King’s Speech Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Defence
Thursday 21st May 2026

(2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forbes of Newcastle Portrait Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, the gracious Speech puts national security where it belongs, at the centre of government. I welcome that, but the question before us is not only what we spend—it is how we think and act; how we organise a whole-society defence; how we turn resilience from a slogan into collective preparedness; and how we convert defence investment into regional growth.

The strategic defence review is clear: the UK faces a more complex set of threats than at any time in recent decades. Cyber attacks on critical infrastructure and major employers, hostile activity against subsea cables and satellites, biological risks and pressure on food and energy security are not hypothetical scenarios; they are real and happening now. My noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen warned recently that we are underinvesting and deciding too slowly in our defence expenditure. I fully share his analysis and concerns, but the answer is not only more and better Armed Forces—it is a more resilient country.

Whole-society resilience means three things. The first is services that function when systems fail, in particular public services that know what to do when the screens go blank and the phones go down. The second is infrastructure, particularly power, water and transport, that is designed to withstand disruption and keep on working. The third is citizens who know the basics of preparedness.

On the last point, we need to be frank and practical with the public. As my noble friend Lady Antrobus has said, our Nordic neighbours show how. Sweden’s If Crisis or War Comes booklet tells every household how to cope if the power fails or networks go down. The advice is simple: be able to look after your household for at least a week, plan to have enough water and food that does not need refrigeration, medicines, cash, a battery radio, warm clothing and a family contact plan. Finland goes further, teaching civil preparedness in schools. This is not alarmism—it is adult citizenship in a modern age. I am not suggesting for a moment that we face imminent invasion, but we must also recognise that we have grown used to systems—food, banking, power, fuel, water—that never fail. That confidence is in many ways a measure of our progress as a nation, but we have allowed our collective capacity for self-reliance to atrophy, and that has left us brittle.

Complacency is a weakness, and it diminishes our collective strength and resolve in the eyes of those who seek to do us harm. This, in turn, increases our vulnerability and the likelihood of such continued attacks. We must address this calmly and with clear public guidance, in a way that treats people as partners, not passive observers. Reform of local resilience forums is an opportunity to wire this in: local government, blue light services, businesses, universities and civic groups planning together, exercising together, communicating together. Resilience done well is not about fear but about confidence: the confidence that comes from preparation and practice.

Members of your Lordships’ House will know that I have spoken previously about the economic dividend of defence. Done smartly, defence spending can be a powerful engine of regional growth. Advanced manufacturing in the north-east, cyber and AI in the Midlands, and green maritime on our coasts are not add-ons to our defence strategy; they are its drivers of innovation. But the system must be fit for purpose. Today SMEs face procurement designed for primes. Universities sit on world-class research without clear routes to its practical adoption. Skills providers need the ability to plan and engage effectively for the long term. Economic growth and national security are not competing priorities; they are the same priority.

I recognise that in parts of my party there is some scepticism about this agenda, shaped by history, but the threats described in the SDR are not those of the 1980s or the early 1990s—they are the real and present threats of now. The threats are real and growing, and the price of inaction will far exceed the cost of preparedness. The gracious Speech sets a direction; now we must match it with pace by building resilience locally, unlocking defence investment for growth regionally, and acting nationally at the speed the world now demands.