King’s Speech

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in the King’s Speech we were told that the Government are going to pursue a foreign policy

“based on a calm assessment of the national interest”.

The Prime Minister often reassures us that he intends to act in the national interest. I would have thought that went without saying. But with lawyers at the helm of government, perhaps it is intended to counter the strong impression that it is adherence to international law that lies at the heart of foreign policy, and what international law is must be interpreted by the high priests: human rights lawyers such as the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General.

But the gracious Speech is right to emphasise the importance of “defence and economic security”. We must of course spend more on defence, but how are we going to afford that? Britain’s welfare bill is set to surge by £18 billion in a single year. That increase alone is, according to the Centre for Social Justice, the equivalent of 15 Royal Navy frigates, 220 fighter jets or a quarter of a million soldiers’ salaries, more than three times the current size of the British Army. Yet, at the first sign of opposition to his welfare reform, the Prime Minister capitulated. With his authority now so thoroughly undermined, is it remotely likely that he will have another go at reducing the welfare budget?

Even assuming that money can be found, there is not much point in having an enhanced defence capability if the lawyers advise that it cannot in fact be deployed. Cases such as Al-Skeini or Smith and others v Ministry of Defence have left our military entirely uncertain as to what they are allowed to do. This has had an unwelcome effect on morale and recruitment, reinforced by the Government’s desire to undo the legacy Act and drag veterans before the courts for incidents that happened more than 50 years ago.

We are gathering an unwelcome reputation for so-called legal freeloading. General David Petraeus recently observed that the current Government’s approach to so-called lawfare reflects a threat to national security.

The security of our borders against illegal migration is of course of major concern, not just to us but to other countries within the Council of Europe. The recent meeting in Moldova created a declaration, but I share others’ views that it is unlikely to have any practical effect on the decisions made by courts in Strasbourg or the courts in this country. We of course have gone for a maximalist approach by incorporating the convention into our own Human Rights Act and requiring our judges to take account of that jurisprudence. I look forward to what the greatest Home Secretary for 20 years may be about to say about immigration, but I fear that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that, without our leaving the ECHR, this particular bird has flown.

I hoped there was going to be some mention of the effective anti-SLAPP legislation so much talked about. It is a pity it is being left to a Private Member’s Bill, albeit in the capable hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.

I wish there were something positive about growth in the gracious Speech because, without growth, how can the noble aspirations referred to ever be realised? I am afraid that this is a Speech from a Government entirely bereft of ideas as to how to improve this country, apart from a certain zealotry towards international law. They lack a plan, and the Prime Minister now has an extremely slender grasp over their leadership.