King’s Speech

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a senior counsellor with the Cohen Group. The opening lines of the gracious Speech hit the nail on the head:

“An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom, with the conflict in the Middle East only the most recent example. Every element of the nation’s energy, defence and economic security will be tested”.


And indeed, we are being tested.

I want to remind the House what we said in the strategic defence review last year, when I was the lead reviewer, which was adopted by the Prime Minister and the Government. The review said:

“The UK and its allies are once again directly threatened by other states with advanced military forces”.


It went on:

“The UK is already under daily attack”.


All that is true and troubling enough, but, as the Prime Minister himself said at the Munich Security Conference only a few weeks ago:

“Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them. This time, it must be different. Because all … the signs are there”.


These are tough words and, if we had that promised national conversation about defence, I am sure the country would agree with the Prime Minister.

Why do I raise the subject of defence in this economic growth debate? It is a fair question. Although the Prime Minister has made these grave forecasts, we still have no clarity in this speech or in the Munich speech about the steps necessary to get to the agreed 3.5 % of GNP by 2035. I remind the House that that figure would add £36 billion to the present £70 billion that we already spend on defence. These are eye-watering figures, but 30 countries committed to them at the Hague summit, and President Trump is watching all the time.

In his introduction to the document accompanying the King’s Speech, the Prime Minister highlights the Iran conflict. He says:

“But in the light of that conflict, we … need to move with greater urgency”.


This builds on what he said in Munich:

“We must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age”.


He went on:

“So together we must rise to this moment. We must spend more, deliver more, and co-ordinate more”.


I will make two points about the powerful Munich speech. First, there must have been a page missing from it: the one which logically went on to say what additional funds the British Government were committing to spend to acquire that necessary hard power. Without that commitment, it is simply rhetoric. Secondly, the Prime Minister needs to make that speech again, with its solemn and worrying warning about a potential Russian attack on NATO before the end of the decade, which is in three years’ time, and make that speech not just in Munich but in Manchester, Middlesbrough, Mallaig and many other places.

I repeat what I recently said, which caused a degree of controversy: we are underprepared, we are underinsured, we are under attack and we are not safe. It is a blunt message which the country needs to hear, and from the top of government. Only when people realise the dangers that we face and the threats to them, and to their children’s futures, will the Chancellor and her advisers be willing or forced to make the budgetary trade-offs to spend and deliver more. So I ask my noble friend the Treasury Minister: when will the Treasury set out the steps to get to the 3.5% plus 1.5% promised at the Hague NATO summit? The next summit is only eight weeks away and our country is now 10th in NATO’s league table for spending.

I appreciate that the Government have already pledged to increase expenditure to 2.5% by 2027, and this is welcome. But is this nearly enough, in light of the challenges and threats that face us at the moment? NATO and SACEUR are forecasting a possible Russian military attack on the alliance in just three years’ time. Why are we sleeping? Why are all of us not rearming at pace and rebuilding the hard power so necessary to deter current and future threats to our land, sovereignty and democratic way of life?

I have said it before, but it needs repeating: when the lights go out, the hospitals close, the data centres melt and the ATMs stop working, the public will rightly say to all of us, “Why did you not do something to sort this out before?” If, somehow, we are attacked with cruise and ballistic missiles when deterrence fails, will we stand in the ruins of our cities, homes and schools, and proudly say, “Well, yes, we protected the fiscal rules”?

Will the Minister consider this question: what if we do not increase defence expenditure and rebuild deterrence in the way the Government have agreed in the defence review? Will the Chancellor and the Treasury accept the blame for our continued weakness and the open door that it represents to our aggressive and fast-learning adversaries?

The gracious Speech is not strong on defence—our adversaries will note that and draw some conclusions—and the absence of the defence readiness Bill is a major failing in it, but it says something:

“My Government will also uphold the United Kingdom’s unbreakable commitment to NATO and our NATO allies, including through a sustained increase in defence spending”.


I welcome that promise, but what does it mean, how much does it mean and when will it mean? The threat is immediate. In Ukraine, we can see that it is very real and very nasty. It is no longer theoretical. Under the threshold, it is happening now. When will we see the steps and the commitment to the 3.5%? Only when we do will the British people feel safer than they are today.

I conclude with the words of Denis Healey, speaking in 1969. He said that

“once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/1969; col. 551.]

It was wise then; it is a warning today.