King’s Speech

We have urged Iran to allow shipping to flow freely through the strait and to progress a diplomatic pathway. As my friend the Foreign Secretary did in a call with Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi on 8 May, we have used our convening power to bring together more than 40 countries to channel collective pressure to reopen the strait, engaging intensively with the US, our partners in the Gulf and European capitals. We have bolstered our defensive capabilities in the region as part of co-ordinated regional defensive operations in line with international law, and we are working internationally to respond to the impacts of the crisis on the world’s poorest. That includes at the Global Partnerships Conference that we co-hosted this week, where we gathered developing countries around a new approach to international partnerships and discussed how to alleviate the impacts of the crisis on food, fertiliser and fuel. That is because our efforts must be integrated and the effects of these crises around the world are connected to what we are doing at home.

Sadly, this approach is essential, given that we face a world more riven by conflicts than at any time since the Second World War, where tools of economic integration are being used as weapons of geopolitical conflict and where competition between the US and China shapes our world. We see this with the threat posed by Russia to the UK and wider European security: an aggressive, expansionist Russia that deploys hybrid threats and information warfare against us and our allies, and exports interference and instability. Just as in the previous Parliament, this Government have taken every opportunity to stand with Ukraine and apply pressure on the Kremlin’s war machine. The UK’s total military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine amounts to £21.8 billion, and the UK has sanctioned over 3,000 individuals and entities since Russia’s full-scale invasion.

In this Parliament, we will remain stronger than ever in our support to Ukraine, confident in the cross-party commitment that Ukraine’s fight is our fight, and steadfast in putting pressure on Russia. That involves sustaining our international leadership that has brought together partners and unlocked practical commitments through the coalition of the willing, including for the future deployment of the multinational force in Ukraine. Faced with Russia’s aggression and growing global security threats, last year the Government committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. To do that, we took the decision to reduce the development budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, but we remain just as committed to tackling global challenges in a new and modernised way, which I will return to shortly.

Turning to other pressing conflicts, Palestinians and Israelis desperately need peace. We need to deliver phase 2 of the 20-point plan, prevent Gaza getting stuck between peace and war, and stop Israeli settlement expansion and settler violence, which is at an all-time high and in flagrant breach of international law. Last year, this Government took the historic step of recognising the State of Palestine, to help keep the two-state solution alive, and we will continue to ensure that our international work is consistent with Israel’s lasting security, with Palestinian self-determination and with achieving peace in Lebanon.

These are messages we delivered through the UK’s presidency of the UN Security Council in February, a presidency we also used to put the spotlight on Sudan, as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, including the women and girls who have endured unimaginable ordeals of sexual violence. We will sustain our focus on Sudan, building on the Berlin communiqué that followed the international conference we co-hosted in April, which brought together 55 states, secured £1.3 billion of funding to save lives, and renewed the diplomatic push for a ceasefire and political resolution of the conflict.

Sadly, Sudan is not the only example of a conflict overlooked. In March, I visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo and saw the consequences of years of conflict, including on survivors of sexual violence, the desperate need for clean water, emergency healthcare, and food and nutrition assistance. But I also saw the courage of those delivering front-line services, the expertise of local health professionals and the ingenuity of Congolese entrepreneurs. To break the cycle of conflict, the world must get behind those people. That means providing humanitarian and peacebuilding support. The UK is delivering life-saving care: from trauma surgery and support for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, to clean water and emergency food. This means calling for those responsible for the violence to stop and supporting multilateral efforts towards sustainable peace.

Crucially, it means supporting long-term opportunity for people in the DRC through strengthening business links and supporting investments, whether that is setting up a new UK-DRC Chamber of Commerce, which I launched in March, or expanding access to finance for SMEs through British International Investment’s $55 million commitments to the DRC’s banking sector. As we discussed in a Question earlier, Ebola in the eastern DRC is a major threat, and we are working with the World Health Organization and Africa CDC. So far, we have allocated up to £21 million to the region, and I will be going to the Congo next week.

This Government are putting into practice a new, modernised approach to international development, one that reflects the scale of the global challenges that we face today and the very different geopolitics compared to two or three decades ago. International systems are threatened and humanitarian responses, already strained, are being stretched to their limit. While some are turning away, the UK with our partners is doing things differently. The countries that we work with want modern, respectful partnerships rooted in shared interests.

As my noble friend Lord Collins’s consultation on Africa last year set out so clearly, all of this means that we need to forge new alliances and work with developing countries in a different way. We have a new approach, one that channels aid to a more focused set of priorities over the next three years and moves us beyond being a donor to focus on spurring new investment, providing the expertise that enables countries to build up their own capacities and that helps countries and communities thrive without aid. It is essential that we streamline an inefficient, insufficiently co-ordinated system that places an unnecessary burden on partner countries.

This was at the heart of this week’s global partnerships conference, which brought together Governments, international organisations, civil society, businesses, technology and philanthropy. We must draw on the strengths that everyone has to offer: the richness of innovation that diverse coalitions bring to even the toughest problems. Working together collectively, respectfully and through mutually reinforcing partnerships is the only way that we will tackle the global challenges of today. Together, we agreed a new compact: not a typical negotiated text, but a synthesis of what partners have told us across its themes of finance, technology, and shifting the power: a shared commitment to working faster, more openly and in true partnership in the decades ahead. That will provide the framework for us to deliver a new way of working, a more responsive international system and improved financing. This will better meet the priorities and aspirations of partner countries and tackle the shared challenges of a new era, to forge new ties with growing economies and trading partners of the future.

Irregular migration is one such challenge, exacerbated by conflict, poverty and climate change. We have secured the return to France of over 600 migrants under the UK-France returns treaty; we have reached agreement with six African partners on improved processes to return those with no right to be in the UK; and we have deployed our new sanctions regime to target 55 individuals and entities to help break the business model of criminal gangs. But we need to go further, together with others, to raise our collective ambition on migration, supporting the security of our borders, the fabric of our democracies and the protection of those who need it.

Across all the priorities I have set out, there is one constant: we cannot meet any of these challenges alone. Our partnerships and alliances remain crucial to global growth and security and to our own growth and security. We will work through groups such as the G7 and the G20 to build and strengthen these alliances, collaborating to address issues of global importance that impact every household in the UK—whether that is working through the G7 to support Ukraine, keep the pressure on Russia and respond to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or promoting policies to support growth, jobs and productivity through the G20. As His Majesty the King outlined in his Speech to Parliament, our G20 presidency in 2027 will place the UK at the forefront of driving global growth and stability, which is essential for the prosperity of working people across this country.

The world today is more fragile, contested and interconnected than ever. The breadth and complexity of the challenges we face underline why we must bring to bear all the tools at our disposal, integrating our diplomacy work with our efforts on development, defence, soft power and economic resilience. Only through this approach will we make progress. So, over our new parliamentary Session, the Government will seize every opportunity to advance our interests and uphold our values, using all the levers we have across government to strengthen our alliances, build new coalitions and shape solutions to the shared challenges we face. There is much for us to discuss, so I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ contributions and working with noble Lords to make the UK a stronger, safer and more prosperous place.

We were grateful to receive his letter of clarification correcting the record on the right of settlement for Chagossians in the current treaty. However, when we asked him about the provision of humanitarian supplies, he used a very peculiar form of wording. He kept saying that he had been “assured by officials”. I wonder whether, since that debate, he has had the chance to check for himself the statements about whether the commissioner is withholding vital humanitarian supplies from those people. When we have asked questions about this, we keep getting an answer from the Foreign Office that it is a decision for the commissioner—yet, when we write to the commissioner, we do not get much clarification either. It is unusual that Ministers seem to be a bit reticent in clarifying this matter, so I wonder whether he could clear things up at the end of this debate.

I should also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, who is sadly not in his place, on his success in the Private Member’s Bill ballot. We have not yet seen the final text of his Bill, but the British sovereignty protection (Chagos Islands) Bill will be interesting to read and will enable us to show the Government once again just how strongly we feel about protecting our interests in that region.

The Chagos Islands are just one part of the world where British sovereignty needs defending. We are also facing pressure in Gibraltar and in the Falkland Islands. The British people expect their Government to stand up for their interests both at home and abroad. Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders expect the British Government to stand up for them too. Could the noble Lord, when he winds up, reassure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue to defend British sovereign territory and support our overseas territories whenever they are threatened?

Indeed, the Government made a manifesto commitment to this principle. I do not know whether it still applies to Mr Burnham, but they said in their manifesto:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar”.

The manifesto went on to say:

“Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination”—

a point sadly lacking on Chagos. Nevertheless, that was the commitment that they made to the British people, and that is a promise that we expect them to keep.

On Gibraltar specifically, we are grateful to Ministers for making the draft EU-UK agreement in respect of Gibraltar available. It is right that Parliament has the time to scrutinise a treaty as complex as this in full detail. At the end of the debate, could the noble Lord confirm whether the final approved treaty will be laid before the House in June or July of this year? If it is laid in late July, there is a risk that we will not be able to satisfy the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 before the Summer Recess. What is the Government’s timetable for ratification of the treaty? Can the Minister also confirm whether the Government believe that additional enabling legislation will be required in this case, or is CRaG approval sufficient?

Turning to the Falkland Islands, I think we were all concerned by Argentina’s calls for talks on the future of the Falkland Islands some weeks ago, and the very concerning corresponding reports about the United States reviewing its position on the islands. I am pleased that the US Secretary of State has since downplayed these reports. I know that the Foreign Secretary has recently met the US Secretary of State, so could the noble Lord say what discussions Ministers have had with our American partners and what reassurances they have been given? The Falkland Islands are British. The Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly wish to remain British. Our allies and our Government should respect that. I hope that the Government and the Official Opposition are united on that matter. If that is the case, we will of course support the Government in its work to defend British sovereignty, both overseas and at home.

On international threats to our security, the conflict in Ukraine, which we have just discussed, remains fundamental. An expansionist Russia is a threat to our European security. I am proud of our record of support for Ukraine, and, notwithstanding their latest decisions, we have thus far been pleased to support the Government in their policy of support for Ukraine. Britain has, rightly, backed Ukraine throughout Putin’s war, and we must continue that support until Russia’s illegal invasion has been turned back—there have been some encouraging signs recently. Britain also has an important role to play in helping Ukraine’s recovery and the response to atrocities committed in that conflict.

I do not wish to return to the previous debate, but I was saddened that our excellent record on tough sanctions was blemished this week by the decision, which we discussed, to weaken restrictions on oil products originating in Russia. On the radio this morning, I heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, that these temporary licences will be short lived. The noble Baroness used the expression that it could be only “a number of months”. I wonder if, at the end, the Minister could confirm whether the Government have a timescale for those licences to be revoked. It flies in the face of the Minister’s Statement on support.

On Iran, of course we cannot discuss the energy crisis without addressing that terrible conflict, which has had a major destabilising effect on economies all over the world. I suspect that we have not yet seen the full effects of that in the UK, and that we will see them in the months to come. As a result of our failure to secure domestic oil and gas supplies, we know that we are particularly exposed, but the impacts of this conflict go far beyond energy. It is essential that the Foreign Office works at pace, and in concert with other departments, to secure our supply of essential goods and particularly fertilisers—something that has not been remarked on nearly as much as energy but could be even more important.

We have also had questions all week about the risks of a super El Niño. Such a significant climatic event coinciding with oil and fertiliser supply issues, the Ebola outbreak and the conflict in Sudan is extremely concerning. I am sure that Ministers will want to take all necessary steps to put mitigations in place to protect British citizens from any potential impacts. The House would also benefit from a broader update on the Government’s approach to these issues.

On what is currently the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis, in Sudan, which the noble Baroness, the Minister, referenced, could we please have a further update from the noble Lord the Minister on what steps Ministers are taking to engage with our regional partners to help bring that terrible conflict to an end?

In the Middle East, the Israel-Gaza ceasefire, uneasy though it is, represents a significant step towards peace. While we have not been central to those negotiations, Britain still has an important role to play. His Majesty’s Government must be unequivocal on Israel’s right to self-defence while seeking a peaceful settlement in the region.

To that end, when the Minister winds up, will he take the opportunity to set out what difference the UK’s recognition of Palestine has made? It was seen by many as an inappropriate step that only continued to give legitimacy to Hamas, so what view do Ministers now have, a few months after that sad decision? It excluded us from the negotiations; Israel reacted very negatively, and any influence that we had with it was lost. I therefore do not see what difference it has made on the ground. Perhaps the Minister could update us at the end?

That conflict has, of course, had a profound impact on relationships between different groups in the UK, and we have seen a quite appalling rise in antisemitism in recent months. I am sure that the whole House will stand united against antisemitism. However, words are not enough. The rise in the hatred of Jews, which led to the violent and bloody assault of our neighbours in Golders Green and the murder of our fellow countrymen in Manchester, is appalling. It is targeted, it is driven and, sadly, it is on the rise in our country. With one voice and one accord, we must all act to eradicate this vile hatred in our land and reassert our true national values of tolerance and respect that have for so many years—indeed centuries now—made Britain a place where Jews feel safe and can prosper and thrive. I fully accept that domestic affairs are not the responsibility of the Foreign Office or the MoD, but we must never shy away from the relationship between that conflict and rising hatred in our own country.

I will end on China. The Chinese state has engaged in espionage in the UK—we have seen a number of cases recently, even here in Parliament—and Chinese state actors have been responsible for numerous cases of intellectual property theft and serious cyber attacks. Indeed, China has even sanctioned Members of your Lordships’ House, all the while it continues to persecute the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. I particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his tireless campaigning for justice and an end to the repression of the Uyghur people. I am sure that he will refer to it in his remarks later.

We have constantly raised concerns about the establishment of a new Chinese mega-embassy on the Royal Mint site in the heart of the City of London. We continue to oppose that decision, and we will continue to call for the release of Jimmy Lai, who has been so appallingly treated by China. Could the Minister provide us with an update on Jimmy Lai’s case when he responds to the debate? While China poses such a significant threat to the UK, represses its own people and wrongfully imprisons Jimmy Lai, the Prime Minister continues to call for a thawing in our relationship. I completely accept that Britain must engage with China; that is clear. However, in our view, the Government’s approach is the wrong one; we need to treat China as the threat that it is.

We are facing many global threats, and the world feels less stable than it has been for a very long time. We must give clear moral leadership, and we must help to mitigate those threats. I have spoken about the approach that Britain must take towards the global challenges that we are facing, but, at its core, we know that British foreign policy cannot succeed unless we have the tools to defend our interests. That is why defence spending is an essential priority for the Government. I know that, towards the end of the debate, my noble friend Lady Goldie will focus on defence in her remarks. We are at a time of great uncertainty, and Britain has a role to play in securing a more stable future. We need the right strategy and the right tools if we are to achieve that. Therefore, we on this side of the House will remain critical friends to His Majesty’s Government, willing Ministers on to increase our defence spending, to mitigate threats posed by foreign states and, ultimately, to stand up for Britain’s interests on the world stage.

As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, we are having this debate against a backdrop of tremendous uncertainty and instability, with ongoing wars in Iran, Ukraine, Sudan and the Middle East. All of these are amplified by the profound challenges caused by climate change and rapid technological change. This week, we saw a greatly emboldened President Xi of China meeting President Putin in Beijing, declaring a strengthened alliance between the two countries. In Russia, President Putin continues to clamp down on any credible opposition and free media. He is perhaps at his most dangerous when feeling under threat, as he faces Ukrainian long-distance drone attacks and a very gradual reversal of his advances in Ukraine, at a horrendous and growing human cost. It is hard to know the exact figures for the number of young Russian men killed, but the Economist this week has estimated that it might be as many as half a million lives lost.

Meanwhile, we are nearly 18 months into the second presidency of President Trump, which means that there are another two and a half years of his volatility and unpredictability to go. I add at this point congratulations from these Benches on the very successful visit of His Majesty the King. In the light of continued uncertainty about America’s commitment to NATO’s collective defence, our military needs urgent investment and renewal. The current Government inherited an Army at its smallest since the Napoleonic Wars and a Navy at its smallest since the English Civil War, yet the Government have moved far too slowly and timidly to rectify this.

I was struck by the speech last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. He made an incredibly powerful case for an all-society approach to rapidly rearming and reminded us that the UK is already “under attack”. As the current Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year:

“Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them”.

The Government must act now to commit to reaching 3% of GDP spending on defence by 2030. Liberal Democrats have called for cross-party talks to agree a consensus on how to reach that level of spending within that timeframe. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to this suggestion in his closing remarks. Those of us who were privileged to hear the remarkable speech by President Zelensky to both Houses a couple of months ago could not help but be humbled by just how much we now have to learn from Ukraine about drone and robotics technology. In that regard, does the Minister agree that borrowing to invest in defence could support innovation and economic growth?

In my remaining time, I will touch on two other key areas: international development and our relations with the European Union. A couple of weeks ago, I was on a train from Calais to Boulogne-sur-Mer in France. As I was getting on the train, I realised that everyone around me was carrying a polythene bag with a large orange object in it. I eventually realised that these were in fact life jackets, and that my 50 or so fellow passengers were people who had failed to get on a small boat that day and so were returning to their camp near Boulogne-sur-Mer to try the dangerous crossing on another day.

I understand that this is an incredibly emotive and complicated issue. I live in Broadstairs on the Kent coast, and the reception camp for the migrants is incredibly near to where I live. I believe the Government are right to concentrate much of their efforts on stopping the appalling people smugglers and attempting to destroy their economic model. However, two things struck me looking at these dejected passengers on that train to Boulogne-sur-Mer.

The first was that they were desperate fellow human beings prepared to risk their lives. Sitting opposite me was a young man from Syria, with his baby strapped to his front. A boat ran aground and sank off the coast of Boulogne-sur-Mer that very morning, killing two women, I later learned on the BBC website. The second thing that struck me is that we rightly talk a lot about the pull factors to the UK and the people smugglers who benefit at the cost of human lives, but we talk rather less about the push factors that cause many to want to leave their countries in the first place: the drought, the famine, the desperation and the wars—wars that are sometimes proxy wars started by far-off countries.

Not long ago, we were proud global leaders in the world on development assistance, with all mainstream parties jostling to claim the credit for reaching the 0.7% target of GNI, including the Conservative Government at that time. Our global assistance is currently 0.3%, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, but there are rumours that it could fall much further. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm in his closing remarks the projected percentage by the end of this year and into next year.

The removal of USAID is having a dramatic and awful impact on the prevention of diseases such as HIV, TB and, as has been said, currently Ebola, in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. The policies of President Trump have acted as a green light to other countries to follow in his slipstream. It is, I fear, short-term populism that will have long-term and disastrous consequences—consequences that will be felt by this country too. We can hope that a future US Government will change and that we will see a return to a revised world order based on a rules-based approach and a generous approach to international development. However, to refer to the much-quoted speech by Mark Carney at Davos this year,

“hope is not a plan and nostalgia is not a strategy”.

The UK needs to think again about our place in the world and our alliances. We need to prepare now for tomorrow’s uncertainties. Our economy, security and defence are inextricably linked to our European partners. As Mark Carney and others have said, we should also reach out to those middle powers that share our values, such as Canada and Ukraine.

That brings me to my final point, about the EU. It is my hope that, one day, we can reunite properly with our EU partners. Where I live, in Thanet in Kent, 68% voted to leave the EU in 2016. But that was then and this is now, and it is increasingly hard to find anybody who can find anything positive to say about the decision of 10 years ago. Some 10 years on since the Brexit referendum, I believe it should be less a question of whether we were wrong in 2016 and more a question of what is in the national self-interest 10 years from now, in 2036.

Today, I hope to become a great aunt for the first time—my niece is about to give birth as I speak. What will make this a better country for that little boy being born today? The European Union 10 years from now will be a very different place. Nobody wants to repeat the stale, old and tired arguments of the referendum 10 years ago, but I sincerely hope that a future EU, with Ukraine at its eastern edge, will include our country to its west.

Effective deterrence occurs in the mind of a potential adversary: they must be convinced that malign action on their part will result in consequences that will be unacceptable to them and that conflict will result in their defeat, no matter what measures they pursue. They must therefore be clear that we have the full range of capabilities and the political will to ensure such an outcome.

Strength is of course enhanced by acting in concert with others, which is why NATO remains crucial to our security, but membership of an alliance does not absolve us of the need to pull our weight. To our shame, we are slipping well down the weight scales within NATO. Moreover, it makes no sense for NATO to rely upon a single-source supplier for crucial strategic capabilities, as we do upon the United States. This is not just a matter of one unpredictable Administration: come the day they are needed, those capabilities may be unavailable or diminished for all sorts of reasons. NATO needs to be much more resilient to such uncertainties, and this means that European members must develop alternative sources of such strategic capability, most of which will be beyond the reach of any individual nation. European partnerships to fund, develop and operate those capabilities are urgently required, but the capabilities that are necessary for victory will not all be present at the start of any conflict, either in nature or in quantity.

It is notable that many of the systems and methods that the Ukrainians are now employing so successfully against the Russians did not exist four years ago. The lesson here is that we need in Europe an agile, innovative and rapidly scalable industrial base—not, I should note, just traditional defence companies—that can rapidly adapt to the circumstances of a conflict and produce at large scale the technologies crucial to success.

The final point is that properly resourced military forces of appropriate size are essential but not by themselves sufficient for effective deterrence. Our political system, social structure and domestic infrastructure need to be resilient to the attacks they are already suffering, which would increase manifold in the lead-up to and during any conflict. Weakness in this area undermines our deterrent posture. As the Government’s own defence review made clear, we currently have shortfalls in many of the requirements for effective deterrence. We must make good those deficiencies as a matter of urgency, not just articulate vague aspirations for the future. That means fiscal choices that may be hard politically but are obvious in logic. It is a choice between pain now and a likelihood of catastrophe in the future. This is the message our political leaders must take to the country. These are the measures on which they must deliver. Yes, it will be a challenge, but it is one to which they must rise. It is time, indeed beyond time, for them to lead.

To live in a world where state and non-state actors are more aggressive, where one of our principal allies is ever more unpredictable, where water resources are contested, where climate change drives food insecurity and where other states begin to fail is to live in a world that is increasingly more threatened with incipient and real conflict. To cut aid contributes to instability and insecurity. It means a vast erosion of this country’s soft power in a new era when, having exited a foundational political partnership, we increasingly find ourselves acting alone. The inescapable logic of Brexit is that we need to compensate by spending more on defence, more on aid, more on diplomatic representation and more on the BBC to maintain our influence in the world. What we are doing is planning to increase the first while cutting all the rest. Surely the lesson of history is that there is a complex interplay between power and influence. Neither should be neglected. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will think again.

We cannot spend what we do not have, and streamlining, reviewing and modernising what we do is a vital part of good government. Massive effort is now needed to bring our defence capabilities to where they should be but, necessary as that is, it is insufficient in tackling the crisis we face. When crises are left unaddressed, they do not stay distant for long. If we seek an example, we need look no further than the Strait of Hormuz, a 104-mile stretch of water full of small coves, narrow in many places, and now the subject of one of the worst standoffs in my experience of foreign policy.

My experience of negotiating with Iran over four years to reach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as chair and lead negotiator, gave me useful lessons not just for Iran. The Iranians now engaged in negotiations are quite familiar figures, not least Abbas Araghchi, the Foreign Minister, though they are probably now more constrained by hardliners who stand beside them or behind them. They have some experience, but so do we. I often describe the Iran deal as a jigsaw puzzle. Put together, it creates a picture. In 2015 the picture showed that we could be confident that Iran was not building a bomb. It was not. The picture was made up of pieces covering different parts of the deal, including levels of enrichment, types of centrifuges, stockpiles and heavy water reactor capabilities, inspection and monitoring regimes and more. The deal began from knowing what our objectives were.

The challenge now is that the reasons for the war, and therefore the problems to be addressed, seem to fluctuate—getting rid of an oppressive leadership, freeing the people, continuing to degrade and dispose of any nuclear weapons capability, preventing support to proxies, or some version of all of these. The vital first jigsaw puzzle piece, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which requires detailed, hard negotiation, does not of itself settle any of these underlying issues.

I ask my noble friend to lay out what proposals we are making to the countries most concerned with the negotiations, from the United States and of course Israel to Pakistan, the Gulf countries, Turkey, India, China and others. I worked with six nations on behalf of the United Nations, but I engaged with 20 more in pursuit of the agreement. There is much we could offer, so perhaps he can tell your Lordships’ House what exactly we are doing.

Finally, as my noble friend the Minister said, there is nothing that we can deal with alone. Foreign policy is domestic, not remote. We cannot keep people safe, offer opportunities or grow our economy without collaboration. The closer the collaboration with the like-minded the better, and that means Europe. Going back to the past is not an option—the world has moved on—but having a plan to get to a much better place is a must.

I am not arguing here for rejoining the EU, but perhaps the Government could be a little more careful in talking about our red lines as though they somehow will prevent what I see as a tidal wave of anger and resentment at being let down in so many communities. People want to see better living standards; that is impossible without better economic growth. They want to see a better life. I hope that my noble friends will take these comments in the spirit of willing them on in the tough decisions that lie ahead. The Government need to be as clear as they can be why foreign policy is about domestic issues and why engaging and showing leadership in taking tough decisions is more vital than ever.

Here is something that can be done: the Prime Minister—and only the Prime Minister can do it—today could ask every department to reduce its spending by 1%, and in future years within the plan period by 1% off the current plans. That would not be easy; it would involve painful decisions. But I have been a departmental Minister, and I know it could be done. It would raise a substantial amount of money. If that reduction were to be applied to the relevant departmental expenditure limits, it would raise £6.7 billion in the current year, rising to £7.5 billion in 2030-31, a total of £35.6 billion over the plan period. It would give some meaning to the oft-repeated declarations by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that defence must be an overriding national priority. It would give meaning to the Prime Minister’s statement in his introduction to the strategic defence review that it was his

“first duty … to keep the British people safe”.

But that is only half the answer. What is the money to be spent on? Three months ago, I was in Ukraine with a number of colleagues from the other place. We learned of the extraordinary way in which Ukraine has transformed modern warfare. We were told about the robots that can travel 20 kilometres and blow up Russian command posts, we were told of the occasions when Russian troops have surrendered to these robots, and of course we were told about drones.

A few weeks ago, I was at a gathering when I had the temerity to suggest that I did not see a great deal of evidence that the British Army was learning the lessons of the war in Ukraine. A very senior officer was present, and he berated me for my ignorance and told me that I did not know what I was talking about. I am quite used to being berated for my ignorance, so I did not take offence. A few days later, I was in the company of a less senior officer but someone who was nevertheless in a position to answer two specific questions that I put to him. Does the British Army have any robots of this kind? His answer was no. Do you know when the British Army will have robots of this kind? His answer was no.

In my ignorance, it seems to me that these different reactions are not entirely consistent with each other. I hope the Minister will put me out of my ignorance when he comes to reply to the debate and will explain how these different reactions can be reconciled with each other. I look forward to his response with great interest.

That was a letter signed by Emily Thornberry.

In the notes to the European partnership Bill published last Wednesday, the Government say:

“Businesses across the UK tell us they are being held back by red tape when trading with Europe”.

It is not red tape that is holding back businesses; it is the Government’s red lines inscribed in that medieval manuscript that would appeal to the historical interests of Mr Thomas-Symonds, the cobwebbed Labour 2024 election manifesto.

Say it out loud: the Brexit experiment has failed. True, the Pied Piper has led us the way to gold, but it is gold bitcoins for the man playing the alluring pipes—it is Nigel’s gold. The Government tell us, in the notes to the Bill, that the loss to our gross domestic product could be as much as 8%. The trumpets last week sounded out fanfares for just a 0.6% increase in growth in the last quarter—the highest rate, they boasted, in the G7. That is only 2.4% in a year. It does not begin to make up the 8% we have lost already.

Next month, as my noble friend Lady Suttie reminded us, it will be 10 years since David Cameron’s referendum. At that time, we were safe behind the bulwark of NATO. International trade was based on the rule of law. Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine still seemed limited to its Russian-speaking borders and the Middle East was quietening down. Those who promoted Brexit relied on our special relationship with the USA for security and prosperous markets. We would, they promised, be free to cut unique special deals around the whole world. It has not happened. These assumptions have proved false.

The world today is a very different place. Trump has torn up the rules with his stupid tariffs. He is pursuing military glory for his own vanity. He has weakened the American commitment to NATO and destroyed the capacity of the USA to give moral leadership to the world. The Liberty Bell is well and truly cracked and rings with a jangled sound. Meanwhile, Putin and Xi have discovered eternal friendship in each other’s arms. I say to whoever sits in No. 10 in a month’s time: be bold. Go for the single market and the customs union and follow the road once again to full partnership with Europe, with full participation in decision-making and administration. Take the lead as we in Britain used to do. Owain Glyndŵr could have made a better case for it. It is back to the future time.