UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde and the International Relations and Defence Committee on their fascinating report on the UK’s strategy towards the Arctic. I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introductory speech.

I admit that I was not very well informed on this matter before I read the report, and I found it very illuminating. I have always had a fascination with the Arctic because, when I first lived in Japan in the 1980s, we flew over it and refuelled at Anchorage. From the mid-1990s we would fly over Russia, but in recent years we have reverted to flying over the North Pole.

It is always a little surprising to see just how close eastern Siberia is to Alaska. We are so used to looking at a Mercator projection view of the planet, but a globe gives a much better perspective of proximity and shows the significance of the Arctic. It also shows that, of the eight members of the Arctic Council, Russia possesses almost half of the shoreline of the Arctic Ocean. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has paralysed the work of the Arctic Council. Given the close alliance between Russia and China, the remaining members of the “Arctic seven” are increasingly cautious about Chinese strategic investments in the region.

It may be true that China has, so far, sought to work within the Arctic’s existing governance framework; however, it is clear that China is now intent on challenging the existing world order so that is very likely to change. As the report finds:

“Concerns regarding Chinese strategic investment in the Arctic and its long-term intentions in the region are legitimate”.


It suggests:

“One region where the deepening partnership”


between Russia and China

“may manifest itself is the Arctic”.

This presents a particular problem for India, which continues to sit on the fence. The committee’s witness, Captain Bisen, acknowledged that India has

“an interest in preventing a strong Sino-Russian partnership”.

The report welcomes the FCDO’s decision to resume working group level projects of the Arctic Council, including Russia, whereas it remains committed to excluding Russia from co-operation at a ministerial level. I wonder whether such an ambiguous policy will be viable for long. The report rightly states:

“Russia must not be allowed to take advantage of its participation in working group activities to undermine the steps taken by the UK and others to isolate Russia diplomatically in response to the war in Ukraine”.


I cannot see that there is any possibility of Russia not seeking to take advantage. Does the Minister think that our ambivalent position can be maintained?

The report strikes the right tone in suggesting that

“the UK’s influence in the Arctic depends on strong diplomacy and coalition-building”.

Those with whom we should work in coalition include Japan and South Korea. I am a little puzzled that the report identified a significant difference between the positions of those two countries. I believe that the Japanese general trading companies, to speak only of one sector, are just as interested in the development of Arctic maritime routes as the South Korean private sector. It is essential that Japan and Korea, which face similar security risks in the western Pacific Ocean, should work more closely together in the defence and security sphere and in collaboration with other Arctic observer nations. The United Kingdom, which enjoys closer defence and security relations with both nations, can play a key role here.

The committee’s report identified that the UK, as the nearest neighbour to the Arctic Council states, co-operates actively with them on search and rescue missions in the High North. As noble Lords are aware, the scrapping of the RAF’s Nimrod fleet in 2011 before it was commissioned was a very controversial decision that left the RAF without any maritime reconnaissance capacity for some years, until the commissioning of the Poseidon P8 aircraft based at Lossiemouth. It is no surprise to read that questions are being raised as to whether the current fleet of nine aircraft is enough to meet our commitments, especially given the deteriorating geopolitical situation in the north Atlantic and in the Indo-Pacific region.

Last week, newspaper reports covered recent statements by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, that defence spending should go up to 3% immediately and that the Government’s current strategy of waiting until after the strategic defence review and then doing it in the June financial statement is ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have both said that we need to spend 3.5% to maintain our existing military capabilities and commitments to NATO. Does the Minister agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord West, that the Government’s approach to defence spending is ludicrous?

As honorary air commodore of 600 (City of London) Squadron in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord De Mauley said about the contribution of the Reserve Forces to the resilience of the defence of the United Kingdom. Again, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashton and other noble Lords on an excellent report and excellent speeches, but regret that the report is already a year old. Debates on recently published work tend to be livelier and receive more media interest.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Murray, with whose excellent speech I find myself in complete agreement. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her introduction of the Bill. I ask, however, whether she agrees that the Bill appears to lead to an undemocratic result that Parliament never contemplated when the Parliament Act 1911 was enacted?

The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 is interesting. Its second sentence reads as follows:

“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.


Parliament’s intention, as expressed in that preamble was to move a democratic direction. There was to be, first, a future second Chamber based on a popular rather than hereditary basis and, secondly, future legislation to limit and define the powers of the new second Chamber.

Over 100 years later, neither of these events has come to pass. The current Bill will result in an entirely appointed body—the opposite of a body constituted on a popular basis as contemplated in 1911. The idea that an Act of Parliament in 2025 can result in a less democratic body than was contemplated by Parliament in 1911 will strike many as odd. Some may regard it as a matter that would profit from further reflection, perhaps under the aegis of an all-party constitutional conference, as was attempted in 1910 and 1948 in the run-up to the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.

In the debate held in your Lordships’ House on 22 July 1999 on the Standing Orders to be introduced to fill vacancies among the excepted hereditary Peers, the late Lord Bledisloe proposed an amendment which would have allowed the political party groups to enfranchise their life Peers as well as their hereditary Peers in hereditary Peers’ by-elections. I was struck by Lord Bledisloe’s observation:

“One of the unfortunate consequences of the debates on the House of Lords Bill is that, for the first time, Members of the House have been distinguished from each other by virtue of the fact that they are hereditary or life Peers. That division is a great pity and every effort should be made to ensure that it disappears as quickly as possible after the Bill is passed. The process would be greatly assisted if the House recognised that all its Members are of equal value and have a right to an equal say in the election”.—[Official Report, 22/7/1999; col. 1144.]


That division has unfortunately again reared its ugly head as a result of this Bill. Noble Lords are allocated to serve on their Front Benches, to serve on Select Committees, or to stand as candidates for positions as officers of all-party groups, irrespective of the route by which they entered your Lordships’ House.

The Leader of the House has said that this Bill represents a manifesto commitment. That is a little disingenuous. Labour’s manifesto commitment was to do four things now, and then later to consult on proposals to fulfil its commitment to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. Can the noble Baroness explain why she thinks that the Bill before your Lordships today does not in this regard do the precise opposite of what the manifesto argued for?

I believe the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was being honest when he declared that the 1999 compromise

“would guarantee that stage two would take place”,

as my noble friend Lord Northbrook and others have said.

“So it is a guarantee that it will take place”,—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

he said. The binding agreement envisaged that stage two would involve a move to an elected House, or at least the adoption of a significant directly or indirectly elected segment within a reformed House. If such a reform were now to be brought about, as was promised, I would be keen to stand for election in order to continue my work in this place, which I have always regarded as the most enormous privilege.

The Lord Privy Seal rued that the change commenced 25 years ago has still not been completed. So she should withdraw this Bill and replace it with one which would actually lead towards the completion of that process. This would add to the limited legitimacy your Lordships’ House enjoys, which derives in part from history—that we have had a House of Lords for many centuries—and from the effectiveness with which we perform our work of scrutinising and improving legislation.

Human Rights Violations: Consular Assistance

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I can reassure the noble and learned Baroness that, yes, that is the case. We are determined to continue to offer the best possible service to all our citizens who are affected by this. I have been involved in some individual cases myself, so she can rest assured about that.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, for the Government to provide consular assistance to British nationals abroad, it is obviously essential that they know who they are. Some years ago, when I lived in Japan, British nationals were required to register their names and addresses with the embassy. I was surprised to hear that that has long since ceased to be the case. Does the Minister agree that it makes sense to reinstitute such a requirement?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was just looking at the eligibility criteria and it is quite clear that we offer this service to British nationals overseas. They establish their rights through establishing evidence of their citizenship. I am not sure what further steps we might need to take. The important thing is that people who are resident abroad can rest assured that our consular services will be available to them.