Integrated Review

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with my usual caveat about what a shame it is we are not hearing the Statement in full. It might be a relief to the Leader, but it would be good to hear Statements as important as prime ministerial ones repeated.

Two significant developments since the last Statement on the integrated review provide a new optimism: first, the success of vaccines against Covid-19; and secondly, the election of the new US President. President Biden’s recent speech on America’s place in the world highlighted that his Administration are different in style, values and substance from that of his predecessor. In redefining how the US views its place in the world, he said:

“we must start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”

At a time when challenges have never seemed so complex or diverse, the power of this change of approach should not be underestimated. Now, our Prime Minister has to decide how the UK will meet those same challenges.

We need the integrated review to succeed to keep our citizens safe and to secure Britain as a moral force for good in the world. But it is against a backdrop whereby the two previous reviews, as well as recent actions taken by the Government, have weakened the foundations. There has been an £8 billion cut to the defence budget and a reduction of 45,000 in Armed Forces personnel. Our reputation as a defender of the rule of law has been damaged by the Internal Market Bill, and now, there is the decision to break the legal commitment on international aid. After an “era of retreat,” as Boris Johnson previously described the last 10 years of Conservative Governments, this review cannot repeat the mistakes of the lost decade for Britain’s foreign and security policy.

The number one priority for any Government is national security, and security has to begin at home, as we have seen during the pandemic. That is why announcements of a national resilience strategy, a counterterrorism operations centre and greater partnership with business are all encouraging.

The threats to our national security are proliferating and the traditional certainties are less stable; while we welcome that the review recognises the threats of space and cyber, the conventional risks have not gone away. Our commitment to NATO must be unshakable, our support for nuclear deterrence must be non-negotiable and our obligations to international law, human rights, multilateral treaties and organisations must be enshrined in policy and practice.

Today’s review accepts that the events of March 2018 in Salisbury indicate that the threat from Russia remains acute. Yet the recommendations of the Russia review 18 months ago remain just that—recommendations. I hope the Leader can today assure us that the legislation to counter state threats will address this and the Government will now set about implementing the outstanding recommendations with some sense of urgency.

Ambiguity in relation to China must also be addressed. Given the importance of security to our national infrastructure, can the Leader explain why the Government have spent years encouraging Chinese Government-backed companies to invest in sensitive areas such as nuclear power and 5G?

Our ambition must be to enhance Britain’s reputation abroad with a foreign policy that appreciates that our values and the national interest are indivisible. We need to build deeper political and economic ties with new and emerging powers, including, as referenced in the review, within the Asia-Pacific. But we also need the anchor of strong, effective relationships with Europe and the US and a defined role in the global institutions we helped to establish. This means providing leadership at NATO to counter threats and aggression, including from Russia. It means being a competent and coherent voice at the G7, leading the global economic recovery—as we did in 2008 with Gordon Brown—and using our position on the UN Security Council to call out human rights violations, even if it is inconvenient.

To realise those ambitions, we have to be consistent and we have to earn trust. It is not enough to refer to Yemen as the worst humanitarian situation in the world, and then continue to sell arms that can be used in the conflict there. It is not enough to host COP 26 if plans to open a new coal mine are then pushed through. It is not enough to talk about a value-driven trade policy, but then reject human rights protections in the Trade Bill.

The decision to cut £5 billion from foreign aid and abandon our commitment to 0.7% of GNI undermines that ambition. The Government say that cut is temporary, but it was this Government who enshrined that commitment in legislation. Why do that if, at the first challenge, that commitment is just abandoned? When will Parliament be able to vote on this? Because the Government need to find a way to make their own actions lawful. On a not unrelated matter, if the Government are serious about our role as a soft power superpower, as the review suggests, surely they could not even contemplate ending funding for VSO. I hope the noble Baroness will address these issues.

I also raise a specific matter about the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which the review talks up as expanding our science and technology base for strategic advantage. The Government’s press release says that the Business Secretary will have powers for

“directing the agency to cease collaboration with certain hostile actors”.

I am genuinely puzzled about this. Why would the agency be collaborating with hostile powers in the first place? Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on what this actually means.

Despite this being billed as the “strategic defence review”, there are many questions that will have to be addressed in the defence Command Paper. It has been reported that the Army will be cut by 10,000 personnel and armoured vehicles scrapped. If the strategy wants to

“deploy more of our Armed Forces overseas more often and for longer periods of time”,

how will these cuts assist in achieving that?

While our support for the nuclear deterrent is non-negotiable, serious questions remain about the hike in warhead numbers, which breaks the commitments of successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative. Since the Prime Minister was unable to address this when he was asked in the other place, can the noble Baroness explain something about the strategic purpose of this decision? In his Statement, Mr Johnson describes the US as “our closest ally” and “a uniquely close partner”. Given that President Biden has expressed a different approach, was this decision discussed with the US?

In the past year, we have all witnessed the resilience of the British public, particularly but not exclusively those working in our health and care services. The pandemic was a threat that few expected and that, for a whole host of reasons, we were inadequately prepared for. It has brought home how, in future, our preparation against threats and risk has to cover many bases. To effectively prepare for such risks, it is not a question of using headline-friendly rhetoric, getting through the latest crisis or finding warm words for each occasion; it is about careful, strategic planning, listening to wise counsel, diplomacy based on principles and values and delivering the resources that our military, our agencies and our public services need. The test of that is not for today, but it will be judged in the months and years ahead.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the integrated review is an extremely sobering document. In part, this is because of the new and changing security threats it outlines, but it is also because the Government’s policy is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies, which means that it does not offer a credible basis for achieving its aims. These are, as the Prime Minister, said,

“to make the United Kingdom stronger, safer and more prosperous, while standing up for our values.”

Will the review do so? Take its central strategic tenet. According to the Statement:

“Our approach will place diplomacy first.”


For a nation of our size, military capabilities and history, this is a very sensible priority. But what have the Government done to demonstrate that they understand what such an approach requires?

The first requirement is that the UK should be a trusted partner. Here, the Government’s track record is dire. They have twice in the past year broken their pledges under the EU withdrawal Act and Irish protocol and find themselves being taken to court by our most important trading and security partner for breaking the law. Other countries are watching and asking how much our word is now really worth.

The Government cannot be trusted either on their legal commitments to development assistance. They have cut development aid, and with it our ability to wield soft power, at a time when such assistance was never more needed. The Prime Minister says that the cut will be restored when the fiscal situation allows. Is it not the truth, however, that the Government used the pandemic as a convenient pretext to make the cut and have no intention whatsoever of reversing it any time soon?

Another aspect of wielding soft power is to stand up for the values that we wish to promulgate. These include the promotion of human rights. Yet the Government make it pretty clear in the document that trade will trump human rights, not least in our dealings with China. The Foreign Secretary admitted as much yesterday, saying that the UK would be willing to strike trade deals with countries that violate international standards and human rights. Will the Minister tell us whether that is really the Government’s position? If so, what does their alleged commitment to human rights actually amount to?

Throughout the review, the Government largely airbrush out the importance to the UK in every possible respect of the EU. They fail to admit that Brexit will make us poorer, less secure and less influential internationally. Instead, they blandly state that,

“we will enjoy constructive and productive relationships with our neighbours in the European Union.”

I wonder if anybody has told the noble Lord, Lord Frost.

When it comes to military spending, the additional £16 billion promised last autumn does not even fill the black hole in the procurement budget. Our Armed Forces will remain short of armed vehicles, fighter planes, submarines and frigates. Yet the Prime Minister is proposing a tilt to the Indo-Pacific that does not just involve diplomacy and trade but the sending of an aircraft carrier, wholly dependent on US escorts and planes, to the South China Sea. This is but one example of our being increasingly dependent on the United States. It is certainly not the action of a sovereign global power.

The one area where the review sets out a wholly new commitment is the proposed increase in nuclear warheads to 260, some 45% more than the number planned for the mid-2020s by the coalition Government. The review says that this is necessary,

“in recognition of the evolving security environment”.

What on earth does that mean? The review states that the Government might consider using nuclear weapons against chemical or biological attacks or cyberattacks, even by non-nuclear states. This is a massive expansion of the potential role of nuclear weapons and appears to be in breach of our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. How can the Government possibly justify such a reckless, dangerous and potentially illegal policy shift?

When it comes to trade, the review repeats the Government’s commitment to have a trade agreement in place to cover 80% of our trade by 2022. Surely, this is completely unrealistic. Our combined trade with the US, India and China comes to more than 20%, and there is no chance of reaching a trade agreement with any of them in the foreseeable future. Why, then, is the completely unachievable 80% target repeated? It is simply pie in the sky.

The document is suffused with such fanciful and misleading assertions. To pick one from many: it trumpets the support the Government have given to our creative and cultural sectors, yet their failure to maintain the ability of our creative and cultural sectors to perform in the EU is decimating them. Try telling a young musician, facing the cancellation of all her European work, to pivot to the east. It would be a joke if it were not so serious.

This review demonstrates the Prime Minister’s trademark policy of trying to have your cake and eating it. It avoids hard choices, particularly in relation to China, instead of making them. By pivoting away from Europe, it ignores both history and the basic rule that security, defence and foreign policy should start, not finish, with your neighbours. It is a truly depressing document from a truly depressing Government.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

I was going to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments, but I might just thank the noble Baroness in the light of the noble Lord’s comments. However, I will try to address some of the criticisms that he somewhat unfairly levels at this document.

The noble Baroness began her comments on the approach of the new Administration. We believe this review aligns well with the US vision, highlighting the need to build back better and the importance of science and technology, climate change, health resilience and protecting our democracies. We look forward to working with them on all of those. She also asked about the counter state threats legislation, which I can confirm will provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools to tackle evolving state threats. It will create new offences, tools and powers to criminalise other harmful activity conducted by and on behalf of states.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about China. As this document sets out, we believe there is scope for positive and constructive engagement with China, for instance on things such as trade co-operation and tackling climate change. However, we are very clear-sighted about the challenges. To reassure the noble Baroness, we will always protect our vital interests, including sensitive infrastructure, and will not accept investment that compromises our national security.

The noble Lord asked about trade and human rights. I say categorically that we are clear that trade does not come at the expense of human rights. Our experience is that having strong economic relationships with partners enables us to have open discussions with them on a range of issues, including human rights, and we most certainly do so. I remind the noble Lord that under our global human rights sanctions regime we have designated 68 individuals and three entities from nine countries—including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela and Ukraine—around the world for a variety of human rights abuses or violations. We will continue to take these issues extremely seriously.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness rightly spoke about our leadership on the global stage. This will be a year for our leadership that will set the tone for our international engagement for the decade ahead, in our presidency of the G7, which we have also invited the leaders of Australia, South Korea and India to attend, the Global Partnership for Education and COP 26 in Glasgow in November. I say to the noble Lord that we will continue to have a strong, positive relationship with our European friends and partners. That will continue to be a priority for us.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness spoke about international development spending. The document clearly states that we are committed to returning to spending 0.5% of GNI on ODA as soon as the economic situation allows—