers and technicians into these areas to work. That has been part of the problem.
If I might just digress slightly, I will say that getting technicians, engineers and the important skills that we need is a problem that has bedevilled our country for decades. We have always had a shortage of them, and successive Governments have tried hard to tackle that. Indeed, the noble Lord mentioned defence technical colleges, or whatever they are called, and they were one of the ways in which we tried to deal with that. Certainly, we need to do more to raise the esteem of vocational education to ensure that we get all the technicians and engineers that we need.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberTo ask His Majesty’s Government what response they are making to the proposals for a ‘whole society’ approach to threats to national security, as set out in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review.
My Lords, the Government are committed to reviewing the recommendations outlined in the strategic defence review, which recognises the importance of a whole-of-society approach to strengthening our resilience and readiness against the threats we face. Defence is playing a key role within the Cabinet Office-led home defence programme, which is co-ordinating civil and military preparations against the most serious risks. Our approach includes strengthening our civilian and military links to deliver legislation, enhance critical national infrastructure protection, and develop our reserve and cadet forces.
Does the Minister agree that this is a very radical proposal? The SDR envisages the mobilisation of substantial numbers of volunteers at local level, under local leadership, in civilian rescue teams, with reserve firemen, special constables and a new home defence force. It also calls for a national conversation on security. Do the Government intend to begin a national conversation, and how will they start to mobilise the sort of people who are needed?
The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is an important matter and a radical proposal, and it is to do with the new threats we face as a country. We cannot any longer simply carry on as we always have done, so the proposals in this strategic defence review are radical and serious, and we intend to deliver them. One way that we intend to do that is to start to talk to the population of this country about the need for us all to wake up to the threat we face. That will require many of the actions that the noble Lord pointed out, and we intend to come forward with proposals in due course.
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I will focus on two themes in the SDR: the commitment to “NATO first”, and the concept of “whole-of-society” defence and security. NATO first now means sharing European leadership within NATO to keep the US committed, not standing half-in and half-out of Europe through our beloved special relationship with the United States. The UK’s security ties with the USA are vital, but we face an increasingly transactional, and not particularly friendly, US Administration.
I spent nearly four years in the USA in the 1960s, studying government, international politics and defence. I was taught partly by professors who had been born in central Europe. In Washington, I met politicians and policymakers who had spent the war in what I now realise was Bletchley Park, or fighting in the allied armies across France or through Italy. They had deep affection for Britain and for European security. But that generation, most of whom had grown up on America’s eastern seaboard, died long ago. Policymakers we meet now more often come from America’s west coast, or Texas, Arizona or Florida—they look across the Pacific or south to Latin America. There is no special bond with Britain: they want to know how we can be useful and how much we are contributing to Europe’s defence.
NATO’s future rests on European leadership, which has to come from the closest possible co-operation between the UK, France and Germany. I welcome the latest UK-German treaty, building on growing UK-France co-operation, but we cannot achieve all we want through what is inelegantly called in the SDR “minilateralism”. We must integrate back into European multilateralism—the EU as well as NATO.
Putting NATO first also means putting second the dreams of again becoming the United States’ military partner in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. The SDR bluntly states in chapter 5:
“Finite resources mean the UK cannot be everything to everyone”.
A previous Labour Government withdrew from east of Suez 59 years ago. Boris Johnson dreamed that we could leave Europe and be a global power again; and I have observed in the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a certain nostalgia for naval deployments in the South China Sea, as well as for the affectionate special relationship of the past.
The SDR clearly states:
“A renewed focus on home defence and resilience is vital to modern deterrence”.
Its first priority defence role is indeed to defend, protect and enhance the resilience of the UK, including reviving civil defence and improving the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. The concept of a “whole-of-society response” to the multiple threats we now face—from transnational crime and terrorism, pandemics and climate change, as well as state threats—requires engaging with the wider British public, local government, voluntary groups and newly trained reserve bodies.
I looked at the UK Government Resilience Action Plan to learn how well this has been integrated with the SDR, and I found it very disappointing. A whole-of-society response has to grow from the ground up, rather than being imposed from the top down. The resilience action plan is thin on how to mobilise civil society and says almost nothing about the value and role of local government. Meanwhile, the Government have just published their English devolution Bill, which takes power from local government and gives it to elected mayors remote from Britain’s towns, villages and local communities.
As to mobilising civil society to respond to our insecure environment, we are promised only a “national conversation”. In terms of mobilising the more public spirited and patriotic, the review cautiously suggests that
“it will become necessary to increase the UK’s Active Reserve forces by at least 20%”—
I think that is about 10,000 soldiers—
“when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s”.
There is a great deal more work to be done here to engage the public in improving our national security and resilience. So far, it looks to me much more like the traditional Labour assumption that things are best left to the experts to organise a passive society, rather than the liberal view that democracy and security are guaranteed best by encouraging all citizens to play an active part in the common endeavour in communities throughout the country.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberThe fundamental point is that you cannot access the Security Action for Europe framework unless you have a security partnership agreement with the EU. That is the gateway to it. The fact that the Government, on 19 May, agreed the security and defence partnership means that we now have a gateway to the €150 billion loan available within SAFE. If we had not negotiated that partnership, there would be no gateway. On the loan money that is available, my understanding is that the first loans that could be made available will be towards the end of this year.
My Lords, on Tuesday, the Minister made it clear that the United States remains Britain’s prime ally. Does that imply that this is very much a secondary partnership with the EU, or are we engaged in a delicate balancing exercise, recognising that our dependence on the United States is no longer as secure as it used to be and that American priorities are moving away from Europe and we therefore need to prioritise our security relationship with Europe more than we used to?
I think that is in our interests. To run through this, NATO is our prime alliance and something of which we can all be proud—we have been a member for decades. Alongside that, having a better, more secure relationship with Europe and working with it where that is appropriate, whether in Bosnia or in other missions, such as in Georgia or Moldova, is in our interest given the threats that we face. It is in our interest to pursue that. Let us be absolutely clear that, alongside NATO and the security and defence partnership with the EU, the US and the UK standing together is of immense importance to our own security, as well as to the security of Europe and global security. That is the point that we continue to make. It was the policy under the last Government and is the policy under this Government. The US-UK relationship is fundamental to global security. We of course pursue other alliances and agreements where we need to, but let us always remember the US-UK relationship. It has kept the peace for years and will do so in the future.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberThe answer is yes to all those points. The F35As come from the F35 schedule, so 12 of the additional 27 will be F35As instead of F35Bs. F35As are some 20% cheaper than F35Bs, so the noble and gallant Lord is right: that creates an additional sum of money which can be used in a way that the Government feel is appropriate and consistent with the SDR. He is right about the refuelling capability; there will need to be allied support for that. Many of our capabilities require allied support and help to function. I do not see a particular problem with that, but he is right to point it out.
My Lords, the SDR and the national security strategy emphasise the threats to us locally and regionally, as opposed to the global projection of power to Singapore and the South China Sea, which is what the aircraft carriers are for, above all. Are we sure that we still have our priorities right in wanting to stand firm with our prime ally, the United States, in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, or should we pay more attention in our defence priorities to the North Sea, eastern Europe, the Baltic and that part of the world which is closest to our insecurity?
I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but I do not agree with it. We, with our allies, simply have to guarantee the security of regions across the world, whether it be the North Sea, the Mediterranean or the Indo-Pacific. Our carrier went through the Red Sea, through the BAM into the Indian Ocean, which is under threat from the Houthis. The sailors and others on the ship had to write a letter home saying what might happen. We should celebrate the fact that we have people with a sense of duty that allows them to put their lives in danger to ensure that trade, communication and all the things we depend on can get through that narrow bit of sea. If that did not happen, our shops would soon be empty and our data would not work. Many of the things on which our standard of living depends would not function.
That is why it is important that we go to the Indo- Pacific and stand alongside the Americans. Let us be clear: we do not go there because only we want to—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia want us to go there. All those countries ask us to go there because they recognise the importance of ensuring the global trade routes stay open—it is the trade and prosperity on which our nation, and the nations of the world, depend.