Grand Committee

Thursday 9th February 2023 Grand Committee

Thursday 9 February 2023

Climate Change: Nature-based Solutions (STC Report)

Thursday 9th February 2023 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

13:00

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Nature-based solutions for climate change: rhetoric or reality? (2nd Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 147).

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as chair of the adaptation committee of the Climate Change Committee.

I am delighted to introduce for debate this Science and Technology Committee report on nature-based solutions for climate change on behalf of my noble friend Lord Patel, the former chair of the committee. I thank all the committee members who participated in the report; our expert adviser, Professor Peter Smith, of the University of Aberdeen; and particularly the committee staff at the time, George Webber, Thomas Hornigold and Cerise Burnett-Stuart.

Nature-based solutions form a critical element of the Government’s net-zero strategy. We will need the carbon sequestration services of new forests and woodlands, restored peatlands, and new wetlands and marine environments if we are to take enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to get us to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We may also need to grow significant new areas of bioenergy crops to enable us to generate energy with carbon capture and storage, and to contribute to decarbonising aviation through the production of sustainable aviation fuels. All of that implies significant change to the way in which we use land. The CCC estimates that forest and woodland cover will need to increase from about 14% today to 18% by 2050, supported by major changes to what and how we farm. If we get it right, this will lead to healthier diets.

Our inquiry was important, but it was also timely, because the replacement of the common agricultural policy—following our departure from the European Union—by the development and introduction of the new environmental land management scheme is the key opportunity to support farmers properly to deliver the changes that we will need, while maintaining their livelihoods and enhancing our precious countryside.

The inquiry considered how protecting, managing and restoring natural ecosystems and agricultural land can reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and provide co-benefits such as adaptation to the changing climate, examining issues of both science and policy. The inquiry ran from July 2021 to January 2022, and we heard from a wide range of witnesses, including scientists with domain expertise on different types of nature-based solutions. We heard from stakeholders such as the National Farmers’ Union, the National Trust and the RSPB, as well as government agencies, including Natural England, the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency, that deliver nature-based solutions. We also heard from government witnesses including civil servants, the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser, and the Environment Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park.

Overall, we found that the Government have ambitious, even laudable, plans for nature-based solutions. There are headline commitments to plant 30,000 hectares of trees a year by 2025 and to restore 280,000 hectares of peatland by 2050. These sit alongside the ambitious reductions in land use emissions needed to achieve net zero. The scale of this ambition to restore nature is a major and essential component of reaching net zero, and could provide significant co-benefits for biodiversity, human health and well-being, and adaptation to climate change. We were pleased to see the Government lobby for the inclusion of nature-based solutions in the COP 26 decision text, as we advised in a letter to the president of COP 26.

However, in our report we were sceptical and concerned about whether the current level of policy support is sufficient to see these plans realised. There are strong headwinds that need to be overcome to deliver effective nature-based solutions. There are scientific uncertainties around how much carbon these approaches will sequester, and on what timescales. The Government have neither assessed the skills gap nor provided sufficient training to ensure that nature-based solutions can be deployed at scale.

There remains huge uncertainty about the details of the policies that are set to incentivise nature-based solutions, such as the new environmental land management schemes. More funding is likely to be required in key areas, from basic scientific research to funding for public delivery bodies that will have to regulate and support these projects. Many land managers feel disengaged and uncertain about the changes they will need to make, but their support is critical for these schemes to be delivered.

The Government are relying on private finance to help to fund nature-based solutions by creating markets for carbon credits and other ecosystem services that nature-based solutions can provide. However, these markets exist only on a small scale at present, and the regulatory infrastructure needed to ensure that they work as intended and genuinely deliver carbon removal over time does not yet exist.

Finally, we found that the Government have not said anywhere how they will balance the many competing demands on UK land. The committee was seeking evidence that the Government have a coherent plan for meeting these demands; we did not hear it. In short, although the Government’s ambitions for nature-based solutions are admirable and we support them, our report found that there is a clear and present danger that they will not be achieved, and that this could undermine the target of net zero by 2050, as well as undermine the agricultural sector with a failed transition.

Our committee made a number of recommendations to assist the Government in delivering their ambitions. Among these, we wanted the Government to invest further in researching the storage potential of nature-based solutions, especially for soils and in the marine environment. We recommended that the budgets of public delivery bodies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency be increased to be commensurate with the increased workload of deploying nature-based solutions at the scale of the government targets.

We asked the Government to provide urgent clarity on the nature of environmental land management schemes and how they will support nature-based solutions among their other objectives. We recommended that communication with land managers be improved, and the introduction of a dedicated advisory service for land managers to help them to navigate ELMS.

We made a number of recommendations about private financing for nature-based solutions, including that existing standards such as the woodland and peatland codes incorporate additional value for ecosystem services and co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration. We asked for clearer regulatory standards for emerging carbon markets and for the Government to create or sponsor an independent central broker to allow stacked and blended finance from the private and public sector and for a combination of different projects.

Finally, as with much in climate change policy, we wanted to see a plan that added up. Specifically, we wanted the Government to develop an overall land use strategy that explained how trade-offs in land use would be managed to deliver nature-based solutions as well as other important targets.

The Government’s response to our report was generally positive, and I warmly thank the Defra civil servants involved for their detailed and helpful work. The response was characterised well by our evidence session with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who responded to most of our lines of questioning by agreeing with the concerns and points raised by the committee.

Among the concrete responses, we heard that the Government would publish more detailed information on the environmental land management scheme later in 2022. More detail has now been published on the sustainable farming incentive, launching new standards for payments, and further pilot projects for the landscape recovery scheme will be awarded in the next two years.

The Government said that Defra would conduct “spatially explicit analysis” on land use to assess the level and type of changes in land use in England indicated by government commitments, which would help to manage trade-offs in land uses. They said that the need for a land use strategy would be kept under review as work progressed in 2022.

The Government committed to engaging with land managers but stopped short of our recommendation to introduce a new advisory service to help them navigate ELMS. Farmers are now referred to a range of local organisations that can provide advice. However, evidence from stakeholder groups such as the National Farmers’ Union suggests that farmers are still struggling with the details of the schemes. The Government said they will work with stakeholders to develop a

“more stable and comprehensive standards framework … later this year”—

that is, in 2022, for carbon and other ecosystem services, to

“help ensure their use is beneficial for the climate, people, and nature.”

Section 6.5.1 of Chris Skidmore’s excellent review, Mission Zero: Independent Review of Net Zero, published this year, urges the Government to set up a regulator for carbon credits and offsets, and indeed repeats many of our recommendations in this area, suggesting that the problems are not yet resolved.

A year has passed since we published our report on nature-based solutions; we are a year closer to the net-zero target, and nature needs time to act. Trees take 20 or 30 years to grow and deliver their carbon sequestration potential, so action is urgent; we have to act now, and we do not seem to have seen much progress.

Let me illustrate my point with a few examples. In the environmental land management scheme, only the sustainable farming incentive has launched, which is the most basic payment scheme and the closest to the previous area-based payments. Local nature recovery and landscape recovery are still in pilot stages, and the old scheme of countryside stewardship is still being used. We hear that there are problems getting sufficient enrolment in schemes. Only 2.4% of eligible farmers—2,000 out of 82,000—applied for the sustainable farming incentive, which was intended to be the simplest ELMS and the one that most land managers would apply to. The Government have had to boost the payment rates to try to get more farmers to apply.

The House of Lords ad hoc Committee on Land Use in England, in its final report, published in December 2022, echoes our recommendations, saying:

“Create a Land Use Commission tasked with producing a land use framework. The framework must consider several factors, including food, nature, housing needs and the push for net zero.”


It continues by saying that we should

“provide immediate clarity on the Environmental Land Management Schemes … programme, ending the uncertainty which is causing serious problems for effective land use.”

We are hearing increased reports that the UK will miss its tree-planting targets, and there are similar stories about Scotland’s peat and the Scottish Government’s nature restoration targets. The Government missed their legal deadline for setting the first batch of targets under the Environment Act 2021, and there are concerns that the post-Brexit sunsetting of regulations will remove vital environmental regulations. These examples serve to underline that much more action is needed, and it is needed urgently.

To conclude, I ask the Minister to respond to the following questions. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we catch up with our tree-planting targets, given the shortage of nurseries, plug plants, skilled people and the lack of a clear land use strategy which addresses the trade-offs—for example, between food and carbon sequestration? The current markets for nature-based solutions have been described as the “wild west”, given a lack of strong governance and standards. Greenwashing is rife, while uncertainty about the level and consistency of revenues of certain ecosystems services is undermining the confidence of some investors. What discussions are the Government having about a strong, independent co-ordinating body to scrutinise and set national standards for nature-based solutions in the UK? This is an area where UK action could show real leadership and give confidence to corporates to fund these critical developments.

As you might expect, we are very fond of numbers on the Science and Technology Select Committee. We like sums that add up and measures that can be quantified. How will the Government make the numbers add up? The funding required for nature recovery in the UK is estimated to be between £4 billion and £10 billion per annum. Total government spending is about £650 million per annum, with aspirations for private sector investment to match this. How are we going to fill the gap?

Finally, after a catalogue of good intentions but missed targets and deadlines, what are we going to do to instil a sense of urgency and catch up with the delivery of this critical and laudable ambition? I beg to move.

13:15

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for leading this debate. Her expertise in and knowledge of all areas of climate change and the road to net zero are unsurpassed. Like her, I thank the members of the committee, the committee staff and our specialist adviser, Professor Pete Smith FRS, professor of soils and global change at the University of Aberdeen. Due to Covid restrictions, the whole inquiry was conducted virtually, and we have yet to meet our specialist adviser—he certainly looked very colourful on the images we saw—but we hope to meet him some time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has so eloquently and effectively covered the issues raised in our inquiry that I intend to confine my comments to the contribution that better management of peatlands in the UK can make to climate change and net zero.

The UK’s natural environment is degraded due to decades of neglect and uncontrolled planning, and it has led to a decline in biodiversity, resulting in the UK being the worst country in the G7 and 12th in the world for biodiversity. There are many reasons for the decline in biodiversity, but the State of Nature report identified land use as the single biggest driver.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that only 20% of UK peatland is in a near-natural state. A recent assessment found that UK peatland is so degraded that it is emitting more CO₂ than it is sequestering. The UK is one of the top 10 nations in the world for peatland area, accounting for 9% to 15% of Europe’s peatland and around 13% of the world’s blanket bog.

The partially decomposed organic matter of peatlands makes them the most carbon-dense terrestrial systems on the planet, storing approximately 550 gigatonnes of carbon, which is twice the amount stored in the biomass of all vegetation in a far smaller land area. When disturbed, it releases carbon. In a near-natural state, UK peatland is estimated to hold 11,700 metric tonnes of CO₂. Although the precise figure is not known, there is consensus that peatlands are the UK’s largest natural carbon stores, holding 40% of UK soil carbon. Causes of degradation are drainage for agriculture, forestry, air pollution, fires and extraction of peat. Disturbing the peat releases carbon.

It is obvious that restoring peatland should be a matter of urgency. Priorities for policy should be to protect intact peatlands and to restore degraded peatlands. The Government’s peatland code is a good initiative and could ensure good practice.

I have the following questions for the Minister. First, lowland peat used for agriculture accounts for 7% of UK peatland but is responsible for 32% of all peatland emissions. Will the Government commit to developing specific targets for lowland peat in their net-zero strategy?

Secondly, planting trees on peaty soils results in carbon emissions. The Forestry Commission’s current policy allows free planting of trees on such soil types. Should the Government require the Forestry Commission to keep its policy of planting trees on peatland under review?

Thirdly, while the Government’s ambition to restore peatlands is admirable, a skills shortage needs addressing —the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, mentioned that several times. What plans do the Government have to assess the skills needed and for the provision of training of those undertaking peatland restoration?

Fourthly, what plans do the Government have for long-term monitoring of the Peatland Code to assess its success in greenhouse gas reduction, carbon sequestration and enhanced biodiversity status?

Fifthly, peatland restoration delivers a range of co-benefits. Will the Government commit to establishing a research programme to quantify the co-benefits of projects under the Peatland Code and to ensuring that payments for other ecosystem services are included within current and future carbon codes?

Restoration of peatlands should be a matter of urgency if the Government are to meet their net-zero targets. If done successfully, it will deliver more than carbon capture on the road to net zero.

13:20

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, as it was to be a member of the inquiry into nature-based solutions. It is a real pleasure to follow both the committee’s current chair and its recent past chair. I do not know what this means for my future preferment, but No. 3 is certainly a good place to be.

I will cover three areas and have three asks. Those areas are trees, seas and bees. In our inquiry, we rightly spent a lot of time on trees and woodland. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is important to consider trees and woodland not just at the beginning of their lifecycle—planting—important though that is, but across the story of that most vital resource, post harvest and right the way through its lifecycle? Would he also comment on the current situation regarding planting trees on peat and pseudo-peat boglands, and any current research on it? We spent a lot of time on this in the committee and there seemed at times to be some cloudy thinking around it.

We concluded that much more attention needs to be paid to the potential role that the seas and oceans can play. A whole blue marine programme fully to assess all the elements that the ocean could contribute to nature-based solutions would make a great deal of sense. Does my noble friend agree that a whole lot more work still needs to be done? It is extraordinary that we have the excellent “Blue Planet” on the TV but possibly not enough focus on this area when it comes to nature-based solutions. Similarly, does he agree that a lot of work could be done beyond what our inquiry covered in partnership with the British Overseas Territories, a number of whose environments could be particularly beneficial for ocean-based, nature-based solutions?

Bees were not covered by our report, but it is a universal truth that everything we can do in nature-based solutions must be good for bees. As we know, what is good for the bees is good for us all.

I turn to my asks. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that not only do we need a universal, horizontal approach to nature-based solutions but that it must go across all government departments? For example, I and others put down amendments in Committee and on Report of the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill to put nature-based solutions in that Bill, to give them the necessary level of importance in the potential investments that the UKIB would make. The Government did not accept those amendments. Does my noble friend regret that? Does he see that it would be important and a positive force to move forward on that in future?

My second ask echoes the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on ELMS. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we still need increased clarity and communication around ELMS? For a lot of farmers and landowners, it seems clear that it is difficult to see the wood for the ELMS.

Finally, as has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in a sense all of this goes to the critical importance of a universal, coherent, connected land use strategy. Does the Minister agree that we all need to focus more, and that the Government need to put more effort into bringing this about?

So much focus, attention and commentary is rightly around net zero, but as our report demonstrates, net zero is an important part but it is not the whole story. It has to be seen alongside nature-based solutions because even if we reach net zero, we still need, and should welcome, the benefits that nature-based solutions should bring. When she sums up, will my noble friend the Minister give full-throated support for everything that the Government can, should and will do on nature-based solutions?

13:25

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the committee and the staff for having produced the report we are debating today. I pay tribute to the previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I did not know until he spoke a moment ago that this is a wholly Covid-based report. I think this is the first debate I have taken part in that is based on a Covid-only investigation.

It was only yesterday that the Lord Privy Seal came to the Dispatch Box in the House and moved a Motion that will allow the Government to take priority over business on Thursdays from now until the end of Session —which is many months away—in order to allow more time in part, he said, to enable debates to take place on Select Committee reports because of the backlog that builds up. That is true in this case, as it has been more than a year since the report was published.

This Select Committee, which one day I hope to join, has produced an interesting and worthwhile report, and I do not need to add anything to the excellent introduction provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. More generally, I think it is important that the House as a whole grasps that one of the committee’s most important conclusions is that there remain “significant scientific uncertainties” about not only the nature of this report but in general. Life and science are full of uncertainty. How much carbon is stored in habitats? We do not fully know. How much can be sequestered by different habitats in future? We do not fully know. For how long might carbon remain sequestered in those habitats? We do not fully know. I agree with the previous speaker, and add that there is still an enormous degree of uncertainty about the role of the world’s oceans in carbon sequestration, which is another point made by the committee.

Another key point was to question whether the Government have an effective plan for resolving the

“many competing demands on the land”,

whether it is producing food or materials or providing space for nature or housing, or, as the Government pledged earlier this week, access to green space or blue water within 15 minutes of where we live. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I should have added that I welcome the Minister to what may be his first science debate, and I hope that there are many more. I look forward to him saying a bit more about the “spatially explicit analysis” which the Government have promised in their reply.

In this contribution, I want to convey the views of the Royal Society of Biology and its science team. In the interests of transparency, I ought to say that I worked for the Royal Society of Biology for 10 years, and I look back on those years with great fondness. I should add that I have been elected a fellow.

I want to make six points, briefly. First, investing in the workforce and technologies involved in creating and implementing nature-based solutions is crucial to unlock the solutions needed to achieve the Government’s environmental goals. The committee recognises that the UK does not yet have the range of skills required to deliver nature-based solutions at scale. Effective training and recruitment can allow the development and capture of a broad range of ideas, talents and experience, which can in turn better implement the required solutions. There is a story in the Times today reporting that citizen science is leading more people to nature, and I hope that in future that feeds through to more people taking an interest in this subject.

Secondly, increased investment in research and development is vital to generate more efficient, effective and responsible carbon sequestration techniques, the improvement of which is vital in addressing the climate crisis. This investment should also address funding discrepancies in areas such as research funding opportunities and infrastructure development.

Thirdly, as recommended by the committee, it is crucial that the Government’s plans for nature-based solutions, such as carbon sequestration schemes, are considered in tandem with their other environment-related polices, such as championing the 30 by 30 target and the commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss as outlined in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. It was only this week that the Minister came to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the EIP. Biodiversity loss is one of the great themes of our century and a great deal depends on the COP biodiversity conferences.

Fourthly, although initiatives such as increased tree planting are positive, they should be implemented with due consideration of the pre-existing habitat, such as avoiding planting on areas such as peatlands and species-rich grasslands, with the aim of maintaining and restoring the natural habitation of the UK landscape. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I wondered what that noise was. I now realise that it is me hitting the microphone.

This should include the types of environment and specific tree species present as opposed to the sole objective of maximising carbon sequestration. Failure to consider those in tandem with the net-zero objectives will lead to a greater problem in the long term, including further biodiversity loss.

Fifthly, as highlighted by the British Ecological Society, which is a member organisation of the Royal Society of Biology, it is important to understand that nature-based solutions are not the only answer to solutions on climate change.

Sixthly, it is important that nature-based solutions are implemented through effective public communication, dialogue and incentives, and that a combination of public and private investment will help to fund and facilitate nature-based solutions provided that they are effectively regulated and monitored. In short, we need more research; who would not say that?

Finally, in the moments I have left I turn to something that arose this week: the government reorganisation of the machinery of government at the centre, which is an important thing for us to touch on briefly today. The Prime Minister’s restructuring will have a considerable effect on government activity, including the subject that we are addressing today. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to say anything about this, but I am sure that anything he says will be very welcome and of interest.

I take the view that the break-up of BEIS will not be mourned. However, more importantly, the creation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology could provide this Government, and indeed any future Government, with a renewed sense of purpose and focus on making the UK the science superpower that we all hope to see. Of course, the change in the machinery of government will also take time to bed in. I mention this, because I think this committee might want to look that subject. It is certainly a worthy subject for a future report and a debate, but that is for another day.

In the meantime, I commend the committee’s report and I hope that it will prove a real contribution to the future success of nature-based solutions for climate change.

13:32

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. I must compliment the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who so expertly chaired the committee, on which I was privileged to serve, and produced such a fantastic report. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for so comprehensively introducing the report; there is very little left for us to say, especially on land use. I echo her thanks to the clerk of the committee and the staff, and to the special adviser, Professor Pete Smith.

Planet earth supports life above and below ground through the intricate web of independence of all living species, flora and fauna, in balance with the essential physical cycles of water, carbon and nitrogen. The biggest takeaway for me from this report is how woefully incomplete our understanding is of these forces and how they interact with each other. For example, we are only now beginning to understand the vital role of soil, be it onshore, in ancient rainforests, tropical or temperate, in mixed woodland, in peatlands, in grasslands or mangroves, or offshore. For the first time, we are beginning to appreciate the effectiveness of seagrass meadows, kelp forests, the seabed floor and algae as essential carbon sinks.

This report makes many recommendations on how much better we should be doing in understanding how to manage our land in the UK to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. I know that other noble Lords will cover that aspect, so I will concentrate most of my remarks on recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9, which all relate to the marine environment and the gaps in the evidence base about carbon sequestration in marine habitats.

In the report, we recommend collaboration between Natural England, the Crown Estate, the Marine Management Organisation, academics and other relevant bodies, and we asked Defra to support research on establishing the current and historical extent of marine habitats, their carbon sequestration rates and their long-term potential for carbon storage. In their response to the report, the Government cite a slew of collaborative efforts, and it is clear that in the run-up to COP 26 that was indeed the case. I thank the Government for their work on raising the profile of the marine environment. However, can the Minister tell us in what way that momentum has been maintained since November 2021?

Lastly on this issue, an important point was raised in recommendation 9 about the effects of bottom trawling on the decline of marine habitats. This was not addressed in the Government’s response, so can the Minister update your Lordships on research programmes by the MMO to look into this vital issue?

We are at a crucial point when global emissions need to be falling fast, yet they are in fact still rising and have not yet peaked. To reduce or even stabilise concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the world needs to reach net-zero emissions. This requires fast reductions in further anthropogenic emissions, and I hope that the creation of the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will bring greater emphasis on energy generation by renewables and end the preferential treatment of oil and gas producers in the North Sea, so that we can proceed with the phase-out of destructive greenhouse gases as fast as possible.

However, it is increasingly being realised that a huge expansion in global carbon removal capacity is required to deliver on global climate goals, and time is of the essence. Novel techniques such as carbon capture and storage; BECCS—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; direct air capture and enhanced rock weathering do not yet deliver at scale. Indeed, an Oxford University study found that all current carbon removals —that is, 2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per annum—come from conventional nature-based approaches, and nature-based solutions remain far more cost-effective than high-tech versions.

We are in such dire straits that it is essential that research into the newer emerging carbon removal techniques continues apace, but we must grasp what we know works today and protect existing carbon sinks wherever we find them in order to minimise emissions, such as from deforestation, and increase our efforts to create more of the carbon sinks that we know work—for example, planting the right trees in the right place—as fast as possible.

That is where carbon offsets come in, because they are a way of getting the trillions of pounds of investment that the World Economic Forum says is needed to reduce emissions. However, carbon offsetting schemes are open to abuse. The Climate Change Committee has recommended putting stronger regulation, guidance and standards in place to ensure that the purchase of carbon credits is not used as a substitute for direct business emissions reductions. This is the thrust of recommendation 39, which asks BEIS, as was, to provide clarity about what companies must do to claim net zero emissions.

The Government’s response, unfortunately, is not very satisfactory. The Minister will know that I have my name to a number of amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that are designed to deliver a functioning green taxonomy, sustainable finance disclosures plans, mandatory transition plans and clean supply chains from resources from deforestation, as an example. That would give the UK the momentum it needs to become a net-zero financial centre with reduced opportunities for greenwashing.

In conclusion, the report emphasises the importance of nature-based solutions in meeting our net-zero targets and points a way forward for the UK to be at the forefront of this opportunity. I recommend it to noble Lords.

13:39

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, it is my pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon, and I add my congratulations to the committee on such an excellent and thorough report conducted in very difficult circumstances. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her introduction and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his excellent chairing of this inquiry.

The summary of this document is excellent; it is very clear. It states that, although there are possible benefits from deploying nature-based solutions in tackling our growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there are significant scientific uncertainties about how carbon is stored in habitats now and how much will be sequestered in future. I will focus on that uncertainty in the few minutes that I have today, because it is fundamental to understanding how we can deploy capital into nature-based solutions without jeopardising our efforts to mitigate climate change.

I will explain why it is so important. Before Christmas, when the UK’s first deep coal mine was approved, the Minister said that it was going to be the world’s first carbon-neutral coal mine. The cynicism of that statement beggars belief. Not only was the very group that was supposed to be supplying the off-sets to the mine saying, “Please don’t count on us. We don’t want to sell you these credits. You’re going to damage our reputation”, but the coal mine was counting its emissions only from processing the coal, not from the actual content of coal being burnt.

I stress this, because it is wonderful to look at nature-based solutions, and this is an admirable report, but, on the other side of the ledger, if you sell a nature-based solution or a carbon sink, in many cases you are allowing a carbon emission to occur. They are totally different in their characteristics. It is not true to say that a tonne is equal to a tonne. That was the lie from the carbon market 20 years ago, and we know now that that is not the case. We know that when you burn coal and release into the atmosphere carbon that has been stored over millions of years in the earth, it will stay there for approximately 1,000 years, with a very high degree of certainty that it will cause impact. In fact, there is ever more evidence that it will cause impact the longer we go on, because it is a cumulative problem: these emissions build up over time. When we release tonnes now, they are even more damaging, because the carrying capacity is that much reduced.

Compare that certainty with the complete uncertainty of a nature-based carbon store. There is simply no equivalent. The report is excellent in pointing out that we need far more research and investment in infrastructure, monitoring, reporting, verification and regulation to make sure that this market does not lock us into a self-defeating cycle whereby we rely on nature to try to soak up the emissions from carbon dioxide but we allow the fossil fuel emissions that are driving climate change to continue, making our forests, land and soils that much more unstable and that much less resilient and durable. We are basically locking ourselves into a highly changeable system with high degrees of uncertainty and using false equivalence to tell ourselves this very seductive lie that we can carry on burning fossil fuels.

The report is clear that this is not a “get out of jail free” card and that it should be used only for residual emissions, but nowhere have the Government defined what they are. There is nothing here that points to the rules that need to be set that state how these things can be used and what can be used to claim against them. That is fundamental to this. We are in a brilliant position in the UK to address this, because we have the world’s best scientists located here, including atmospheric chemists. I am delighted that we have an atmospheric scientist in our midst today, Professor Ray Weiss from the University of California San Diego, an atmospheric chemist of long standing, who understands this far better than me. We have our own experts in this area, and a tall-tower network of sensors and monitors that allow us to know in great detail what is happening to our biosphere.

Those are the sorts of investments that we have to double down on, and I hope that the UK will join up its thinking on how it approaches the measurement of what is happening in the atmosphere. Again, the report is excellent. It states that we must have

“long-term research and monitoring … overseen by the relevant departments”

that will allow us to see the fluxes on a range of different sites around the country, so that we are not just using inventories and guessing whether these actions are delivering a carbon saving but measuring it, and over the long term, so that we have certain sense of whether we are making progress.

We cannot allow this to continue as business as usual. We have been trying to solve climate change for 30 years or longer and, in that time, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have simply got ever higher. We cannot afford a misstep where we allow the fossil fuel industry to make use of the seductive phrase “nature-based solutions” to carry on with business as usual.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to go back to the department and ask how we are using the infrastructure that the UK already has in its tall-tower monitoring system to backstop anything that we do on the opening up of private finance and markets into this area. We also have our public funding from ELMS and the reform of the agricultural subsidies, which is a safe space in which to look at, and experiment with, what works.

Let us do that first, get the groundwork done and be certain that this works before we say that it is open season for the private sector to use this and to develop a carbon market. I have studied carbon markets for far too long, and every one that I have looked at booms and busts, for good reason: this is difficult to do. So let us not rush into it and allow this to be abused by those who would seek to get off lightly from their contributions to climate change. I am delighted that this debate has been kicked off, and I again commend the report.

13:45

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my registered interests as a co-founder of a natural capital trading platform—one of many seeking to address some of the issues raised in this report—as a developer of natural capital projects to sequester carbon, as an investor in natural capital-related businesses, and as a land and forest owner. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the committee for this excellent report and debate.

I congratulate the Government on the Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code, which are world-leading certification standards. The later edition of the woodland carbon guarantee scheme was a masterstroke in creating confidence in future value. These schemes are uniquely high quality in the strength of the data, the strict qualification requirements and the conservative assumptions. The world has very few reliable certification standards. The Verra avoiding deforestation standard, REDD+, has been attacked by the Guardian for its limited reliability. The New Zealand scheme has led to the blanket planting of radiata pine, although at least this is admissible in its emissions trading scheme’s underpinning values. These codes already place the UK in pole position in this emerging industry. Many of the issues addressed in this excellent report are solvable by private capital, with government support needed in critical areas. In turn, that should lead to much lower financial calls on the Government to enable these outcomes.

High-credibility standards, which private capital is willing to invest in, are critical. The woodland and peatland carbon codes are done, but we await the soil and blue carbon codes, as well as helping to quantify the co-benefits. The crucial question of how to measure and value these co-benefits is raised very effectively in the report. For market acceptance, consistency with the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s principles and assessment framework, due during Q1 2023, will be necessary.

The second point where the industry needs government help is in creating profit incentives. The Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code are voluntary standards with limited tangible value. The industry needs improvement in the standing of these units and to see the creation of market demand for other aspects of natural capital, such as biodiversity, water management, cultural heritage, education, public access and visual impact.

We can bring down the cost and increase the transparency of delivering nature outcomes over time by creating that profit incentive, drawing entrepreneurial talent and capital. Even at this early stage of development, and without clarity around market structures, a plethora of start-up and established companies is improving the cost-effective baselining, monitoring, measuring, managing and analysing of these projects. Most of these use innovative hardware and/or software to create scalable and cost-deflationary solutions.

In ELMS, there is progress on many of these fronts, but three questions are unanswered for landowners. First, do the resulting goods belong to the landowner? When the Government fund actions such as afforestation, peatland restoration or natural habitat restoration, will these benefits belong to the Government or to the landowner? Only one entity can claim them.

Secondly, will the additionality qualification remain intact, even with government funding under ELMS? Expert buyers require that the scheme has the additionality of the units they are buying in order to go ahead. If the Government have financially incentivised the scheme, additionality may be compromised.

Finally, will the tax treatment of these assets be disadvantaged when focused on natural capital, rather than on agriculture or forestry?

I turn to some of the specific points in the report. There is a statement that commercial forestry carbon calculations are dependent on the use of harvested wood, but that is not the case under the Woodland Carbon Code. The code calculations assume that commercial forestry is clearfelled at maturity and the carbon lost, which means that only the average standing carbon over multiple rotations is recognised. Productive forestry captures carbon more rapidly than broadleaves and creates jobs for decades into the future, but it is handicapped in carbon forecasts by this clearfelling assumption. The primary use of hardwoods remains firewood. Are the Government’s calculations based on the code assumptions, or do they use a different methodology for carbon capture within a new forest?

Different industries have different opportunities to eliminate carbon, making a blanket 10% cap unreasonable. Usage discrimination through market pricing that incorporates all methodologies of reaching net zero is likely to provide the most efficient solution for allocating these off-sets to the appropriate sector. It is more than two years since the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets issued its final report. Have the Government considered its recommendations?

The report raises two other points that I will address briefly. UK forestry standard schemes are handicapped by a limited menu of tree species, as highlighted by the report; I believe there are around 60, when there are 3,000 to 4,000 species globally. Our narrow palette brings greater biological and climate risk, and largely references species reintroduced since the last ice age. I agree with the report that work needs to be done to extend this.

In response to the comments on planting into 30 centimetres of organic matter peat,, and I would like the Forestry Commission to stipulate methods of planting depending on soil types and conditions. Mounding is too widely used in the industry, and I would like to see techniques that are less disruptive to soil condition encouraged to minimise carbon emissions during planting and establishment. I would also like the Forestry Commission to look further at its yield class tables, which place caps at yield class 24 on Sitka spruce, for example, which can achieve well into the 30s. I believe that Ireland has already made that step.

13:51

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, it gives me great pleasure to support the excellent opening remarks by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. She has chaired the committee with great skill and good humour, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Both handled our many witnesses, including Ministers, with tact and diplomacy, as well as firing penetrating questions when we needed to cut through to hard evidence.

One of the problems in this inquiry was the evidence available in quantifying the relative benefits of these approaches as against others. It became clear that more research was needed to be able confidently to assert that some solutions were more beneficial than others and thus where the country needed to focus its efforts. Others have mentioned research. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are satisfied that adequate resource is being allocated for this essential research?

Our inquiry into nature-based solutions to climate change follows a number of related inquiries seeking to understand the role that different approaches and so-called solutions can play in responding to the climate and biodiversity crises we face as a society, as well as the UK’s path to net zero. A central issue for all these inquiries has been quantifying and assessing the UK’s skills gap, which must be bridged if we are to make any serious progress to net zero. Indeed, we chose to highlight this in one of our most recent reports. The deadline for the Minister’s response is next Wednesday, so I hope the Minister will gently remind his colleague George Freeman. The new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will hopefully bring another view in support of a STEM skills agenda into the Cabinet.

Even if we are confident about the way forward, do we have the skills to be able to follow through? This has been an intractable problem in the UK despite new policies being developed by every Government ever since I became involved in the education and skills area. We still have major challenges in developing in our people the skills that will enable the country to grow the economy in the way that we all want and need. I will focus my brief remarks on this aspect of our report.

We recommended that, to match their ambitious targets, the Government should establish equally ambitious skills and training programmes for land managers, authorities developing local nature recovery strategies and public delivery bodies. We also urged the Government to expand urgently training in the very specific areas where it was clear that there were gaps: surveying, monitoring and verifying, carbon accountancy, forestry ecology, and planning and carrying out nature-based solutions.

In their response to our report, the Government said that the Green Jobs Taskforce had helped to inform the net-zero strategy published in October 2021, yet this said nothing about these specific skills. They also said that they had invested £80 million in the green recovery challenge fund during Covid and £10 million in the natural environment investment readiness fund, but they did not address the committee’s recommendation that DfE and BEIS must allocate some of their funding to specific schemes for land managers and provide sufficient skilled personnel to meet the Government’s ambitious targets. Is it surprising that I remain concerned about the lack of urgency or even focus on this issue?

Our witnesses reflected those concerns. Our report states:

“The support of local authorities for the Local Nature Recovery Strategies will be essential, but the Association of Local Government Ecologists noted that fewer than a third of local authorities have ecological expertise. The Institute of Chartered Foresters said that a skills gap in tree-planting could undermine climate targets, and we heard from Professor Henderson that forestry skills ‘have deteriorated in the country over recent decades’. Richard Lindsay told us that, for the heavily emitting lowland peats, ‘the hoped-for strategy/solution’ is ‘this new concept of wetland farming’ but the skills required for that do not exist. Professor Stead, Chief Scientific Adviser, Marine Management Organisation, told us of marine nature-based solutions for which ‘the training and capacity building is not at a mature stage.’”


Our report notes that, when speaking for the Government,

“Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park acknowledged the scale of the skills challenge”,


saying that

“‘it would be wrong to pretend, at this stage, that the skills that will be needed in the medium and long term have been fully mapped out and identified, and that our workforce of the future, based on where we are today, will be ready for that challenge.’”

Despite the ongoing talks between Defra and the DfE to address these skills gaps,

“he acknowledged that the urgency of the agricultural transition leaves little time: ‘to hit the 2030 targets on biodiversity, we cannot wait until 2028 to have people doing that work.’”

That seems to be the Government’s position: they have set targets that they know they cannot meet. We have excellent further and higher education bodies, as well as public delivery bodies such as Natural England, that could fill that gap in training land managers and others to implement nature-based solutions. Will the Minister say why the Government are not harnessing this resource urgently? What route do they see for providing training in the timescales required for a transition over the next decade?

13:57

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for the thoughtful way in which she has introduced this report and my noble friend Lord Patel for the thoughtful, imaginative and determined way in which he chaired your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee in undertaking this important inquiry.

It is particularly appropriate that we take this debate a few weeks after the Royal Society published its report Multifunctional Landscapes: Informing a Long-Term Vision for Managing the UK’s Land. It is an interesting and informative report that identifies the opportunity for a data and science-driven approach to ensuring that we understand the capacity of UK land, the competing demands on it and how they might be addressed. Of course, as we have heard from noble Lords’ contributions during this important debate, this is a critical issue. Nature-based solutions are not a panacea for achieving net zero and addressing the climate change challenge, but they offer an important opportunity to make a fundamental contribution to achieving those net-zero targets.

Do we really understand the nature base? Are we properly informed about the sequestration capacity of different habitats? Do we understand the impact that our adjacent land use behaviour in total currently has on these different environments? Do we understand how much carbon is already stored in these habitats? Do we understand what behaviour and activity are doing to degrade these habitats and subsequently release carbon? These are all important issues that need to be informed through an appropriate knowledge base, database and science base. Of course, the technology for us to be able to do this in a systematic fashion becomes increasingly available.

I should declare some specific interests in that I was a member of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee and that I serve as a member of the advisory board of the Royal Society and chairman of the 1851 commission. In your Lordships’ report and in that of the Royal Society, it is recognised that we need common standards, an approach to appropriate metrics, a data standard, methodology protocols and, potentially, the development of a common evidence platform available to inform all land use in our country. That would subsequently help us to understand where nature-based solutions sit.

Beyond that, we need more fundamental research to characterise those different habitats. Do we really understand the nature of our forests? Do we really understand the interplay of the age those forests’ different tree habitats, the broader biodiversity attending the soil and the importance of the different species of trees available in those habitats? Are we properly informed about the true stored carbon content and the ultimate sequestration capacity of peatlands and wetlands? What do we really understand about the marine environment even in our own coastal waters? It is a protected environment that we are proud of, but only 5% of it bans trawling of the seabed. How can that be logical and why is it tolerated? Do we have a science base that helps us properly to understand the implications of that?

When we think about broader land use, are we conscious of the impact of land use adjacent, for instance, to a protected marine environment? What impact does land use for building and for other purposes have on that environment, its biodiversity, its potential destruction and therefore the erroneous assumptions that we might make about that environment making an important contribution to sequestration and ultimate storage of carbon?

Is the Minister content that His Majesty’s Government have a proper, whole-government, holistic approach to establishing a research and evidence base that helps us to best understand the true potential and capacity of our nature base to provide nature-based solutions for net zero and address the climate challenge? In supporting the establishment of an appropriate science evidence base, are we also cognisant of the opportunity to drive innovation in this area—innovative technologies that allow us to map these environments appropriately, bring those data together and make them readily available for all who are responsible for land management? Are we clear that that science base will be used to develop government policy appropriately? We pride ourselves on having an informed science base informing the development of policy. Are we content that is happening with regard to policy to drive the opportunities for nature-based solutions?

14:03

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak in the gap, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her excellent introduction to this report, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his chairmanship of the Science and Technology Committee.

This valuable, forensic and detailed report identifies that in this area of climate policy, as in most of them, the Government have rhetoric but no plans for delivery—as the title suggests. First, the report, says that

“the UK does not have the requisite skills to deliver … solutions at scale”

and no plans to create them. Secondly,

“there is huge uncertainty about the details of policies that will incentivise nature-based solutions”.

Thirdly,

“more funding is required in several key areas”.

However, I want to focus on one crucial sentence in the report:

“Nature-based solutions are not a get out of jail free card.”


We have both to stop emitting greenhouse gases and to restore our natural world. No trade-off is scientifically possible. Offsetting is a con, a cheat, a fiction. I am building here on the comments, in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but also from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. One way of explaining this is by looking at the difference between biology and geology.

First, as the report says, there is scientific uncertainty about how much carbon is stored, and how it can be stored in different habitats, and how long it will remain. The timescale of ecosystems—of biology—is, if you are lucky, years, but it is often months, days, or even minutes. A wildfire sweeps through a forest—I grew up in Australia, and I have watched bushfires all too close up—and, within a blink of an eye, a lot of the so-called stored carbon is in the atmosphere.

By contrast, geological timescales run to hundreds of millions of years. Up to around 400 million years ago, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were up to 6,000 parts per million. We are now at less than a 10th of that, albeit 50% up from the level at the start of the industrial revolution. Over hundreds of millions of years, geological processes locked vast amounts of carbon underground, mostly deep underground. It was never going to emerge, at least on our human timescale—if you take a 24-hour timescale, we as a species have been on this planet for just one second—until we started to dig it up. The best possible carbon capture and storage is to leave the coal in the hole, the gas in the ground, the oil in the orb. That carbon capture and storage is free, certain and essential.

Secondly, biological systems are living systems. They are flexible, ever changing, adaptive, complex far beyond our current understandings. Unlike claims still sometimes made, just dropping a lot of organic matter into the soil—as good an idea as that is for both biodiversity and food security—will not necessarily increase soil carbon. To quote a recent journal article,

“Persistence of organic matter in the soil depends on chemical, physical, environmental, and/or biological factors.”


It is complex.

The fact is that biology is not going to rescue us, which means that we have to stop growing our economy. We have to operate within the physical limits of this one fragile planet. We have to rescue ourselves by transforming our economic and social system from a way of life built on carbon emissions to one that will stabilise this planet.

14:08

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the wind-up speeches in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and all involved in producing this report. It was an honour and a pleasure to serve on the committee. The evidence we heard was compelling—sometimes shocking, in particular on bottom-trawling—and the recommendations that we made are important.

Our findings gave us much cause for concern. We heard about major gaps in the research and data needed to give confidence to the decisions and measures that we need to take to reduce emissions and sequester more carbon in our land and marine environments. For example, we wanted to see more on-farm trials and more research on sequestration in marine environments. However, we found that there is enormous potential in the UK to do better and to take full advantage of the potential of nature-based solutions to help us to reach net zero. While we wait for more evidence, it should not stop us taking action; the precautionary principle must apply.

We heard that we do not have enough people with the appropriate skills and knowledge to do the science, design the programmes and put them into practice. Neither is there a plan in place to achieve the skilled workforce that we need in the numbers that we need when we need them.

We heard about many problems related to farming and land use. The various government land management schemes have been too late for farmers and land managers to plan for the future of their business, and there has too little information and help on eligibility for and accessibility to the schemes, too little advice for farmers and very serious issues for tenant farmers. We heard that, although there is growing interest in investing in natural assets and environment schemes, these need to be properly regulated, on the one hand, and give greater certainty to investors about returns on the other.

Finally, we heard that there is currently no effective plan to resolve the competing demands on land. Indeed, a recent report suggested that to honour all the demands on land, we would need double the land mass we have.

Let me look at some of our recommendations, the Government’s response and ask some questions. There are many players and organisations involved in this massive mission. Two of the key ones are Natural England and the Environment Agency. We recommended that, given the growing demand for their services to fulfil government policies, they need more funding. In response, the Government tell us that they have given an uplift of £1.4 million to Defra over three years—less than £500,000 per year. How much of that will go to those two agencies? They will need more funding as the need for mitigation rises due to the increased number of extreme weather events we are seeing. I refer particularly to flood risk.

We asked for a coherent plan for skills training. The Government established a task force whose work informed the net-zero strategy of October 2021. We are told that there is £40 million in the Green Recovery Challenge Fund, of which £10 million comes from the nature recovery fund and £30 million from Nature for Climate funding. There is also a £10 million in the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund. All this has to be applied for and is allocated competitively. I have three questions for the Minister. How much of that will go into relevant skills training? How much of it is new money? How are all the recipients of these pots of money being co-ordinated to ensure that a coherent plan for skills is developed and delivered?

We also recommended that a direct and independent expert advisory service be created to assist farmers to apply for schemes, reduce their emissions, produce food more efficiently and sustainably, sequester more carbon in their soils and protect biodiversity. The answer was another fund. It is the Future Farming Resilience Fund of £9 million, and it goes to organisations that will give free advice to farmers and support their transition towards net zero. How will farmers themselves be involved in the design of this support? Have they been asked if they want the workshops which are to be funded? Given that all farms are different, would they not find one-to-one advice more useful, based on information about their particular land, soil and business plan? Although land sparing such as tree planting can sequester more carbon, there are many effective land-sharing approaches, such as silvopasture and hedge planting. When can we expect to see the results of the relevant research on these systems?

We also recommended that the Government should be clear about what companies must do to claim that they are net zero. There seems to be a lot of greenwashing about, but there must always be additionality. Some companies claim that they have reduced the emissions from how they produce their goods or deliver their services but are allowed to ignore what happens to those goods afterwards. I am thinking of plastic goods or fossil-fuel producers such as coal mines. Offsets cannot be a substitute for reducing emissions. When can we expect to see the strong framework of standards and rules for investment in ecosystem services promised in the Government’s response? When will we see flexibility for aggregating multiple projects and combining public and private funding?

Finally, two big things stand out for me. First, we recommended that the Government produce a land use strategy. I accept that that is very difficult, given the competing demands, but someone has to do it and I should like to know from the Minister who that will be and on what scientific and policy basis. Will the Government be implementing the recommendation of the Committee on Land Use in England to create a land use commission?

The other big thing was the issue of tenant farmers. So many witnesses outlined the barriers to tenants participating in schemes to reduce their emissions and increase biodiversity that we became very concerned about their role in reaching net zero. Rents are rising, as is the cost of inputs; the security of basic payments is being withdrawn with too little certainty about what is replacing them, and tenant farmers are being asked to deliver more for the environment without impacting food security.

Tenant farmers are a large and important part of the farming community, so the Government set up a working group, under our committee colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, to review the issues and make recommendations. I was surprised by some of the figures on the very first page of her report. Sixty-four per cent of the total farmable area in England is either wholly or partly rented, a very large part of the whole. Secondly, the average length of new farm business tenancies in 2021 was three years. With a tenancy as short as that, how does anyone expect a tenant to invest in the long-term health of his soil and the productivity and biodiversity of his land?

The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, unfortunately is unable to speak today. However, her report made many excellent recommendations about how government schemes should be designed to make them “tenant proof”, to involve tenant farmers and to enable both tenants and landowners to benefit from schemes designed to fulfil government’s environmental policies. Unless those things happen, participation will be poor, farmers will go out of business and government policies will not be achieved. Could the Minister outline the Government’s response to the Rock report? The noble Baroness asked for

“an open and collaborative approach between tenants and landlords”.

This exists in some places, but by no means all. What can the Government do to make schemes fair for all and encourage this collaborative approach?

14:16

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to this excellent debate about this extremely timely and important report. I join others in thanking the members of the Science and Technology Committee for their contributions today and for all the work that they have done over a significant time. I thank in particular the former chair, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, for her excellent introduction to the report.

Timing is everything in these debates, and it is particularly worth noting that this report is being debated in a week when Whitehall has seen a significant change in the arrangement of departments. We hope that separating energy policy and net zero from the former BEIS is a reflection of the Government’s recognition of the urgency, expressed so much today, of this agenda. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate to us that that message around urgency has been heard and how it will translate into practice. What we need to hear is that the change will lead to more policy output, but Defra’s recent suite of environmental targets has given some of us the impression that the Government do not fully appreciate the urgency of the matters we are discussing today.

The contributions today have been striking, with the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Sheehan, each coming in on this agenda. Of course, the discussion has focused inevitably on the areas of uncertainty. I pay tribute to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. There is little doubt that nature-based solutions are recognised as having an important role to play in the transition to a cleaner, greener future.

My noble friend Lady Warwick stressed, as have others, the importance of the skills agenda. In so many of the areas that I speak on, the skills shortages that this country is facing are reaching crisis point. In acknowledging the lack of skills in this area, I will pick a specific example. The Government recently announced the Forestry Training Fund, offering free training to those who want to move into the forestry industry. Of course we welcome the initiative, but where is the follow-up? Why has it taken so long for Ministers to bring it forward? How many people do the Government expect to come forward, and do they think that it will generate more interest than their failed Pick for Britain campaign of several years ago?

We have discussed the other major concern about land use, an area which the House explored at length during the passage of the Environment Bill, with the Government unfortunately resisting calls from my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for the publication of a dedicated land use strategy. We will not scale up nature-based solutions without buy-in from the private sector, whether in the form of finance or delivery capacity. That is why, during the Lords stages of the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, Labour supported an amendment to expand that legislation’s definition of infrastructure to include nature-based solutions. If the Government are so keen to ensure private sector involvement in important projects, why did they overturn that sensible amendment in the House of Commons?

Finally, the committee drew attention to the need for landowners and farmers to have certainty about future funding arrangements, including, as we have heard, through the Government’s ELMS. Could we ask again—I hope we will get a response to the Minister—how the Government aim to settle the important question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, about competing demands on land use? It is now several years since the Agriculture Act was passed and, although there have been announcements on ELMS in recent weeks, the process has been fraught with delays, miscommunications and other difficulties.

We have so much consensus in this area. The questions that we are all asking is why there is so much delay and why so much opportunity is being missed. We understand the need for research programmes. As we have highlighted today, the uncertainty is there, and more research and more funding are required to make sure that that takes place. We understand the need for extensive consultation when so many key players are involved, but the clock is ticking. Can I borrow the report’s excellent title and say that we need to turn rhetoric into reality?

14:23

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land management, as set out in the register. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on securing this debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points raised and to provide an update on the actions that have been taken since the publication of the Science and Technology Committee report. I agree at the outset with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and other noble Lords about the urgency and extreme importance of tackling climate change.

As was acknowledged following the report’s publication in January 2022, the Government are grateful to the committee for the report and pleased that our ambitious plans for nature-based solutions have been recognised. Nature-based solutions are key to tackling climate change and averting its impacts. They deliver multiple benefits for climate, biodiversity, and people, and play a critical role in our plans to tackle the interrelated climate and biodiversity crises.

At the time of publication, the Government acknowledged the challenges and risks raised by the committee and set out the action being taken with our delivery partners to address these issues. Following the important announcements in this area since the publication of the report and in recent weeks, I welcome the opportunity to provide an update on the key themes raised in the report and in this debate.

First, I will provide an update on our overarching targets and progress being made. We have stretching nature-based targets that set out the Government’s strong ambition to protect and improve our landscapes. We are working tirelessly to ensure that our targets become a reality and that progress is being made.

Starting with forestry, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, raised the need for more action in this area. We have full confidence that our targets are achievable and have increased tree planting and woodland creation in England from 2,700 hectares in 2021-22 to now investing £750 million through our Nature for Climate Fund, which will support England’s contribution to our UK-wide target of planting 30,000 hectares of new woodland annually from May 2024. Tree planting is a key priority in the environmental land management schemes, which I will provide more detail on shortly.

On support for nurseries, also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the Government committed in the England Trees Action Plan 2021 to 2024 to provide funding for UK public and private sector nurseries and seed suppliers and to set up the sector capacity project. In addition, £879,000 has been provided through the Tree Production Innovation Fund to encourage the adoption of innovative ways of working in the nursery sector. Last year, a new tree production capital grant opened for applications, providing capital support to nurseries and seed suppliers to modernise facilities and improve the quantity, quality, diversity and biosecurity of planting stock available for planting in England.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised the subject of tracking marine biodiversity. In English waters, we have established a network of marine protected areas across more than 35,000 square miles. We have just created a new statutory target for 70% of designated beaches in marine protected areas to be in a favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition and with an interim target of 48% of designated beaches to be in favourable condition by 31 January 2028, in line with the trajectory required to achieve the long-term target.

On peatland, we are delivering on our commitment to restore 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050, which is supported by funds such as the Nature for Climate Peatland Grant Scheme and the new environmental land management schemes. Through the development of the peat restoration road map, to be published in 2024 by Natural England, we will be able to set out a trajectory for restoration over the next 20 years.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised the subject of lowland peat used for agriculture. I thank him for highlighting this important issue of peatland restoration and, in particular, for highlighting the focus areas for the Government. In 2021, the lowland agricultural peat task force commenced working with stakeholders to deliver recommendations for a more sustainable future for lowland peatland in England. Its aim is to identify ways of extending the usable life of our agricultural peat soils to preserve the carbon stored in them and to ensure that profitable agriculture can continue for decades to come. The task force will report to government in the summer.

To meet our global climate target under the Paris agreement and our commitment to net zero, we need peatland restoration and opportunities for woodland expansion to happen without one compromising the other. Our commitments are reinforced in our recently published Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which is delivery-focused and sets out the actions that will drive us towards reaching our long-term goals. It includes stretching interim targets to be achieved by the next review of the plan, driving progress towards our new long-term targets as required by the Environment Act 2021.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised the issue of skills and research and development. Of course, action to meet our headline targets must be underpinned by research and development and the necessary skills to deliver, issues which the committee report highlighted in detail.

The Government recognise the importance of investing in these areas. In the net-zero strategy we committed to £75 million on net zero-related research and development to inform our pathway to 2037. Defra is involved with many research and development projects to address evidence gaps and inform policy-making on agroforestry, lowland peat and hedgerow planting. Projects cover areas such as: understanding how climate stress will affect tree species in the future; the £5.6 million Paludiculture Exploration Fund, which looks at tackling barriers to developing that farming practice as commercially viable; and further modelling to estimate the potential benefits of hedgerow creation on carbon storage and sequestration.

A focus of the committee was on the need to build a stronger evidence base on blue carbon habitats in the UK, and a number of actions are being taken in this area. The UK’s recently published UK Net Zero Research and Innovation Framework identifies research needs on coastal wetland habitats to support improved greenhouse gas accounting and reporting as a priority. Research and development was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

On agroforestry, Defra is currently involved in several agroforestry research projects that are looking at different evidence gaps, including expanding agroforestry in an evidence review and gap analysis to fill in key evidence requirements. Furthermore, Farm Tree will develop decision-support tools for integrating trees on agricultural land and Agroforestry Futures will identify opportunities for, and barriers to, an expansion of agroforestry into peri-urban areas and rural parts of the UK. The Agroforestry Pollinator Plantations project aims to understand how climate stress will affect tree species and which tree and shrub species growing in the UK will be suitable for future climates.

In the England Trees Action Plan, we committed to an ambitious research and development programme which includes building more evidence for the reintroduction of woodland species such as the pine marten, supporting the development of innovative wood products and building the evidence base on how best to protect and enhance ancient woodlands.

Defra has committed £1.2 million from the net-zero research and development allocation over the spending review period to further build the blue carbon evidence base. My noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about work on the seas. In 2022, we established the UK Blue Carbon Evidence Partnership, through which UK Administrations are working together with BEIS, as it was, and Defra to address key research questions related to blue carbon policy, advancing our commitment to protect and restore these habitats to support them as nature-based solutions. An initial aim of the partnership has been to set out key research questions related to blue carbon by producing an evidence needs statement, which will be published in spring 2023.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised the issue of bottom trawling, which can cause carbon dioxide to be released from sediments. However, the processes are complex and the impact of trawling on carbon dioxide remains uncertain. That is why Defra is actively progressing the evidence space to better understand the resilience and recovery of sea biodiversity stores in sediments in response to human practices and management interventions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, raised the issue of skills and growing the workforce. This will be essential to delivering on our targets. We are taking action across key sectors, such as scoping out options for a research project on peat-restoration sector capability. We continue to develop new educational routes and career opportunities around skills in the forestry sector. A new Forestry Commission development woodland officer apprenticeship has been launched jointly with the University of Cumbria and the Institute of Chartered Foresters. It is the first time a degree-level forestry apprenticeship has been offered in the UK. In addition, through the Forestry Commission, we are supporting the Forestry Skills Forum in refreshing its action plan for England, which will raise the profile of forestry careers among school leavers and career changers.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lady Walmsley, asked about green jobs and job opportunities. Last May, the Government established the Green Jobs Delivery Group, bringing together Ministers from BEIS, Defra and the Department for Education with leaders from the green economy, skills sectors, academia and trade unions to ensure that the UK has the pipeline of people needed to deliver our climate and environment ambitions. The new Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 reaffirms our commitment to this continued joint working to address skills needs in priority sectors, including sustainable land use and nature.

Advancing our research and skills allows us to develop and deliver targeted policies to support our key sectors in taking collective action. We recently set out plans for the environmental land management schemes designed to support the nation’s farming sector to be profitable and resilient as it produces food sustainably while protecting nature and enhancing the environment. Key announcements to support our ambitious nature targets covered the following.

The first is accelerating the rollout of the Sustainable Farming Incentive, with six new sets of paid actions for 2023, adding to the three already in place. This will provide farmers with a range of paid actions to manage hedgerows for wildlife, plant nectar-rich wildflowers and manage crop pests without the use of insecticides. The SFI application window is continuously open, and applications continue to be received. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. It has always been the intention to add more elements to SFI as funding is released from BPS reductions.

Secondly, expanding our popular Countryside Stewardship Scheme to reward farmers for action to support climate and nature will see around 30 additional actions available to farmers by the end of 2024.

Thirdly and lastly, applications for further rounds of the landscape recovery scheme will open in spring and in 2024. Round 2 will focus on net zero, protected sites and habitat creation, including landscape-scale projects creating and enhancing woodland, peatland, nature reserves and protected sites such as ancient woodlands, wetlands and salt marshes.

My noble friend Lord Roborough raised the issue of tax around assets focused on natural capital rather than agriculture or forestry. HMRC and Defra are considering the evidence that inheritance tax might be a potential barrier to the conversion of land from agricultural to environmental use in some situations. HRMC recently updated its IHT manual to help clarify the position, and further updates will follow in due course. Analysis, including discussions with external stakeholders, is taking place, and the Government are looking carefully at what changes may be required.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised the issue of landowner engagement. Agroforestry is an innovative practice that has a significant role to play in achieving the Government’s commitment to increased tree planting across the UK. Therefore, Defra is introducing agroforestry as part of ELMS; it will play a key role in increasing tree cover on farms. Agroforestry can provide a source of income to the farmer from both the marketable agricultural enterprise and forestry-generated products. This diversity will help reduce the risks from fluctuating agricultural markets and help stimulate and build resilience into the rural economy, without compromising the ability to produce food.

We know we will need to continue to develop our schemes, based on the learnings from our pilots, tests and trials and early rollouts. We will work with stakeholders across the whole sector to achieve this. There are many benefits to delivering nature-based solutions and they play a key role in our efforts to adapt to climate change. Defra is working across government to develop a third national adaptation programme for publication in 2023. This will include key actions for restoring nature and enhancing its ability to adapt to climate change risks, as well as maximising the benefits for communities.

As emphasised in the committee report, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, finance is a key enabler for meeting our climate targets. Nature-based projects need to be financially attractive to landowners and investors. The noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lady Walmsley, both raised the subject of investment. The Government have committed to maintain the farming budget for England at £2.4 billion per year throughout this Parliament, and I have outlined how we are repurposing funding for farmers and land managers as part of the agricultural transition.

We are already seeing progress. Currently, there are around 40,000 agreements in our countryside and environmental schemes, covering about 34% of agricultural land. There are 94% more countryside stewardship agreements now than in January 2020. By 2028 we plan to increase the number of agreements to at least 70,000 in our environmental land management schemes, covering 70% of farmed land and 70% of all farms, so that farmers and land managers can collectively deliver our ambitious targets for the environment, climate and food production. We are committed to being transparent about the budget and how it will be spent. We included in the Agriculture Act a requirement for government to publish an annual report about the budget, and we did this for the first time in 2022.

Alongside publicly funded schemes, the Government have set a target to raise at least £500 million in private finance to support nature’s recovery every year by 2027 in England, rising to more than £1 billion per year in 2030. To set the conditions to achieve this, we are taking a number of actions, including supporting the development of nature projects that can attract private capital through our £10 million Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund and accelerating the natural capital investment market by investing £30 million in a new, blended finance vehicle for nature: the Big Nature Impact Fund.

We continue supporting the Woodland Carbon Code and the Peatland Code to encourage private investment, with registrations continuing to increase. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for his recognition of these as world-leading certification standards.

Both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, highlighted the importance of strong governance and standards in the current markets for nature-based solutions. The UK has championed initiatives to strengthen and scale up high-integrity voluntary carbon markets, including under our COP 26 presidency.

The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, raised the issue of high integrity in carbon markets. We have launched multi-stakeholder initiatives such the Integrity Council on Voluntary Carbon Markets, and the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative, to establish the very highest standards.

We are developing plans to put in place a comprehensive suite of domestic standards for nature markets to provide assurances of high integrity, create confidence in the market and allow investment to flow at scale into a much wider range of ecosystem services and habitats. We will ensure that, as we develop new domestic standards, we draw on relevant international best practice.

Several noble Lords raised competing demands on land. It is vital that we make the most productive use of our land and strike the right balance between the many priorities that place a demand on land, including food security, sustainable development, action on climate mitigation and adaptation, and promoting nature’s recovery. The noble Baronesses, Lady Brown, Lady Walmsley and Lady Blake, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and my noble friend Lord Holmes all mentioned the need for a clear land use strategy, as did the committee’s report. The Government recognise the importance of this and of managing these trade-offs, and we have therefore committed to publishing a land use framework in 2023 to bring greater alignment in policies affecting land.

I thank all noble Lords here for taking part in this crucial debate and for raising many important points that I will take back to Defra and colleagues across Whitehall. I will look at Hansard and write to noble Lords to follow up on any questions that I have been unable to answer. The Government have committed to leaving the environment in a better place than we found it. There is no doubt that nature-based solutions play a vital part in achieving our ambitions, and, although we recognise that there is work to do, we are confident that we have a strong foundation to build on. With our recent announcements and ongoing commitment to action, we will continue working with key stakeholders in the sector and our delivery partners to deploy nature-based solutions to improve our natural environment and support the climate agenda.

14:46

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his extensive response. I was pleased that he mentioned a lot of numbers and actions, and I too will study Hansard carefully—I will take them away and think about them further. At the moment, however, I fear I am still not convinced that they add up to an integrated solution to this issue.

I too thank all who have spoken in this debate—I will not repeat what noble Lords said so eloquently. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Bennett, for reminding us of what I will call the “zeroth” law of nature-based solutions, which is that they cannot be used as an excuse for not decarbonising rapidly. In that vein, the first law is that nature-based solutions are critical for achieving net zero for our residual emissions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, reminded us. The second law is that more research and training are needed. The third is that they will not work without robust monitoring and verification. The fourth is that this is not just a Defra issue; it needs the cross-government approach that the Minister mentioned. The fifth is that we must establish robust ways to fund them and we must have offsets that we can trust. The sixth is that our farmers are critical and need our help.

I hope that, as a result of today’s debate, the Government will reflect further—I think I heard the Minister say this, which pleased me—on whether the scale and pace of their current and proposed actions add up to a solution to the challenge of effective implementation and use of nature-based solutions in helping us reach net zero.

Motion agreed.

Sport, Health and Well-being National Plan (NPSRC Report)

Thursday 9th February 2023 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

14:50

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, A National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing (HL Paper 113, Session 2021-22).

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, one of the truest aphorisms in sport in the UK is that the world of sports politics makes the House of Commons look tame by comparison. Recognising that, we, as Members of this House who served on the House of Lords National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee should be more than grateful for the outstanding chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, to whom we give our heartfelt thanks and owe lasting respect. With his characteristic Yorkshire charm, good grace, passionate love for sport and commitment to the interests of young people, he steered the 12 members of the committee through the often choppy waters of the world of sports politics—its opaque bureaucracy, sometimes overlapping and intertwined, at others siloed, usually unaccountable, febrile in its complexity but nevertheless united in a passion for the benefits that sport can bring to our lives.

The noble Lord brought his crew safely through the years of Covid and across the finishing line with a range of compelling recommendations to show for his dedicated hard work and service to the subject. The fact that he did so with such enthusiastic generosity of spirit and insight into the lives of the many people whom he both felt and knew had been denied the opportunity to benefit from participating in sport and recreation, and denied the chance to live better and healthier lives, was always there when he opened the questions to the many witnesses who came before us. His absence from opening this debate today, due to illness, is a cause for sadness on all sides of the Committee. Our sincere best wishes go to him.

In recognising the noble Lord’s contribution as our chair, our thanks also go out to our committee staff: Michael Berry our clerk, Katie Barraclough our policy analyst and Hannah Murdoch, our committee operations officer. Their professionalism was clear from day one. They benefited from a genuine enthusiasm, bordering on passion, for the subject matter we were considering, and this seminal report could not have been completed without their close and effective co-operation with Dr Chris Mackintosh, our special adviser. We are very grateful for the huge amount of excellent work he undertook.

Another key member of our team was Owen Williams, our head of press and media, who recognised that the subject was of national importance and appealed to all ages, and showcased the work of your Lordships’ House at its best. His team did not fail to take those opportunities, not least with children’s TV, linking up with Sky “Kids FYI”, the young people’s news show. In so doing, they were enthusiastically backed in this endeavour by members of the committee, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brady. “FYI” even undertook to research among children, the results of which were submitted to the committee, which clearly showed an appetite to be more active in and out of school.

We welcome the maiden speech today of my noble friend Lord Effingham, who is a very welcome new Member of our Benches. We look forward to hearing his contribution.

Overall, we held nearly 30 evidence sessions, analysing over 160 written submissions of evidence over the course of the year. Dr Chris Mackintosh’s own take on the work of the committee is worthy of recording. He said:

“I believe the suggested framework for the National Plan is driven by evidence and can provide the genuine opportunity for catalytic change. Hopefully this is a watershed moment that creates a more radical vision for community sport, wellbeing and physical activity—the time is certainly right for this change.”


Central to our recommendations, we are calling for the development of a long-term, cross-governmental national plan for sport, health and well-being. The national plan will form an overarching framework document which will set out the Government’s vision, aims and objectives over a multi-year period and will bring together disparate strategies covering physical activity, health promotion, planning, housing, education, transport and more. This will mean that some existing strategies such as Sporting Future will need to be incorporated into the national plan and reflect the new way of working, but not abandoned.

We then called for a Minister for Sport to be appointed within the Department of Health and Social Care, moving away from the existing Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We called for the establishment of a national physical activity observatory to address the existing limitations in national, regional and local monitoring and evaluation in sport and recreation policy.

We called for better teacher training, particularly for primary school teachers, including greater emphasis on PE and physical literacy training. We called for schools and colleges to be encouraged to develop closer links with local sports clubs to tackle drop-out from physical activity that often occurs when people leave full-time education.

We hope that the Department for Education will guarantee funding for the PE and sport premium at least at current levels, but not just in the short or medium term but in the long term. We looked for the introduction of a statutory requirement for local authorities to provide and maintain

“adequate facilities for sport and physical activity, backed up with adequate financial support from the Treasury”.

We looked for the designation of PE as a core national curriculum subject to ensure that it received “adequate time and resource”, and the creation of a robust approach to duty of care and safeguarding in grassroots and elite support, backed by financial sanctions and built on the findings of the independent review of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, Duty of Care in Sport, published in 2017. We looked for a national register of coaches to maintain standards in safeguarding and child protection as well as an ombudsman for duty of care in sport, and close working with the sector to introduce mandatory reporting

“given the potential for abuse in sport”.

We untangled the webs which obfuscate the key delivery mechanisms of the sector by placing emphasis on physical literacy; accessibility and availability of facilities and spaces; tackling discrimination; public messaging campaigns; addressing health inequalities and the need for more social prescribing, and sport for development in criminal justice settings.

We believed passionately in the importance of instilling a lifelong habit of sport and physical activity. We recognised the need for major progress in the delivery of PE and school sport, addressing cost, facilities and accessibility—not least to the countryside.

What was the genesis of the sense of frustration that members of the committee felt? It was excellently summarised by our chair, who said:

“I thought the committee would look very narrowly at sport and recreation and what could be done for them, but it ended up with a set of proposals that are quite revolutionary, which state something really quite different about the way forward, not only for sport and recreation but for the NHS itself … How is it possible that the UK is world-leading in elite and professional sports, that 3 billion people across the world watch our Premier League matches in over 187 different countries and that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has consistently said, at Olympics after Olympics … we have failed at grass-roots level to get more people from more diverse backgrounds to be more active, despite all the investment that successive Governments have made? … With one-third of the adult population at the moment getting less than 150 minutes of moderate activity each week; with schoolchildren doing consistently less activity both at school and at home; with PE marginalised in the school curriculum and no longer inspected by Ofsted while, as we heard in our evidence, many primary school teachers get less than three hours’ training in a three-year degree course, which is shameful, so physical literacy in most of our primary schools means nothing, frankly, because it does not appear on the league tables; with access to facilities ever more difficult; with local authorities closing swimming pools and leisure centres to save resources; and with transport non-existent for large parts of the day for large swathes of the community, we have become one of the most lazy, inactive nations in the … world. Those sections of the population with the poorest diets and the worst levels of deprivation are, not surprisingly, the least active, too, and of course the pandemic has disproportionately affected all the target groups.”—[Official Report, 4/2/22; cols. 1207-09.]


No one in this Committee could have put it better.

We on the committee concluded that the day had arrived to bring sport and recreation away from the touchlines of Whitehall to the centre of government, where, led from a position of strength and embedded at the centre of the Department of Health, sport could be united with health and well-being to play a pivotal role in our health policy. Then and only then can we truly promote a proactive health agenda as Governments have been doing across the world, from Australia and New Zealand to Norway, Sweden and France. Only then will we achieve effective cross-departmental work, which is touted as a goal by successive Ministers for Sport but which remains a chimera—a benign illusion that withers on the vine when road-tested for effectiveness.

Our hope was that funding would then “coalesce around the national plan”. We looked enviously at New Zealand, whose strength at elite level lay in a strong emphasis on participation and opportunity for all: a pathway from all local communities to podium success. New Zealand’s well-being budget model was seen as well thought through and inspirational in co-ordinating departmental budgets and departmental agendas. Those who designed and led the New Zealand strategy clearly recognised that sport and an effective, active lifestyle played an increasing role in virtually all government departments. Such is the power of sport.

High levels of physical inactivity remain a major issue of national concern. Inadequate steps have been taken to tackle childhood obesity and inactivity. At grass-roots level, women, disabled people, the elderly, ethnic minorities, those with long-term health problems and people from less affluent backgrounds had suffered most from inadequate opportunities, poor information flows, local authority cuts and numerous underwhelming attempts to boost activity rates.

A central raison d’être for hosting the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games—a healthier, more active population inspired by our great athletes—has failed to materialise. While the urban regeneration of the East End of London and the consistent funding of our elite athletes have been a success, the opportunity to raise the bar for physical activity at grass-roots level was seen by the committee to have been lost and has yet to recover.

We learned in answer to a Written Parliamentary Question tabled on 22 July 2021 that the complement of the team who worked on sports policy was just 25—25 enthusiastic, capable people who could easily transfer with their Minister to the Department of Health. Even the Minister for Sport in his evidence was not against that proposal. Yesterday’s move of digital out of DCMS would have been an opportunity to move sport to health as well, if health is to be taken as seriously as digital.

All our work was happening when countries across the world were introducing new sports laws, creating clear lines of policy formulation and accountability to their Parliaments. Ask the 25 civil servants where they believe they would be most effective. Some may indeed say they should be in education, but that removes them from the majority of the population who really need them after the waterfall effect on participation after they leave school. Maybe they should be in the Cabinet Office, but while we recognise that that would bring the importance of these policies to the heart of government, it would lack direct accountability for the programmes we considered.

Those are some of the reasons why we recommended a national plan for sport, health and well-being at the centre of government and led by the Minister for Sport in the Department of Health, leading an office of health promotion to be placed on a statutory footing to ensure its accountability to Parliament. With a national plan, a Minister at the centre of government and the 54 recommendations and conclusions we reached, it is time to act. If this Government will not act, hopefully the next one will.

This report will not gather dust. It will not sleep. As members of the committee from across the House recognised, it forms an excellent, vibrant and relevant manifesto for each and every party at the next election. No Member of your Lordships’ House who has been engaged on this work will not fully support whichever party is in power to implement the report’s key recommendations in full. I beg to move.

15:04

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in thanking our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for leading us so well and making being on the committee so enjoyable. The quality of our discussions has led to a very good report. I join the noble Lord in sending the noble Lord, Lord Willis, our very best wishes for a speedy recovery. I also thank him for the way in which he has presented the report. Those of us who served on the committee know that it was originally his idea that we should have a special inquiry into this and he was a guiding spirit pushing us to radical thinking throughout the whole time we met. I am sure that I speak on behalf of many of us in thanking him for what has been achieved.

Sport, health and well-being is one of those strange topics in politics that no one is against. I have never heard anyone make a speech saying that they do not think it is important, a good idea or a crucial part of a healthy society. Sometimes, in my experience, when no one is against something, no one is so much in favour of it that it goes to the top of everyone’s agenda. It is a weird weakness of our political system. When I was a Minister, I was told by a politician whom I greatly admired that to achieve change you need an argument. If you do not, there will be no energy, heat or momentum for change. I hate creating rows—it is not my style—but I have concluded that we have to go a bit further in this area than we have done previously to create a discussion out of which some ideas might come that someone will be brave enough to take forward. I see that mood in this report. Its main recommendations are radical; some people are against them, which gives us something to grab hold of and take further.

I will concentrate on one or two general things and take a couple of examples. Sport, health and well-being is a tale of two stories, whichever part of the population you look at. Among adults, we have some of the highest-achieving athletes and sportspeople in the world; we are good at lots of things and win lots of medals—we had three international Olympians on our committee—so we do very well at adult sports. However, over a quarter of the population is deemed to be inactive and only 36% of people participate in sports once a week. Among children and young people, there are some marvellous boys and girls in our schools achieving at a high level, some of whom enter adult sport and compete at senior level while still of school age. Yet we also have lots of young boys and girls turned off PE and sport who never return to it throughout their lives.

In the wider population, some families and communities, for whom being active is part of family and community life, have lots of sports facilities and thrive, but we also have some places, people and communities who do not have the facilities, the motivation or the encouragement. Thinking about ourselves as a nation—what is good for our well-being and that of our citizens—frankly, although I love football, it is more important to get wider involvement than to have the wealthiest football league in the world. Sometimes, it seems as though we have backed the wrong thing. We are immensely proud of having a lot of money in the Premier League, but we worry less about the neighbourhoods and communities for which sport is not available.

Things need to change. I will take two examples from my background of where the report says this very well. First, it seems minor to say that PE and sport should be core school subjects. The Government responded that it does not matter because they are part of the national curriculum. However, if everything on the national curriculum was treated equally, we would not have core and non-core subjects. “Core subject” means that it is more important than the rest of the national curriculum. If anything has to go—if money is short and anything is not measured or celebrated—it will be the non-core subjects, not the core ones. The notion of “physical literacy” in the report and the move to make it a core subject would give a powerful signal, though not overnight, to people in education and schools that this matters and that change must happen.

Where we are at the moment is that many children in primary school will be taught all their PE by somebody who may not be interested in sport, may not be confident in sport themselves and may only have had between three and six hours of training in the whole of their teacher training. Even in secondary schools, where we have, I hope, qualified teachers—although I am not sure that every class is taken by a fully qualified teacher—when the exams come along, it is the sports hall that is closed so that desks and chairs can be put out. Can you imagine literacy or numeracy lessons being cancelled because there was this or something else in the rest of the curriculum? The message given there is that yes, it is important, yes, it is part of a broad and balanced curriculum, and yes, we see the importance of activity for children, but we are keeping it just below the radar while our messages about other parts of the curriculum are far stronger. Unless that changes, we will fail to lay the foundations with children and young people so that they remain active throughout their life.

If you miss out at school, or you are in a school that does not have those facilities, you look to your community —and the amount of money local authorities spend has reduced in the past 10 years by £0.6 billion, and it is not a statutory duty to provide leisure facilities. So there is something wrong. Imagine if we closed all our GP surgeries, or all our dental surgeries—well, we do have a problem with dentists. But if we closed all those health facilities, we would worry that it would be a crisis. The swimming pool closes, and it reaches the headlines in the local newspaper but nowhere else.

I give those examples, because to me that is saying that we are not yet in a position where policy is giving a clear message about what is important. I am disappointed with the Government’s response—although, to be honest, I could have predicted it; I could almost have guessed the draft. I was probably the same, but it does what Ministers of government departments always do. It says how much they have spent in the past on various pilots or trials and that they have picked out some geographical areas to run some more trials, says that they have a new measurement, and then to top it all says that they have set up a cross-party working group or a cross-party departmental committee. It is a formula that you go down. In government terms it does not cost much, but it looks like a lot when it is written on a piece of paper.

My message is that all that has been done in the past, and it did not work. That is the tragedy of this issue—that when you look at both Governments, you can see that they have made honest efforts, because they want to bring about the change. But a bit more money, another cross-party working group, another pilot and another trial has not delivered the change that we need. The statistics are worse than they used to be. We should say in this area that there should be no more pilots or small pots of money until you tell us what happened to the last ones you spent. What was the impact, what lessons have you learned, and what are you changing in future?

To be honest, it took me some time to come around to the notion of changing the machinery of government, because I am always a bit worried when politicians suggest doing so. It is a bit of a safe haven for those who have worked in the machinery of government—but I have become an enthusiastic convert to it. I can see that the proposal at the core of the report to put this in the Department of Health, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, explained, could give a very big signal that government understands that, if things are to change, the leadership that it has to show is that it will change too. I very much hope that this debate will go on in future years.

15:14

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, with her passion and enthusiasm for the subject. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests which, from our Select Committee sessions, noble Lords will know are extensive. I shall not read them all out here, because it would take most of my speech time—but most pertinently for this debate, I was chair of UK Active during the evidence sessions, and vice-president of the LGA, which is still current. I am now chair of Sport Wales, co-chair of Yorkshire CCC and a board member of the National Academy for Social Prescribing, and I was author of the independent review of duty of care in sport. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough—we are all sorry that he is not here—and the secretary and Dr Mackintosh for guiding us through, as well as my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for leading the debate today, for his expertise and for summing up the extensive contributions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is right: this never gets to the top of the priority list. We talk about medals and sports performance, but what we are talking about here is far more serious: the health of our nation. As someone who has worked in this space for a number of years, I learned through the Select Committee process that there is a lot of agreement. It also gave me contact with organisations that I do not normally deal with.

I will start the main part of my speech with a quote from Nelson Mandela in 2000. He said:

“Sport has the power to change the world.”


It is a high bar to follow, and I am not going to argue with Nelson Mandela, but I would change it slightly by adding physical activity. Sport and physical activity have the power to nudge the world into a better place. Away from big sports reporting, we need to find a way of raising this up the agenda. There is so much research to show that sport and physical activity can tackle inequalities and bring community cohesion, academic attainment, personal responsibility and so on—I could go on and on—yet they never get to the top of the priority list.

Big sporting moments such as the Olympics, the Paralympics and the Commonwealth Games are amazing and great; I competed at all three. Working in this area, I experienced a really proud moment after the Lionesses’ victory last year. I was on a train, and I heard two young boys arguing about who was the best English female footballer. It felt as though we had turned a corner, but we then seemed to slow down again. If you look at what the 2012 Games did at Olympic park for communities and the built environment, beyond an incredible Games, you will see, again, that we must have the right support beneath these big sporting moments —you cannot just expect them to change anything. One of my biggest frustrations is when people tell me that 2012 changed the world for disabled people. It did not. They were a great Games, but we have to do more.

We sat as a committee during Covid, and as I was going out and about being active it was interesting to see so many more people, including women, being active who were not before, because they had the opportunity to do so. During that time, we heard so many people being passionate about the NHS, which was amazing, but I throw out the challenge that, if we care about the NHS so much, we have to stop people going into it. We should not talk about physical activity and sport in silos—they need to be the golden thread that runs through our debates. Physical activity can help with waiting lists and surgery; it can help with everything. We just need to talk about it a little more. I raised some of these issues at Second Reading of the levelling-up Bill.

The question is: should there be a national plan for sport? The answer, really simply, is yes. We could all have answered the question very quickly, but it was right that we spent so much time looking at it. What was really powerful about the committee was bringing it all together in one place. Briefly, I will pick out a couple of the recommendations and give my thoughts.

Statutory provision is vital. This cannot be a postcode lottery. We have to start thinking differently about the money that is spent. There should be a new requirement on councils, with adequate support from the Treasury, but we have to think about it as investing in people’s future and not just about the money that we spend. Many have called for a review of the tax environment for the sport and recreation sector, and I fundamentally support that.

What do we think about PE? A lot of people’s experience of PE is not positive, and I would argue that that is because of the way that it can be taught. It brings in sporty children, like me, but we do not teach trigonometry without teaching maths, yet we expect children to play sport without teaching them physical literacy. This is not just about the health of the nation; it would have an impact on our elite pathway. Members of the committee who do not work in this space were shocked by what happens in schools. I found that to be really useful and an important wake-up call.

It would be remiss of me not to briefly mention the areas that I am currently working in. I urge the Minister to look again at the establishment of an independent sports ombudsman. I am not desperately attached to the name or the connotations that come with it but calling it “an independent body that provides some oversight of the sports system” does not quite have the same ring to it. I had to call it something. The Government should look at this again, especially given all the sports and governing bodies in use at the moment.

I would also be delighted if the Government were to look favourably on mandatory reporting. I have a Private Member’s Bill on the list and I would happily hand it over to the Minister. It was written with the support of Mandate Now and others, because, again, this is something that is sorely needed.

I will make one plea. There is the report and there are other things that we need to think about doing. The potential closure of swimming pools is a real worry for me. Without the Government’s support, it is anticipated that 40% of council areas will lose their leisure centres or see reduced services before 31 March this year. That should be a cause of huge concern to all of us. I am sure the Minister will tell me why the Government cannot look at this differently and regrade the commitments made, but they should look urgently at doing something to protect this, because it affects the whole of British society.

Finally, there are so many opportunities in this area and I am really looking forward to the Minister’s response. This is our chance to do things differently and we should take it.

15:21

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to follow noble Lords on the committee who are our national heroes. The report is a powerful testimonial to the urgency of action needed for healthy communities and a healthy nation. The importance of sports and recreation to the well-being of young lives, with many people coping with multiple pressures resulting in mental health distress at a time of the cost of living emergency, cannot be oversimplified.

I wish to speak about the involvement of girls in sport. Although I am not a girl anymore, I grew up without any barriers to playing cricket, cycling, climbing trees, playing badminton, playing football or swimming. When I arrived in London, the only sporting field was our four walls, as it is for many children in this country. School was absolutely liberating and, after a little tough negotiation, I was allowed to wear trousers and play tennis and badminton briefly for my school team. It all seems so long ago.

School is the critical playground for encouraging girls to participate in sports. Muslim women and girls are playing football and cricket and participating in archery in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Egypt. Even in Saudi Arabia, women’s teams are making great strides in the international sporting arena. Therefore, I challenge the decades-old excuse that it is cultural barriers that prevent certain sections of our female population taking part in sporting activities. Certainly, this should not be the case at primary and secondary level.

From what I see, community activities and school sports and recreation are dominated by programmes for boys and young men, and, even within that setting, young men and boys of Bangladeshi heritage have not broken through the barrier to professional football or cricket, bar one or two players.

In my area, many council-run sports centres, where girls appear to be absolutely absent, have rundown facilities due to lack of funds. Inertia has set in; girls will not play, so why bother? Community buildings once used for youth and community services, with hubs for girls, have shut or been sold without adequate scrutiny or any impact assessment of the loss of services to the community, as my noble friend Lady Morris mentioned. There are also significant numbers of private clubs in all localities of an excellent standard and with excellent facilities, and I would like to see how they can be encouraged to do more to engage the communities they operate in. The report also highlights the profound impact of discrimination as a barrier to wider participation and engagement, no doubt compounded by years of chronic national and local underfunding of sports and recreation services.

A decade on from the fanfare of the national pride in our Olympic Games, my observation—I dissent from my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson here—is that the fundamental delivery promise of community empowerment has not taken place. The Olympic legacy promise was that it would revolutionise and reinvigorate communities and develop sustainable community sports and recreation facilities in all five boroughs, if not impact sports nationwide. Does the Minister agree that we have failed to honour that promise?

For a decade, young families put up with the health consequences of building the village, and frail children paid a heavy price with poor health and heightened childhood asthma and eczema. The Olympic promise was better housing, a family environment, and opportunities for sport and recreation facilities, but the outcome was inevitable, given that those involved in the design and implementation had little interest or stake in the local communities, and credible community experts were absent as decision-makers in the legacy delivery team.

A reflective workforce must include management at all levels. I am pleased to see that that is mentioned in the report. Will the Minister say whether there has been an analysis of the impact of the Olympic legacy on sports provision for all the boroughs surrounding the Olympic village? Is consideration given to why provision in these areas remains so poor?

I was recently informed that one of the legacies of the World Cup in Qatar is that a stadium has been designated to develop women’s sports and that it is led by a Minister for Women’s Sports Development. I do not know whether I have a created a rod for my own back by saying that, but the framework suggested on page 26 of the report would be extremely impactful, so long as it is inclusive and diverse throughout the structure.

The report is timely and thoughtful, and I am pleased to see references to safeguarding, given the current attention to online safety. An overwhelming impact of Covid isolation and lockdown was increased reliance on technology as the main source of recreation, and it is likely to become more prevalent and addictive as the new generation of games, virtual reality and augmented reality immerse us in the metaverse and Web3 transitional space. The Government should heed the recommendations in the report and take action and, as well as being answerable for delivery, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, be a catalyst for a national transformation.

15:27

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a singular pleasure to take part in this afternoon’s debate. I congratulate all members of the committee, and indeed the staff, who put together such an excellent, coherent report. Not least, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan on the elegant and erudite way in which he introduced this afternoon’s debate. I am only sad that I was not on the committee. As ever, I did not make the first eleven.

Sport is a tremendous thing. It is an extraordinary honour to stand on a medal podium on club, county, national or international duty, but it is as nothing when set against enabling somebody to take their first stroke in a swimming pool, their first step on to a track or a walking trail, or to get on to their first trike or bike. Switching on the light of possibility through sport and physical exercise is worth more than any gold, silver or bronze. Yet we hear that potentially, within the next quarter, 40% of leisure centres will close their doors. They will be padlocked and will be of no benefit to anybody. It is bad enough that buildings are closed, but it is a disaster for all people whose lives are legged over through not being able to access those sporting facilities. When a swimming pool closes, there is rarely a ripple at national government level.

What is happening in the department? There should be a mission control looking at what is happening across our leisure provision to prevent this becoming a leisure centre emergency.

Similarly, it is essential to promote the opportunity of sport and physical recreation in the right way. We have seen some superb examples of this. “This Girl Can” and “We Are Undefeatable” are brilliant pieces of marketing. They are connective and understand the real issues why people may not feel that sport and physical exercise are for them. That is putting a different lens, the lens of possibility, the lens of connection, in such marketing attempts.

I should declare an interest as a board member of Channel 4, which is still the UK rights-holding broadcaster for the Paralympic Games. I was delighted to be able to negotiate those rights way back when I was at London 2012 towards the end of 2009, transforming how we present disability sport, to not just the nation but the world.

Looking at the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee’s report, does the Minister agree that it makes complete sense to rename the office “the office for health promotion”? Would he not see it as a thoroughly good thing that the Minister is not just a Minister for sport but a Minister for sport, health and well-being? Would he not like to take those few steps across to the Department of Health?

Would he further agree that we need to look hard into what is happening across the country in social prescribing, which can do so much good? What data exists on how universal this opportunity is and on its outcomes? What more can government do to enable everybody to be able to avail themselves of this possibility to change their lives for the better forever?

On the role of technology, the negative side was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, but we could have the potential positive side. Is the department working in partnership to look at some of the benefits that can be gained, particularly through wearable technology? As with all good technology, data has to be at the heart. What quality of data do the Government have across this area because it is only by having a golden bedrock of data that we will be able to drive the changes that we want in this space?

In conclusion, we are in the midst of an obesity crisis. We have a post-Covid crisis. Does my noble friend agree that physical literacy is at least as important as literacy and numeracy? What is the cost of having such parlously low levels of physical literacy right now, not how much it will cost to change that but what is the current cost—social, psychological, individual and, yes, economic? What is the economic cost to neighbourhoods, to our nation, of this lack of physical literacy right now? To that end, does my noble friend agree that the best thing the Government could do right now is accept this excellent report in full?

15:34

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who I first got to know after we successfully won the bid to stage 2012, when he accompanied me—I was the Schools Minister, and he was the Olympian to inspire children around the Olympics. It is also a pleasure to follow the other speakers. In particular, after the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, opened the debate, I want to associate myself with his comments about the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who so excellently led us in the committee. I also remind this committee of my interests as the chair of the multi-academy trust, E-ACT, as I shall go on to talk a little bit about schools.

The core problem that the committee addressed is that of inactivity among adults and children. Those thumbing the report need only go to pages 9 and 13 to see the graphics that show that inactivity. My noble friend Lady Morris cited some of the statistics. It is that relationship between inactivity, poor mental well-being and chronic health problems that are at the heart of the recommendation that the committee made around a national plan and something centrally driven. The Government’s response unfortunately shows a negligible appetite to change anything. I would say to the Arts Minister, in the words of Shakespeare,

“Nothing will come of nothing”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, noted, the machinery of government changes announced this week mean that perhaps the particular solution that the committee arrived at might have missed the boat for the time being. However, perhaps if he were listening, the Chancellor could be inspired by one of our witnesses, Grant Robertson, who was the New Zealand Finance Minister and also the Sports Minister. I am not necessarily suggesting that Jeremy Hunt should become Sports Minister, but he could head up a national plan for sport, health and well-being, given his background as a previous Secretary of State at DCMS and a previous Secretary of State at Health and the huge savings that our NHS, in such crisis at the moment, could gain over the long term if we tackled this chronic problem of inactivity among adults and children.

I also very much want to associate myself with what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, in respect of mandatory reporting. The committee heard from no one who disagreed with the need to bring in mandatory reporting, and I cannot understand why the Government resist that.

In the time I have left, I want to focus on physical literacy among children. The Government are defensive and rely on the money from the sport premium and that PE is mandatory between ages of five to 16. Yet again, we see a problem. We have had those things for a little while now, and the problem has not been solved, so what are we going to do differently? I have visited a lot of primary schools and asked them how they are spending their sport premium, and it is making a difference. Many primary schools are now engaging professional coaches, who are helping to address the problem of the absence of PE training among primary school teachers that the committee identified. That is positive, but other problems endure.

Swimming was made statutory. I am very proud that as Schools Minister I introduced it as part of the Olympic package, but if we do not have swimming pools for kids to learn in, it does not really amount to much. Some things will endure. The issues around puberty and body image and the mental health difficulties that girls, in particular, are going through at the moment, as well as the difficulty around changing rooms in organised sport are very difficult ongoing challenges. However, the accountability system that we have in schools values the academic subjects in the EBacc and excludes PE, with Progress 8 then enforcing that and fetishising the academic within the accountability system, so that in the end schools end up having a GCSE for everything so that it looks academic. A GCSE for PE then becomes kids in classrooms studying PE rather than being physically active, which is a perverse and ridiculous situation in which to find ourselves.

Now, of course, we have schools facing budgetary pressures with pay and energy and so on struggling to renew equipment and facilities that we need for children to be physically active. So we need an approach of physical literacy, and the PE teachers that the committee spoke to were clear about wanting to make that change, combining the health and mental well-being effects with fitness. It is less about sport for sport’s sake and allows the learning to become more personalised, using after-school clubs and community use of school facilities and updating the idea of extended schools that we had in the first decade of this century.

As the committee discussed, I would like to see more accountability about how that sport premium money is being used, so that every school is publishing on its website exactly how it is using it. A great example is Surrey Square Primary School, which talked about its investment in the professional development of staff and its membership of a local sports network, supporting and engaging the least active children with that money through new or additional sports clubs during the school day. The school mentioned a whole run of things, including inviting athletes, dance troops and gymnasts into the school to inspire the children. It listed not only how it spends the money but the impact that that then has on the children that it is targeting. If that kind of activity was mandatory across the system, we would see a real impact. Children in particular need better than just cognitive development. Our school system must change to better develop children socially, emotionally and physically, because it is key to their future happiness and prosperity.

Finally, can the Minister say when a DCMS Minister last met with the DfE and Department of Health and Social Care Ministers to discuss changing the curriculum and the accountability of schools to reflect the need for better physical activity among children?

15:41

[Earl Effingham (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I cannot emphasise enough what an honour and privilege it is to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House today. As the eldest son of an Earl, I was fortunate to have a parliamentary pass pre 1999, which allowed me to sit on the steps of the Throne and listen to debates, as I frequently did and greatly enjoyed. Following the reforms of 1999, I said to myself, “One day I sincerely hope I will be able to return to the House and contribute in the same way my father and previous family members before him did.”

I would like to thank the many people who make your Lordships’ House such a unique and special place and the reason I look forward to coming as often as I can. To be greeted with a smile by the doorkeepers, attendants, the restaurant team and many others is fantastic—and of course it would be impossible not to mention noble Lords, the Members of the House. In the brief time I have been here it has been amazing to meet so many talented individuals at the top of their game who add real value with their contributions to the House. Everyone without exception has been friendly and welcoming, and I am most grateful.

The Effingham title was created in 1554 for William Howard, fourth son of the second Duke of Norfolk, and I believe the most famous of my ancestors would be his son Lord Howard of Effingham, who defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588. I am reminded of this every time I walk into the Prince’s Chamber and look up to see the copies of the Armada tapestries on the wall. The original tapestries were commissioned by Lord Howard in 1595 and were hung in the Chamber of the House from 1644 onwards. Sadly, they were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1834, but the very fine replicas are worthy replacements for the originals. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Crathorne, chairman of the Works of Art Committee at the time, without whose hard work and negotiation the tapestries might not be with us today.

For my part, I am married with two children, I have a degree in classics, and I have spent the past 23 years working in the City. Around half of that time was at Barclays, with the remainder at two other global banks, where I advised predominantly FTSE 100 companies on foreign exchange and treasury. I now work for a company called Birchstone, doing exactly the same thing, only we help UK SMEs. I hope I can use my experience in finance to participate in relevant debates and Bills.

My father was in the Navy all of his life and was president of the Royal British Legion. As a result of my naval upbringing, I will take a keen interest in the House on anything veteran-related and issues which will affect ex-military servicemen and women. I would also like to be involved with anything related to sport and its positive effects on society, such as the work that the Sport England organisation carries out. That leads me on to today’s discussion, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan.

It was the Roman poet, Juvenal, who wrote in around 80 AD

“Mens sana in corpore sano”

and in doing so coined the phrase “healthy body, health mind”. The reason for my interest in this debate is that I understand and have been a beneficiary of the positive effects of sport. I have been taking regular exercise for the past 25 years and, without a shadow of a doubt, it has enabled me to remain healthy, feel good and work hard. The benefits of sport and exercise are well publicised and manifold.

As this excellent plan states, sport and physical activity can change lives, improve physical and mental health and well-being and lead to a better quality of life, as well as benefiting both national and local economies. Unfortunately, although we know this to be the case, there remain high levels of inactivity within the population, and if we can overcome this, the benefits for all will be felt.

One of the key findings of the report from my perspective is that we have to instil a lifelong habit of sport and activity within our children and younger population. By nurturing this love of sport from an early age, we can try to ensure that when the younger generation grow, they will continue to adopt an exercise regime and instil that love of sport and exercise into their own children, thereby creating a virtuous circle. Physical education should be encouraged in schools, and the report believes that the physical literacy of children should be valued as highly as their educational literacy and numeracy. I could not agree more. Physical exercise should be the building block for their future, enabling them to maximise their potential in other aspects of their life. The report also suggests campaigns to encourage and inspire parents to be active with their children outside of school. This can dovetail with a requirement for local authorities to provide and maintain adequate facilities for sport and physical activity for local communities.

There are so many invaluable recommendations and findings in this report, and I very much hope they will be acted on. I look forward to working with noble Lords on this report and any future business relating to this subject.

15:47

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lord Effingham in his maiden speech. It was an absolute model of its kind, and I think we were all very impressed by the way he put it. His commitment to supporting the lives of veterans is something I think we would all want to endorse. His speech was a masterclass in making the case for sports. I particularly enjoyed his reference to his forebear, William Howard, who was a Lord Chamberlain, a Lord Admiral, a diplomat and all-round British superhero, and who served Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth. You will remember that he was elevated to the peerage for taking on Wyatt’s rebellion at Ludgate in the City of London and turning around the rebel crowd. So when crowds next come braying at the gates of Parliament, we will know who to turn to when we want to send someone out to negotiate.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan is absolutely right, and I violently agree with him, that the question of sport in this country is 100% a health question. We are in desperate trouble in this country: our health outcomes have fallen back very severely. As a former Health Minister who was on the front line of the pandemic, I felt that very severely. It is absolutely right that this report puts health in the centre. In fact, I would be more ambitious than the report has spelled out; the ambition should be for Britain to become the healthiest country in the developed world. The failure to engage in that kind of mission, the failure to lift our eyes and truly believe with confidence that we can turn around the problems of the past few years and make Britain healthier, is at the root of failure to address illness. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, put it extremely well: we have to stop people falling ill, or we will have an NHS cost that explodes, a workforce that is unable to work and an economy that cannot pay for schools, pensions and illness.

However, we are going backwards at the moment, not forwards. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, put it extremely well: activity among young people aged 16 to 34 dropped from 72% to 66% from 2015 to 2022. That is a terrible statistic and a shocking state of affairs, so we have some really hard questions to ask.

I am afraid that I do not agree that we should somehow dump the responsibility for sport on the Department of Health and Social Care. Having been in that department, I can tell noble Lords that there is quite a lot going on already—it is pretty swamped trying to tackle waiting lists, build hospitals, sort out our catastrophic care service and prevent illness. I do not think that scapegoating the department by dumping the responsibility for sport on it is the silver bullet that anyone would hope for. I know that that is not exactly what my noble friend Lord Moynihan has in mind; I would just like to flag it to add a sense of proportion.

Responsibility for the health of the nation, and therefore for sport, needs to be spread much more broadly, rather than simply scapegoating the NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. We need houses that have green spaces and access to sports facilities—access is very important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, pointed out, schools are absolutely central to solving health and sport issues. We have sold off far too many sports grounds; sport is not taught properly and the risk-averse nature of the sports culture in schools means that not enough kids are doing it. The list is quite long, but it is critical that we sort it out.

In practical terms, I find the state of the swimming pool estate heartbreaking. I am utterly obsessed by swimming at the moment—I can tell noble Lords another time about my adventures in the outdoor and wild swimming game. Nearly half of our swimming pool estate is under threat of closure at the moment. Something needs to be done. The Government may be cash-strapped and their credit card may be maxed out, but, as my noble friend Lord Holmes said, it would be heartbreaking if more than half of kids in the next generation did not learn to swim, which is where we are heading at the moment.

The problem is not central control of sport; it is more about local authorities. I will not go through it in depth, but my experience as a Health Minister taught me that there has been a great hollowing out of the resources of local authorities, which is seen severely in the area of sport. There is not enough access or encouragement and the culture in many of our communities is simply not supported by the necessary resources to do it.

On big sporting events, I will throw in a note of challenge as a bit of a sceptic. I apologise to the amazing Olympians in our presence but, in terms of delivering actual activity, our big events have simply not encouraged our population to engage in sport. That is a big failure.

We need our sports clubs—we have fantastic football and rugby clubs—to do more than they do at the moment, and we need our employers to put sport at the centre of the workplace experience. We have 20 pubs, clubs and restaurants in this building and one very poky gym—I do not know whether anyone here has been to it, but it is not as good as many of the pubs and clubs. That culture really needs to change.

To conclude, the project of getting Britain healthier could not be more important. The role of sport is central to that. We need to change the environment in which people live and give them agency and the ability to address their behaviours. Sport is the one thing you can take on yourself that will really improve your health outcomes. That is why we need to support people to do sport: it will give them the opportunity to turn around their health outcomes. It is also why I would like to see this much more widely distributed across the responsibilities of government.

15:54

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I first welcome on to the pitch, if I may use a rather cheap sporting analogy, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and congratulate him on his debut and his excellent maiden speech. We look forward to hearing more from him.

I should also congratulate the committee on producing such a comprehensive and thought-provoking report on an increasingly critical subject. I agree with many of its recommendations, not least the need for a national action plan, and I would argue that, if we are serious about uniting health and well-being with sport, then, yes, we do need a dedicated ministerial post within the Department of Health to take ownership, as this is a complex and fiendishly difficult area to get right.

In the report, I thought that the University of Cambridge’s MRC unit made a telling point when it suggested a

“national plan for active lives”

rather than for “sport and recreation”. It is the word “activity” that I will focus on, because this has become a huge issue—not just for sport, health and recreation but for education, the economy and the workforce.

If noble Lords have not done so already, I encourage them to read the latest report from the Economic Affairs Committee—I declare my interest as a member—entitled Where Have All the Workers Gone? The UK has seen an alarming drop since 2019 in the number of economically active people. This trend is now the single biggest drag on economic growth and may continue for many years. It raises major questions over our nation’s health, and in particular workforce fitness in an ageing population.

In just three years, some 500,000 people in the UK have been added to the long-term sickness category, taking the total to 2.5 million. In addition, hundreds of thousands of apparently healthy 50 to 64 year-olds have opted to retire early and become economically inactive. So that is a partial response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on economic cost.

As we know, levels of physical activity have fallen in recent years, not helped by the surge in sedentary hours spent online. This has happened in spite of the legacy of such events as the London Olympics, or indeed the £1.5 billion spent by Sport England—to which I will come back in a moment.

Talking of Sport England, I find the setting of activity targets too simplistic and binary. You are deemed “active” if you do more than 150 minutes of activity a week and, bizarrely, “fairly active” if you do just 30 minutes a week. I appreciate that Sport England is taking its cue from the Chief Medical Officer, but it should look at the medical research on reducing the risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes 2, cancer and dementia. In all cases, the recommended activity tends to be at least 30 minutes a day, or 200 to 300 minutes a week—a huge difference. I suggest that these targets need to be recalibrated to reflect the real health benefits, particularly at the margins.

In terms of measurement, we should be leveraging the health and sports tech companies to provide far more comprehensive and sophisticated data, focusing not just on the number of minutes but on the intensity and type of exercise. In my former life, I was an information and data entrepreneur, brought up on concepts such as statistical significance, return on investment and impact analysis—all highly relevant here, but largely absent in terms of execution. We discovered that Sport England distributed £1.5 billion in grants over five years but knows which local authorities the funds went to for only £450 million of that. So we can forget about impact analysis, or any sort of effective evaluation.

We are struggling with a multiplicity of players and stakeholders, both national and local, while the health and well-being remit runs across departments—DCMS, health, education, the Treasury of course, and now levelling up. This week’s Cabinet reshuffle has resulted in the “digital” part being removed, so it is CMS and not DCMS. But digital is so wrapped up in media, as we can see with the Online Safety Bill, that I am not sure the department has lost the right letter.

That said, I welcome the right honourable Lucy Frazer as the new Secretary of State—the eighth, by my count, in the past five years. One of the Government’s excuses last year for delaying yet again the launch of a new sports strategy was that the then new Minister needed time to settle in. In view of this, I ask the noble Lord the Minister when this strategy will realistically see the light of day.

16:00

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. I hope that we as Members of the upper House will hear him much more often on the issues where he has expertise. I feel I am a lone voice today. I have played a lot of sport in my life. I played for the English schoolboys at rugby—I was at Twickenham last Saturday. I have played, to put it modestly, extremely good tennis across the world. I played in Canada, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka, and I am privileged to be a member of the All-England Club. I play golf. I am president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Golfing Society, which is also a privilege, and I am also president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club. I am not just a titular president. I am alongside the chairman, and I am invited to attend the committees—quite rightly without voting powers—and I think I understand the world of cricket in considerable depth in the difficult time at the moment. Finally, at the age of 86 with two artificial knees, I have taken up croquet, and I do a lot of walking backwards and forwards in your Lordships’ House.

I understand the depth of feeling that has gone into this national plan. The very word “national” grates with me. A UK plan would suggest that it would be operating in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom, and they play rugby slightly differently in Scotland—rather better than us at the moment—and are doing something different on cricket. Certainly in Northern Ireland, where I was a PPS, sport is very different from what it is in England. If it is to be UK, fine, but I do not think that “national” is the right word. I think it should be devolved if it is to happen at all.

To me, the whole thing smacks of being a dictatorial policy from on high, then I read about the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. That is a function of the Department of Health, but it suggests considerably more bureaucracy as far as I can see. Even worse, it proposes that sport, in all its aspects, should come from the Department of Health. Even my noble friend who was in the Department of Health and did a wonderful job through the whole of the Covid period—my goodness, he must really have worked the hours—says that it is not a good idea to put it in the Department of Health. I know a bit about the Department of Health because I am married to a retired GP and my son was a GP and is now a deputy coroner in Southwark. I know that the National Health Service has a huge number of problems at this point in time and is totally incapable of taking anything else on at all. I hope that my noble friends who have to make decisions will think about that.

I am slightly surprised, when we have a new Minister for Sport—an excellent promotion in my judgment—to read that my Government are proposing a task force that is chaired by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We have made no decision that sport should come under that department yet, so it seems to me that that is somewhat premature. I do not understand why it is not still with DCMS.

For me, the challenge falls into two parts. One is the overall improvement of the health and well-being of the nation—diet, exercise and the bits that are relevant to the Department of Health and Social Care—but the overall improvement of the physical fitness of the nation depends on the implementation of physical activity in sport and individual physical activity. In sport, there is professional sport, school sport—I agree with what has been said about the need to improve school sport—and voluntary sport.

For example, I look at the depth of cricket in Northamptonshire, where I was an MP, and the ethnic balance there. There are far more ethnic people playing cricket in Northamptonshire today than there ever used to be, and they come right the way through to our first-division team. Then there is also what we call individual sport activity.

Yes, the disabled are left out; I moved a motion the other day at the MCC that one of the new activities we should have at Lord’s cricket ground is a disabled cricket championship, for want of a better word. The poor are also left out. That is why we need charities or someone else there. For a sport such as cricket, it is quite expensive to buy a cricket bat and pads. We are providing a charitable dimension in Northamptonshire, as I believe others are doing.

We need pathways, and that is what we are now getting. In my judgment, some of the evidence offered today is plainly out of date. We have a pathway in Northamptonshire to the mainly Pakistani ethnic community in Luton. We have a nursery there that feeds through to the academy, and some of them will doubtless come through that pathway. We have another pathway being built up in Peterborough. We are not alone; it is happening in other counties, with varying levels of success.

I am sorry to say to my noble friend that I am not impressed with the plan. I do not think it will work. I think it will be darned expensive and it is another piece of bureaucracy. You cannot dictate to people. You must ensure that they do things because they want to do them. The framework has to be there for them to do that, and noble Lords are absolutely right that the leisure centres that have been closed because of energy problems should be reopened. That must happen, but we have a wonderful blend of volunteers in this country who spend time and energy alongside the professionals to make sport work.

We have moved tremendously in the past 10 years on the problem that this plan is put forward to address. In my judgment, if it had come 10 years earlier, it might have worked, but it is too late now. I think we should let sport lie within DCMS but have a clearer voice there.

16:07

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I thoroughly enjoyed serving on the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee and thank everybody involved in producing such an excellent report. I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who sadly is not here today, for his excellent chairmanship and my noble friend Lord Moynihan for helping drive this important subject to a committee of the House. I also draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests set out in the register, as I shall mention one of them later. It was also good to hear from my noble friend Lord Naseby that he plays tennis. I play a little too, so if he would like a game sometime, I am sure we can arrange it.

As we have already heard, there is so much more work to be done to tackle health inequalities across the nation. Sport and physical activity provision must be one of the primary tools to achieve this and help foster and support the culture needed to deliver a healthier society. Extremely good provision is being delivered, but so much more can be achieved. When the committee initially released the report in December 2021, the then Minister indicated his support for many of the recommendations made in it, so it is disappointing that there seems to have been such little progress considering the initial positive noises from government.

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities highlighted data in March 2022 relating to how physical inactivity is associated with one in six deaths in the UK and is estimated to cost the economy £7.4 billion annually. Our population is around 20% less active than it was in the 1960s. One in three men, 34%, and one in two women, 42%, are not active enough for good health. We really need to get a grip on this.

We know that physical activity leads to better mental and physical health. That is partly why the report recommended that the OHID should be renamed as well as placed on a statutory footing and that physical activity, health and well-being should be prioritised across government. We have heard many urgent issues raised today, from PE becoming a core subject to saving our swimming pools, and there are many that I would have wished to speak on. I hope the Minister will be able to give some hope on the concerns highlighted today so that we can make genuine progress.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would welcome some positive feedback, especially in light of the Health Minister’s response to his Health Promotion Bill that the OHID’s

“core aim is to reduce preventable ill health and health disparities”

and that

“We are all united in wanting to find the best way to promote healthy living through sport, education and active lifestyle.”—[Official Report, 2/12/22; cols. 2002-05.]


I also reinforce the report’s recommendation on the importance of improving social prescribing, which has been mentioned briefly today, with local authorities working more closely with health and well-being boards, local NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups to ensure that co-ordination and quality are enhanced to create better outcomes.

A taskforce set up by the Alliance of Sport in Criminal Justice, which I chair, recently published the Get Well, Stay Well agreement. It provides a framework for increased collaboration, health promotion and the use of physical activity and sport to tackle health inequalities across the justice system. Like so many issues that need to be addressed, the report highlights the urgent need for cross-departmental working in this area, which, if achieved, could make a real difference. To move forward and reverse the decline that we have seen in physical activity levels across the population, bringing relevant national and local stakeholders together would be a really good first step. It would be helpful to know what updates my noble friend the Minister can give us on the work that the OHID is undertaking in this area, particularly on the promotion of sport and physical activity in tackling health inequalities.

Another recommendation in the report that I would like briefly to touch on is with regard to the physical activity observatory, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan touched on earlier. At present, the sector is fractured in its reporting and lacks substantive evidence in certain areas. Acting as a central point for data collection that could in turn be independently monitored, an observatory would bring relevant stakeholders together and gather the data needed to better support and show the benefits of investment and delivery and to drive this whole agenda further and faster.

If we do not act soon, particularly in the current climate, with grass-roots sport under pressure and budgets constrained, we risk sleepwalking into a society with even worse outcomes and a generation not being offered the vast range of opportunities that follow from better physical and mental health. I remind noble Lords that not only are we less active than in the 1960s but the OHID predicts that, if current trends continue, our population will be 35% less active by 2030. We cannot allow this to happen—we really must act now.

16:13

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to join in this debate. I thank my noble friend in sport, to use his expression, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, very much for introducing it. I shall pass on to my noble friend Lord Willis the wishes that have been expressed, and the support of all those who supported the committee. He did a wonderful job, and actually made it a pleasant experience.

We have had one or two voices against the report, which probably makes it slightly more interesting. To deal with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, first, this is not something that the Department of Health has to do—it is about the Department of Health looking out. It is not about the Department of Health taking over sport; it is about making sure that it happens and making sure that sport and recreation has somebody championing it.

One thing we have not mentioned that we should have done is the fact that we now have the power in the Department of Agriculture to create footpaths. Let us create a footpath and have somebody making sure that those footpaths connect and that the local bus service connects with them, or that at least you can park your car. Footpaths that dump you on to the middle of B-roads without anywhere to walk afterwards are useless to the vast majority of the population. It is about making sure that somebody can do that, and making sure that, in your planning, there is some green space so a child can play—that is the sort of thing which something that looks out can do. It can make sure that a plan for sport actually looks out.

The Department of Health is uniquely well placed because it touches everything. I am afraid that the current departmental structure does not; it mainly just distributes lottery money, and does a little bit of everything else. And if you put it in the Department for Education—as I have said on numerous occasions to numerous bodies, the thing about children is that they grow up. Even if they have a good experience at school, sport must be brought to them, and they need to be told that they are taking it forward. One or two of the Government’s initiatives on that seem to have largely died, and I am afraid that the coalition Government takes some of the blame for that.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Thank you. We have to make sure that that link is improved because, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, pointed out, the prosperous classes will carry on playing sport: “We’ve never had a problem, we can afford private memberships, we’ve got cars to take us to places”. Not everyone has those resources.

I will give an anecdote from the village of Lambourn, where I live. Two mothers were in front of me in the Co-op, which is where all the action happens there, and one said, “My son wants to join the football team, but he can’t because we haven’t got a car and there’ll be away games”. I turned around and said, “They’ll probably have a minibus that will drive you there”. The response: “Oh, I couldn’t expect that”. That is a real attitude. Unless we get something that looks at the structure and encourages those for whom it is not easy to take on sport, we will continue on our current path. This is not about new failure; it is a continuation of what we have. As noble Lords have mentioned, 40% of leisure centres and pools are threatened with closure, because we did not include them in our energy support strategies. It was coming anyway—the pressure was there—but this might just be the catalyst. The Government overlooked how important they are.

The Department of Health gets a direct benefit from physical activity, because it is a preventive wonder drug for mental and physical health. It is also a socialising factor. By supporting sport, we can make sure that we take a bigger bonus from it. We have all heard about workforces, retirements and so on, and all these factors will help. Somebody who is active and engaged can possibly be encouraged to go to a second career. All this is there, if we do it a little better than we are doing it now.

In this country, the Government have inherited, historically, something wonderful, which is the fact that much of our sporting structure was done on a voluntary basis and formed by people outside the national structures. Not one of the FA, RFU or MCC is a government-funded or government-initiated structure. Sport owns a lot of its own facilities here. You do not have to put that much in. We are mainly talking about amateur sport, which—I will define it again—is where you pay to play; you do not get paid. People are doing that, and providing a coaching base, putting on activities and social funds, and many other things. If we have some form of government backing to make sure that they are supported, we will take a bonus at all levels. If we make sure that this happens, something positive can come from it.

It does not mean an increase in bureaucracy. I will tell noble Lords how many bits of government bureaucracy we already have here. I picked out 10 schemes from the Government’s response to this report. They include:

“a new sport strategy to be published in 2022,”

the reports Uniting the Movement and Gear Change, and several campaigns, including We Are Undefeatable, Rediscover Summer, the 10 Minute Shake Up campaign, Join the Movement and This Girl Can. I could go on. I am sure that if I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, she would find a couple more. Then you have the ones for individual sports.

Unless you have a central drive—and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned this—little packages, with little impetus but wonderful photo ops, it will die. If anyone has not seen that, I can quote you a few, as well as some that repeat themselves over and over again. That is what we have a tradition of; we do not have a tradition of maintaining and structuring support and driving it forward, which is what we need because, if the Government give a little push, the rest of the sporting community will do most of this for them, if they make it a little easier for it. But we do not do that—we sit back and then decide that, in education, the literacy hour or the new maths scheme to the age of 18 must take precedence, when we all know that physical activity improves grades within the school system. That is absolutely proven and unanswerable.

We have to look at this in the round and make sure that the Government take this seriously, to get the benefits that are so easy to get. If the Department of Health cannot do this, what other department has that degree of reach and authority? The Treasury is the only one, but I am afraid that our Treasury is not about investment but about controlling spending. Can we have a government response that tells us how we will get coherent about supporting this? The health benefits that we have at the moment are under direct threat; they are more difficult to obtain for those who need it most because of the funding structure, given the current financial squeeze and energy crisis. How will we answer this?

For every two or three leisure centres or swimming pools that are closed down, only one will open—we know that. Every voluntary group that uses them, not just for sport but for the arts, social activity and anything else, will also lose its base of operation and all the social and physical benefits. How will the Government get a coherent attitude to this? There is a chance for them to take a huge win here, and I hope that we will hear how they plan to do this, because at the moment we seem to be sleepwalking towards the edge of a cliff.

16:22

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a wonderful debate—one of the best I have heard in the Grand Committee Room, and, indeed, in the House, in some time. I had not realised I was living among so many sporting greats until I heard the effusion of speeches this afternoon. We genuinely owe the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, a great debt of gratitude: he has done a brilliant job in pulling this excellent report together. The recommendations speak for themselves and make a cogent and coherent case.

I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on how he kicked off the debate. He did the noble Lord, Lord Willis, justice and made a powerful, and pretty much unarguable, case for a national plan for sport. I also acknowledge and thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his brilliant maiden speech this afternoon and his contribution to our debate. When he started talking about the defeat of the Spanish, I thought he meant a fixture that I had missed in an earlier iteration of the sport I love most, which is football. The noble Earl went on to address other subjects as well, and, if he does that as he did today, the House will greatly benefit from his input and wisdom.

I made notes about comments that colleagues made in the debate, and some points stood out for me in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a great plea for a national plan, and he pointed out the widening gap between elite performance in sport and the general participation of our population. He mentioned the recommendations being useful in addressing that, and described the plan as a “vibrant” manifesto for parties to consider at the next general election. That is right: sport should be very much at the forefront of our thinking for that.

My noble friend Lady Morris said that we needed an argument, a row, a national debate. She was right. The point about physical literacy is terribly important, and we should have it firmly in our minds.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made the powerful point, repeating an argument that has been put many times before, that sport has the power to change the world. That is absolutely right; we should just look at the way in which it transforms lives in our communities up and down the country now. Worryingly, she pointed out that 34% of councils are likely to close their swimming pools in the next period. That is a frightening statistic. As someone who played a major role in local government for many years—I do not know about others in the Room today—I have seen the decline of our sporting facilities over that period, as less and less money has been invested as budgets are squeezed.

I liked the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, to the potential for sport to widen the participation of different communities. She referred in particular to the Bangladeshi community and the joy that she discovered in sport as she grew up.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, nailed it when he talked about a “leisure centre emergency”. These are powerful expressions that we should not lose sight of. My noble friend Lord Knight talked about the core problem of inactivity. As ever, he was absolutely right.

The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was our primary doubter. He did not like the idea of a national plan. I suspect that goes to the core of his political thinking, but even he admitted that we needed a UK plan and personally I do not really see much of a difference. However, it is important that we understand where sceptics are coming from because, if we do not, we will not make the coherent argument that we need to deliver on a national plan.

I also enjoyed the reflections of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and her challenge for others to get involved in the game of tennis. I am probably past my best in that sport, but I still enjoy a game of cricket and intend this summer to return to that game in my 70th year.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Well, if you had been there in my 30th year, you would have been among those whom I bowled out regularly.

This has been a very important debate for all of us join together in. The report notes high levels of inactivity among certain societal groups—it has been a problem for many decades, and we need to grasp it—leading not only to those health issues that we have concerns about but to social and community cohesion being the poorer for it.

The last Labour Government took a number of positive steps to get children and other groups more interested in sport and physical activity, but that momentum has been lost over the past 13 years. If that sounds like a party-political point, it probably is, but it is to do with the way in which our current Government have failed to build on some of the legacy opportunities, in particular the London 2012 legacy, which was a missed opportunity.

As I said earlier, the cuts to local authority and public health funding, as well as changes to the national curriculum and the expansion of academies and free schools, have left a patchwork of provision of sports clubs and facilities across the country.

We know that cuts to public health budgets have disproportionately hit groups who were already less physically active, which is why the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is a very good idea, even if there are issues around its operation. In December, the House debated a Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which sought to enact one of the key recommendations of the Select Committee: that is, that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities be renamed the Office for Health Promotion. That is an important point, but to put it on a statutory footing is important too.

In his response to that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, made a series of commitments, including that the Government would publish various updated strategies in the first quarter of this year, rather than 2022 as was originally intended. The Government claim that cross-departmental working in this area is functioning well, so in that spirit can the Minister confirm the status of those documents? Has he been personally involved in the processes? Can he update us on where those documents have got to and what the Government intend to do to bring forward some form of national strategy?

In their response to this report, the Government cite various pots of money for new football pitches and school sports facilities and a commitment to renovate existing park tennis courts. Can the Minister confirm how many facilities have actually been built or renovated since the announcements were made? I would very much like to know where they are and what improvements have been seen.

We are glad that the Government agree with the committee’s views on the importance of public messaging campaigns such as “This Girl Can”. This arguably runs contrary to other areas of policy where the Government seem to put too little resource into raising public awareness. Let us hope that it is different for sport. Can the Minister go into more detail on Sport England’s upcoming campaigns and comment on whether DCMS and the Department of Health and Social Care have assessed the potential benefits of broader public information campaigns on some of these issues?

I cannot let this debate pass without expressing thanks to community groups, sports clubs and amateur coaches across the country. They do so much to involve and inspire others, even if they do not always feel supported in that work. At least this group of Members can express their support and encouragement for their efforts.

The social and health benefits that could be derived from improving participation in sports and physical activity are huge, as a number of noble Lords have said. We owe it to those who run initiatives across the country to try to realise the benefits sooner rather than later, as we will otherwise face a health emergency. As the report points out, and as I think the Minister would acknowledge, making meaningful progress will take concerted action across Whitehall. Now that the Prime Minister has rejigged departments, are the Government confident that they can deliver?

I will spend a few moments reflecting on the decline at a non-elite level of one of our great sports, which the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred to: cricket. When I was a schoolboy, cricket was played in schools. Schools had cricket pitches which were well looked after. We played our rival schools in the summer games. For me, there were only two seasons in the year, not four—cricket and football. They were really important for us, growing up as we did. Cricket in state schools is pretty much non-existent unless you happen to be the beneficiary of something like Rod Aldridge’s sports academy, which focuses on cricket in the city where I live. That is a terrible gap. Cricket is a great game, not just because it is physical activity but because it takes you into the worlds of literature and maths—it is three or four disciplines all in one game of participation. However, there is little concern or interest from the Government in making that sport part of the regular day-to-day activity of the school curriculum.

Excellence at elite-level rugby league, rugby, football and cricket is a bonus to us. Winning more medals at the Olympics and the Lionesses winning the Euro championship are wonderful moments for national celebration, but they do not of themselves encourage wider sporting participation. The committee’s report goes a long way to addressing the steps we need to take to ensure that that ceases to be the case in future and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, becomes our manifesto—and a vibrant one, at that.

16:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a spirited and thoughtful debate, following the lead set by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who opened it brilliantly on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, to whom we send our best wishes. We have heard from five former government Ministers, whose careers have spanned I think 10 departments, and accomplished players and followers of many more sports, including noble Lords who, between them, have an impressive haul of 32 Olympic and Paralympic medals.

Some of these accolades may still be in store for my noble friend Lord Effingham. He eloquently set out his strong credentials and personal passion for speaking on certain topics, including that before your Lordships today. We warmly welcome both his mens sana and corpus sanum—I believe I have declined them correctly, but he is the classicist and will correct me—to your Lordships’ House and look forward very much to hearing more from him in debates in the years to come.

It has been very clear from all your Lordships’ speeches that sport has a vital role to play in our lives through its power to be a force for good and something which brings people together, as well as an important tool in improving the health and well-being of the nation. The benefits of participating in sport and physical activity are well known. Undertaking regular activity helps improve people’s health, both physical and mental, not just giving them healthier lives but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out, easing the pressure on our National Health Service. Sport also has the power to bring people closer together by fostering social cohesion and reducing loneliness, an essential part of a healthy and happy life. Research commissioned by Sport England shows that for every £1 that is invested in community sport, there is a return of £3.91 in wider social and economic value. That is why the Government are so committed to ensuring that everyone, across the whole country, has access to high-quality provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, was right to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a former Secretary of State responsible for sport and for health, but even if he were not, the economic benefits are clear. A robust and high-performing sport sector is immensely valuable to our economy, contributing £39 billion a year. In terms of jobs, in the decade and a half from 2003 to 2017, the sector saw employment growth of 42%, with 129,000 new jobs created.

While my department holds the remit for sport, it is the responsibility of many departments to ensure that people lead healthy and active lives. As we made clear in our response to the report of your Lordships’ committee, the Government do not believe that we need a machinery of government change to bring a sharper focus to that work. As we said in our response, sport is a major focus for officials at DCMS, indeed a larger one now that sport accounts for a greater proportion of our work following the machinery of government changes announced this week. I think I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who was a very effective Sports Minister, did that while working for the Department of the Environment, and we have seen considerable and important work led by Sports Ministers working with colleagues across a number of government departments over the years.

However, the Government agree with your Lordships’ committee on the importance of setting a strategic direction for sport and physical activity. We have been working on a new sport strategy. I have not been involved in that work as Minister for Arts and Heritage, but I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that it will be published in the first quarter of this year. We are also refreshing the school sport activity action plan. The new sport strategy will have a specific focus on addressing inactivity levels and the barriers which prevent people participating in sport and physical activity. We will consider the challenges facing children and young people and ensure that facilities are accessible to everyone.

The strategy has been drafted in consultation with key sector representatives as well as our arm’s-length bodies and active partnerships, which enable vital local collaboration. We are confident that this new strategy will address many of the important points raised by your Lordships’ committee, while recognising, as your Lordships have done, that action to address these issues requires a united, cross-government approach, an holistic understanding of physical activity, and strong local leadership.

 I mentioned just now our arm’s-length body, Sport England, through which we annually invest more than £250 million of public and National Lottery funding. We are particularly keen to ensure that less affluent communities are not forgotten, which is why over the past 12 months, one-fifth of Sport England’s local investment has been in projects in the most deprived areas, those classed as IMD1.

Your Lordships’ committee mentioned measuring the impact of Sport England. We agree that that is crucial and can confirm that work is under way to ensure the fundamental alignment of Sport England’s work with the Government’s sports strategy.

My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who is always an innovative thinker, raised the importance of innovation and data. As he would expect of a department that had until Tuesday “digital” in its name, we recognise the importance of digital tools and data in supporting people to be active. Sport England has worked with the Open Data Institute to develop OpenActive, a key programme to help tackle inequalities in activity, and we will continue to monitor how money is spent, gathering data to show impact at a local level, and work with Sport England to include specific key performance indicators to decrease inactivity, particularly among underrepresented groups.

Sport is uniquely placed to help create a more inclusive society, as speeches from noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, reminded us today. It has the power to bring people together, no matter what their background. The Government are working closely with Sport England, UK Sport and the national governing bodies to tackle all forms of discrimination, from grass-roots level to elite level. Our aim is to increase diversity among sporting organisations. By helping the sports sector to become more inclusive, we hope that it will become more welcoming to all spectators and participants, and to the people in its workforce, and that this in turn will enable and encourage more people to get active.

I will turn to some examples of the Government’s work in this important area. We recognise the importance of sport and physical activity for people with disabilities and continue to work with partners to encourage sport to be accessible to all. Indeed, the Government’s National Disability Strategy, published in the summer of 2021, included commitments to improve the accessibility of sport and physical activity, in line with our and Sport England’s ambitions. This will help enable disabled people to live more active and independent lives. Sport England has ensured that each of its programmes has a positive impact on people with disabilities through initiatives such as the Together Fund. It has so far invested £8.5 million in over 2,200 projects that support disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.

Along with noble Lords who have echoed this point today, we strongly believe that there is no place for any kind of discrimination in sport. We know that experiences of discrimination are not only hugely detrimental to people’s propensity to be active; they can also create divisions in local communities. At the Qatar World Cup, my colleague Stuart Andrew, the Minister for Sport but also the Minister for Equality, chose to wear the OneLove armband to support gay, lesbian. bisexual, trans and queer people, and send a positive message that everyone should feel welcome at all sports tournaments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the importance of safeguarding, and it is vital that everyone participating in sport feels safe and secure, and that, where allegations of inappropriate or harmful behaviour are made, they are taken seriously. There is no place for abuse of any kind in sport and anyone responsible for such behaviour must be held accountable. We have taken significant steps to improve safeguarding in sport, including the revision of standards and protections for children in sport, the introduction of an independent complaints and disclosure system for elite sport, and the strengthening of positions of trust legislation. But we will continue to work to make sport in the UK inclusive and welcoming for everyone, at every level.

A number of noble Lords mentioned facilities, which are indeed fundamental to a strong sporting community. The Government are acting to deliver the right facilities that every community needs across the United Kingdom. We are investing a total of £230 million between 2022 and 2025, and I can tell noble Lords that £43 million of that was delivered in 2021-22. This includes an existing £18 million of annual commitment in England, which is delivered through the Football Foundation in partnership with the FA and the Premier League. This investment will build up or improve up to 8,000 facilities across the country, especially in some of the most deprived areas.

The focus is not just on football: 40% of our investment will deliver facilities that can support multiple sports. We are also investing £30 million, together with the Lawn Tennis Association, to renovate and repair thousands of public park tennis courts, which might be able to host the match between my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lady Sater—I know who my money would be on.

Like my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, we recognise the importance of ensuring public access to leisure facilities, including swimming pools, which are great spaces for people of all ages and backgrounds to stay fit and healthy. They also play a vital role in their communities. The responsibility for providing access to public leisure facilities, as noble Lords know, lies with local authorities, which the Government continue to encourage to invest in this. We know that the rise in the cost of living, and energy costs in particular, is concerning for many clubs and for local authorities. That is why we supported them through the energy bills relief scheme and continue to provide support under the energy bills discount scheme.

My noble friend Lord Holmes asked what we are doing at a national government level. My right honourable friend the Sport Minister is actively engaging with the sector, including by recently holding a round table to continue to assess the ongoing impact on leisure centres. So that work continues.

I turn to the important role of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which was raised by my noble friend Lady Sater and others. It was established in 2021 and works across government, using evidence to influence policy and ensure greater consideration of preventing ill health and tackling disparities in cross-government decision-making. It is taking action on the major preventable conditions that drive ill health and early death, including cardiovascular disease and some cancers, as well as the risk factors that can cause those conditions, including tobacco, obesity, alcohol and drug use. It does this alongside local government, the National Health Service, academia and industry.

As the Government mentioned in our response to the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Addington —the Health Promotion Bill—social prescribing is an evolving and important mechanism to direct and refer people into physical activity opportunities. The Government are providing £13.9 million to deliver active travel social prescribing pilot programmes to 11 local authority areas across England. The funding will go towards projects including adult cycle training, free bicycle loans and walking groups.

The Government have a particular focus on supporting children and young people to become more active. Quite simply, sport and physical activity are a life-long habit that needs to be carefully nurtured from a young age, as noble Lords raised. High-quality physical education and sport in all schools is fundamental to ensuring that every child and young person has the opportunity to take part in a range of sports, which is why PE is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum from key stages 1 to 4. The PE national curriculum aims to ensure that all pupils develop competence to excel in a broad range of sport and physical activities, are physically active for sustained periods of time, and engage in competitive sports and activities. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked when the Sport Minister last discussed the curriculum with the Schools Minister. I can tell him that they discussed it in public just last month, when both spoke in another place in a debate on sport in schools.

On teachers, we are committed to ensuring that evidence-informed training, support and professional development runs through every teacher’s career. The evidence base underpinning the initial teacher training core content framework is the same as that underpinning the early career framework and the new national professional qualifications. This will ensure coherence and quality through teacher training and development that is based on the best evidence of what works. Some 179 providers have been successful, following a rigorous accreditation process designed to drive up the quality and consistency of initial teacher training.

The Government continue to fund the primary PE and sport premium, with £320 million of funding to primary schools confirmed for the current academic year. Since 2013, the total is over £2 billion. The PE and sport premium supports primary schools to make additional and sustainable improvements to the quality of the PE, school sport and physical activity that they provide. The Government are currently considering arrangements for the primary PE and sport premium for the forthcoming academic year and beyond, which will be announced as soon as possible.

Alongside community facilities, facilities on school sites represent an important resource for pupils and their families. The Department for Education is providing additional support to schools to open their sporting facilities outside the core day—at weekends and in the school holidays—which will increase sporting opportunities for pupils and wider community users from parts of the country with low physical activity levels. The Department for Education has procured a national partner to deliver phase 3 of its opening schools’ facilities programme. This phase aims to connect schools to national and local sporting organisations that can offer children and young people more opportunities to access extracurricular activities.

The Government also support physical activity and sport outside the school term through the £200 million a year holiday activities and food programme. All local authorities in England are delivering this programme, which takes place in schools and community venues and which supports disadvantaged pupils and families with enriching activities, including sport, as well as with healthy food. Last summer, the programme reached over 685,000 children and young people in England, including more than 580,000 funded directly by the programme.

Of course, as noble Lords reminded us, getting moving is not confined to playing sport. People can get fitter and healthier through increased walking and cycling in their daily lives. Last August, the Department for Transport formally established Active Travel England as an executive agency. As a delivery body, it will be at the heart of ensuring that the objectives of the Government’s second statutory cycling and walking investment strategy are met, and it will oversee the delivery of funding programmes. The Department for Transport is investing over £200 million on Active Travel projects in this financial year. That includes £161 million on 134 walking and cycling infrastructure schemes across 46 local authorities, including new footways, cycle lanes and pedestrian crossings.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and for the lively and passionate debate we have enjoyed today. I echo the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to the work of voluntary and community sports groups, as well as all those who work professionally to inspire people to get more active. Sport forms an essential part of our society, and I hope that my response has given noble Lords a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to building a healthier and fitter nation. I look forward to debating the topic with noble Lords as we continue that work.

16:51

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak personally and very briefly. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly my noble friend Lord Effingham for his maiden speech. He drew on Juvenal to quote the important phrase about rational minds in healthy bodies. Of course, Juvenal was a Roman satirist, who, if memory serves me right, hated how the politicians controlled his city, and at the same time was angry about how the impoverished were treated, which was one reason why he wanted everybody in the population to have the opportunity of developing a rational mind in a healthy body. So he would probably be sitting on the Opposition Benches, but I have absolutely no doubt that he would be strongly supportive of this report—although my noble friend Lord Naseby will be pleased to learn that he would probably have called it a “city plan” for sport, health and well-being.

I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby. Through his speech today, he has satisfied the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for an argument and a row. Nobody in the committee detracts from the fact that there is much good work being done by governing bodies and by the clubs and associations with which my noble friend is involved, but it was the data in the report that focused our attention.

I do agree with him that we have moved tremendously —but in the wrong direction, as evidenced in participation levels; in poor diets; in obesity; in the failure to promote inclusion and diversity in many governing bodies; in the small but ineffectual steps in duty of care, which is still critical for so many participants in sport; in reaching out and encouraging children in our schools; and in delivering accurate data. It was only five years or so ago when surveys on sport and recreation used only landlines as a basis for getting data. How on earth can you get an accurate representation of participation levels in the country if you are only phoning landlines, when most young people are, of course, on their mobiles?

Anyway, in good spirit, I will continue my discussion with my good and noble friend Lord Naseby, as we have in both places over many decades. I hope he has a relaxing and enjoyable Recess, rereading the National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing.

I genuinely thank the Minister, because I know that, like so many people who have been in his role, his intentions in this direction are right, and I am sure that his commitment is strong. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would have been very grateful for a list of nearly 32 more initiatives to add to his list today, but we on the committee hope that many of them will be turned into action and we are very grateful to the Minister for responding to this debate.

I will end by saying that the committee will continue to pursue with enthusiasm and vigour its recommendations, because evidence-based recommendations are vital, and they are not pointing in the right direction. We are absolutely committed to seeing improvements made to our sport, health and well-being in this country. It is with that intent and gratitude to noble Lords that I thank everybody who has participated in this debate for the contributions that they made.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 4.55 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Thursday 9 February 2023

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham.

Afghanistan: British Council Staff

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in helping relocate former British Council staff, living in danger in Afghanistan since 2021, who qualify for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, progress continues to be made to support those eligible under the first year of pathway 3 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, or ACRS. We have now allocated around 60% of the 1,500 available places to the British Council contractors, GardaWorld contractors and Chevening scholars, including their dependents. An increasing number of individuals are now also safely in a third country and being provided with UK-funded accommodation and other support, while awaiting further checks prior to travelling to and securing accommodation in the UK.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware—I am sure that he is—that these British Council teachers, numbering between 100 and 200 by the latest information, were recruited and directly employed by the British Council, teaching English and inclusion to combat violent extremism and to promote British values? The majority qualify for the ACRS, but they were abandoned in 2021; many are still in hiding and are now actively being targeted and hunted by the Taliban. Given that this British Council work was supported by the UK Government’s ODA budget, what further action is the FCDO taking to ensure that the British Council honours its obligations and responsibilities to those it employed in Afghanistan and does more to help those who have not got the means to buy visas to get out to safety in a third country?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness; both the British Council and His Majesty’s Government need to honour the commitments given to the incredible people who helped serve in Afghanistan and carried out such important duties, including through the British Council, in the area of education, among others. We work very closely and have regular meetings with the British Council, and I get regular updates on those who are making progress under pathway 3. There are challenges that are obviously still being worked through, including relating to those who have arrived in the UK through the other two ACRS pathways and are going into permanent accommodation. I assure the noble Baroness that I am focused on ensuring that we see greater progress and deliver on the 1,500 places that were agreed as part of His Majesty’s Government’s commitment. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and others in your Lordships’ House who are also focused on ensuring that we get the desired outcome for all those who serve Britain, as part of the British Council or indeed other organisations.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Will my noble friend the Minister make clear what the criteria are for Afghans coming to the UK? I share with him the example of one of my former academic colleagues who wrote to me the other day saying that he had worked with Kabul University and Kabul Polytechnic University with the British Council. This person has been targeted and had been trying to come to Britain, but he was refused. Can the Minister be quite clear about the criteria for deciding which Afghans who worked for the British should be allowed here? Frankly, most of them should be.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, there are specific criteria for who qualifies under the scheme, which I will work through. To give the context in terms of numbers: when the ACRS pathway 3 was opened, over 11,400 applications were received for those 1,500 places. As I said, we allocated about 1,600 because it is not just the principals but also their dependents and of course additional family members as well. Each one requires scrutiny, checks and security validation—that is part and parcel of the process. The initial criteria that are applied are of course quite strict, including for those who were directly employed by the British Council and who also had direct input into serving British interests. I have worked on this brief since the Taliban takeover; it is probably one of the most complex areas of our work but, equally, we need to ensure that there are robust procedures so that applications are and dealt with as swiftly as possible when they are received. I fully accept that we need to see—and expedite—progress for those who do qualify.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise what the Minister has been doing personally, but we cannot be filled with too much confidence when we hear a Minister say one thing in the Chamber of the House of Commons and then the department say something completely different later. It is an absolute scandal that people who have risked their lives on behalf of the British Government have been left stranded. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that we need proper urgent action; there are 9,000 people who are still at risk in Afghanistan and we owe a duty to them. I understand what the Minister is saying, but I hope that he can assure us that the department will act swiftly with other Whitehall departments to ensure the safety of these people who have protected British interests.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that, to speak for my own department, we are working through those expressions of interest and are also working closely with GardaWorld and the British Council. Of course, the Chevening scholars, the third cohort highlighted for pathway 3, are an integrated part—they are part and parcel—of the FCDO. However, I understand the frustrations of the noble Lord and indeed everyone in your Lordships’ House who has worked on this. There are processes that need to be followed, including the checks and balances regarding security, which I know the noble Lord agrees must happen. We are also working with near neighbours; there are a number of people who are now waiting in third countries, being supported by the British Government, who need to travel to the UK. We are working across Government, including with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office, to ensure that those who qualify and are in third countries can, as quickly as possible, come to the UK and start to rebuild their lives.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is a difference between the ARAP scheme, which did not have a limit on numbers, and the ACRS. My understanding is that some former British Council contractors are deemed eligible to come but have additional family members, which has delayed their ability to come to the United Kingdom. What conversations is the Minister having with the Home Office about this matter? In particular, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, last week whether a meeting with the Home Office would be possible. He said that he would decide whether it was necessary to meet me. I hope that the Minister at the FCDO might feel that a meeting could be useful.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My noble friend is not here to share his response but I always feel that Ministers across your Lordships’ House need to engage directly. I know that those are the sentiments of my noble friend the Leader of the House, as well, so I will certainly look into that. On the specific point that the noble Baroness raised, I am aware of some of the cases that have been raised of those who did not qualify under the ARAP scheme and have applied to the ACRS scheme. A number of those cases are being worked through but I am not going to give specific numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about getting into specifics but the numbers regarding those who qualify and under what category, and which part of the process they have reached, are literally moving on a daily basis. However, I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices and if she wishes to meet me, I should be happy to do so.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest, I suppose, because when I was a junior member of the embassy in Kabul in 1962, I negotiated the first placement of British Council teachers at one of the four high schools in Kabul. The British Council’s time in Afghanistan has been one that we should recognise as a major contribution to that country and our own foreign policy. Is the Minister quite sure that the criteria for admitting people to this scheme are not too tightly and narrowly drawn?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great insight and expertise on the importance of our diplomatic services. I must admit that I was not around in 1962, so I do not have his strength of experience. Nevertheless, on the more material point that he raises and the criteria established for working through the three cohorts of Afghans who have been asked to apply for this scheme—we work closely with the organisations in the application of those criteria—as I said in response to my noble friend Lord Kamall, the number wishing to come to the UK who have applied to the scheme far outweighs the number allocated. It is therefore right that we adopt a process that is fair to the individuals applying and ensures that the criteria can be applied as regards additional family members, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It is right that we show compassion if someone approaches but does not fulfil the strict criteria for additional family members who happen to be an elderly mother or father, or a child over the threshold of 18. But that requires a certain degree of delay as an assessment is made on the security of that person’s viability for coming to the UK.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for all his efforts on this particularly difficult problem. He rightly has concentrated on Britain’s responsibility, but other European countries are involved in Afghanistan. What help are we getting from countries such as Sweden, which is very much involved, and are we working with them?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we are working with other partners. At the time of Operation Pitting, the UK was a key country and helped 36 other countries with the departures from Afghanistan. We are working closely with our EU partners and the United States, looking directly at those who have moved to third countries and how best we can expedite their relocation to whichever country they have applied to. That is done in a co-ordinated fashion. That said, all noble Lords are aware that the situation within Afghanistan is going from bad to worse. The deterioration of civil and human rights continues. However, at the same time, we are seeking to engage, even through our chargé based out of Doha, and at least alleviate the plight of those left in Afghanistan, including through humanitarian support.

Soft Power

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

11:18

Asked by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they remain committed to maintaining the quality of the components of the United Kingdom’s soft power, as listed in chapter 2 of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (CP 403), published on 16 March 2021.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government remain absolutely committed to harnessing the range of UK influence to advance our interests overseas. The FCDO has demonstrated this through our continued support for the British Council and the BBC World Service, our flagship scholarship programmes engaging future generations of global leaders, our world-class diplomatic network and our role in supporting the international elements of major UK cultural events, such as Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee and the upcoming coronation of Their Majesties the King and Queen Consort.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the previous Prime Minister but one used to talk about the UK as a soft power superpower. The integrated review listed: the BBC World Service in particular with its global reputation; UK universities and their immense attraction for overseas students; our strong and flourishing cultural sector; the British Council, as the Minister has mentioned; and our record as one of the world’s major and most skilled providers of overseas aid and development assistance. Which of those are the Government still as committed to as they were when the integrated review was agreed?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we are committed to all of the above. The BBC World Service currently provides services in 42 languages to 365 million people. We have committed £94.4 million annually to the BBC through the spending review, an additional £4.1 million to the World Service to support Ukrainian and Russian language services in the light of Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine, and a further £1.44 million from the FCDO to support countering disinformation.

I use that as a specific example, but the noble Lord talked about all the areas. He will know from his involvement in education that the United Kingdom remains second only to the United States in terms of numbers of overseas students. That service has improved. My colleagues at the Home Office have extended someone’s ability to come to the UK not only to study but to work, which enhances both the reputation of the UK’s education offer and the abilities and skills of the individual coming. I would be happy to discuss that with the noble Lord.

Of course I accept that ODA has been cut from 0.7% to 0.5%; I hope we can return to 0.7% as soon as possible. Working within those parameters, we continue to prioritise important issues such as humanitarian support, as we have done recently in Turkey, to ensure that the agility and flexibility needed to respond to natural disasters is also met.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s very wise words on higher education, can he explain the constant briefings from Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch that we really do not want higher education international students to come to the United Kingdom and be welcomed in the way that they have been over so many years?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister for South Asia, among other areas, I am directly involved in some of the important work we are doing to strengthen our partnership with India, for example, as well as other south Asian countries, and education is a key component of that. I assure the noble Lord that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is very proud of our educational offer to international students and equally proud of the programmes we run, such as the Chevening scholarships and the Commonwealth scholarships, which are part and parcel of our overall educational offer. I stand by the fact that the UK has been, continues to be and should remain a key place for any student wishing to come to the UK, because our educational institutions, with which many noble Lords are involved, are second to none.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, the world has changed rather dramatically in the two years since the publication of this review. I know that the Minister is not directly responsible, but could he go back and ask the Foreign Secretary to lobby for an immediate review of the review, because we must spend more on defence? Funnily enough, I think that is what President Zelensky said yesterday, and everybody said, “Hear, hear”. Well, I say “Hear, hear” to that. We need to have hard power as well as soft power.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

And I say to my noble friend that I hear him, and I hear him again. I assure him that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is seized of the very points he has just made.

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday some of us from this House attended a meeting on the BBC World Service in Iran. That programme is now severely threatened due to various expenditure cuts and the flat licence fee, yet the BBC World Service is the only voice of democracy and values that Iranians have access to at the moment. Can the Minister guarantee that this programme has special consideration by the FCDO to preserve it and allow it to have sufficient funding?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work in this area. I assure her that we are very much—again—seized of the evolving and changing situation in Iran. We have seen the most appalling and abhorrent suppression of human rights by Iran on its own communities, particularly women and girls. As I understand it, under the current BBC proposals no services will be closed. The issue is one of broadcast services and radio. According to the figures I have, about 1% of the BBC’s total weekly audience of 13.8 million in Iran get BBC news solely by radio. The other 99% use BBC Persian on TV and online. However, I hear what the noble Baroness says. Although the BBC has an independent mandate to work in this respect, the importance of BBC Persian services in Iran is very much a key priority for us as well.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister cannot have it both ways. He talks about grants to the BBC, but it is suffering precisely because of what the noble Baroness asked about in terms of licence fee constraints. Tim Davie has been saying that that it is for the Government to determine strategic decisions on funding the World Service. It is one of the most important elements of our soft power. I hear from Tim Davie that the BBC is making a strong case for the Government to look at taking back responsibility for funding the World Service, taking it away from the licence fee. He has said that he is engaging constructively with the FCDO on future funding. Can the Minister tell us what that means and what sorts of discussions have been taking place?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Well, we are engaging constructively with the BBC, as the noble Lord has heard from the BBC directly. To put this into context, since about 2016 the FCDO, notwithstanding quite a number of challenges that we have faced, has provided more than £468 million to the World Service via the World2020 programme, which funds 12 language services. I also accept that 2016 was the last time a review of those services was carried out. Some of the discussions we are having in the FCDO are about reviewing those services to ensure, as noble Lords often highlight and have done today, that, in an ever-changing world, we prioritise the services that are funded. That said, over 42 languages are funded overall, including through the licence fee. They reach a sizeable part of the world’s population—365 million people. However, I accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question that we need to ensure that the BBC is fit for purpose, particularly in the important service it provides to many communities around the world that are under severe suppression and targeted by their own Governments.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have reaffirmed the importance of soft power to the UK. I agree with them. Three or four years ago, the then Minister for Soft Power met this House’s International Relations and Defence Committee to consult on a soft power strategy that he said was imminent. Who currently is the Minister for Soft Power? Is there a strategy? If there is, where is it?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure your Lordships that the care and compassion shown by all Ministers, including those in the FCDO, are very empowering. We are all responsible for the delivery of the influence that we can extend through our soft power, as it is termed, around the world. The noble Lord will also be aware that that strategy was integrated into the integrated review as part of the influence we have around the world. We have one of the best diplomatic networks, which I know the noble Lord himself has experienced, and the best diplomats around the world. Those networks, working with the likes of the British Council and other key bodies at arm’s length from the UK Government, are part and parcel of the UK offer. The soft power and influence we have around the world, whether through our world-class universities, our diplomats or, indeed, the caring and compassionate words of Ministers who travel around the world, as well as parliamentarians, are all part of that UK offer. It is actually a key part, particularly in the world we live in today.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, the UK without doubt has some of the strongest elements of soft power, including the Royal Family, the BBC, Premier League football or our universities. Can the Minister reassure us that, having hit the 600,000 target for international students, there will be no reduction—in fact, we should increase it to 1 million—and that the two-year post-graduation work visa will not be reduced but retained? Why do the Government continue to include international students in net migration figures? They should be excluded, as our competitor countries do.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first pay tribute to the noble Lord as an example of our soft power around the world. I hear what he said. Of course, it is not within the remit of the department that I speak for, but I will certainly relay the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House to colleagues in the Home Office. Again, I accept the principle he relates: if we have a world-class offer for students, from which we, they and the world gain, we should ensure that it is available in the maximum way it can be, while accepting the domestic challenges we face.

Maternity Services

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

11:29

Asked by

[Lord Patel]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the Care Quality Commission’s Maternity Survey 2022, published on 11 January.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

My Lords, we are committed to continuing our work to ensure that all maternity services provide safe and compassionate care. We will continue to closely monitor progress in improving the standard of maternity care across the country. We have made significant investment into maternity and neonatal services, with £127 million announced in 2022 to go into the maternity system to help to increase the NHS maternity workforce and improve neonatal care.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The Ockenden report on Shrewsbury and Telford, the Kirkup reports on East Kent and Morecambe Bay, the current report of the CQC, the fact that the CQC fined a Nottingham hospital the maximum amount—£800,000—for a baby death, and the fact that we are now paying out in maternity litigation costs over £1 billion per year all point to one thing: a question of safety in our maternity units. Mothers and babies should not die in our maternity units without care and compassion, but that is what is happening. I am glad that the Minister, the honourable Maria Caulfield, met Dr Kirkup last week, which is a great improvement and progress. I hope the Government will now take seriously the need for zero tolerance of mothers dying in our maternity units and zero tolerance of normally formed babies dying or being damaged in childbirth. I shall keep pursuing this until we get that.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I welcome the noble Lord’s pursuit because that is absolutely the right thing to do. I think we all agree with that, and we would all say that what happened in East Kent and the other examples from the Ockenden report are clearly not something that we are happy with or that we should put up with. The Kirkup and Ockenden reports gave us a north star, a way forward. I am pleased to see that we are making progress on that, but I expect the noble Lord to hold us fully to account because I am holding the department to account on this.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, building on what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has said, my noble friend will know that continuity of care is really important and has been recommended by the Better Births maternity review. That builds up with better medical understanding of the woman, the pregnancy and the issues related to it. However, only 37% of women are afforded this, and that drops down to 27% in antenatal care. What are the Government doing to take steps to address this so that the terrible examples that we have seen recently are averted?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I agree with the work by my noble friends, including the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to put the importance of midwifery continuity of care at the centre of everything. The survey to which my noble friend’s question refers shows that that is coming through in terms of a consistent message that having that confidence in the person in treating them is vital to all of this. That remains important. Key to this is the workforce, so this is one of the things that is being built into the workforce plan. That is starting with ensuring that we have new people coming in. The 1,200 graduates that we now have going into training each year are a vital part of making sure that we can deliver.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, report after report shows that the current system of treating maternity and reproductive health services on an episodic basis is costly and inefficient. Will the Government undertake to review that so that we can begin to go back to the system where staff were trained in both maternity and general nursing? We could therefore treat women on the basis of the whole of their lifestyle and get back to doing the most important jobs, such as making postpartum contraception available, which in the end would not only enable women to be treated more safely but save the NHS money.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That question probably deserves a more detailed reply then I can give here in 30 seconds. In terms of the direction of travel, continuity of care, not just in the maternity service but in understanding that person and their needs, has to be the right thing to do to make sure that we have cradle-to-grave treatment with people who know your case. So I agree with that direction of travel and I will follow up with a more detailed response.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend update the House on the number of midwives available? I understand that there is concern among expectant mothers about the availability of midwives.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The figure for the number of midwives has been roughly constant over the last few years at about 23,000. We want to increase that, which is why we have made a commitment to increase the number of graduate places to more than 1,000 each year. This year, as I say, we have 1,200 places, so we are making good progress.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an almost twofold difference in maternity mortality rates between women from Asian ethnic groups and white women, while black women are now 40% more likely to experience a miscarriage than white women. When will there be a report from the Maternity Disparities Taskforce? Could the Minister confirm that Parliament will have a full opportunity to examine its findings and review the progress that has been made?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to point out those figures, and they are something that none of us is happy with. That is exactly what the Maternity Disparities Taskforce was set up to deal with, so I am happy to make a commitment to talk through with the noble Baroness the progress of that.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, running through the reports that my noble friend Lord Patel referred to are two strands: one is workforce, which relates to numbers and qualifications, but the other is dysfunctional teams and a failure of teamwork across the different disciplines, both within maternity services and relating to general medical services, for providing support to women, particularly those with multiple comorbidities who are then going through pregnancy and delivery. I wonder whether the Government are commissioning a specific piece of work to look at ways in which these teams can alter their behaviours internally and be supported to improve on this dysfunctional behaviour within them, which is having an adverse knock-on effect on the experience of mothers and on the clinical outcomes which, as has been said, are sometimes fatal.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, one of the Kirkup recommendations—recommendation 3, I believe—was about an improvement in teamwork, and that is what will be done under the guidance of national and regional maternity safety champions. I should say that while there is much improvement that we want to do, the overall context is a 19% decrease in stillbirth since 2010 and a 36% decrease in neonatal mortality over 24 weeks since 2010. So it is an improving picture, but it is something that we want to improve further.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, another day, another area of the NHS that is suffering from serious staff shortages, and these shortages are having a real impact on the willingness of midwives to stay in the profession, more than half of whom are considering leaving the NHS, according to surveys by the Royal College of Midwives. What is the Minister’s view on the proposals that have come from various groups that there should be nationally agreed minimum staffing levels for maternity and neonatal staff?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, I think there are certain things that we are saying we want to see in place. Continuity of care is part of that, and the workforce plan is how we put teams around to do that. It will always be a feature that we then expect the local health trusts and ICBs to work out how best to do that in their own situations. I also say in this context that we are increasing our numbers but this is not like other demographics where we have an ageing population. The birth rate, as we all know, is actually constant/declining, so it is not like those other areas where we are talking about that. Notwithstanding that, as I mentioned before, we are increasing the number of graduate places.

Hospitals: Maintenance

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Question

11:39

Asked by

[Baroness Merron]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the NHS’s Estate Returns Information Collection data, which show that the cost of maintenance work on hospitals in England exceeded £1 billion in 2021–22.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

Patient and staff safety is our top priority: that is why the Government are providing £12 billion in operational capital to the NHS over the next three years for trusts to maintain and improve the estate. We support the increasing levels of investment by trusts to ensure that facilities are safe and maintained to a high standard.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, while the cost of replacing crumbling wards and operating theatres soars, only 10 of the 40 proposed hospital construction projects have full planning permission and the National Audit Office is investigating the programme. Can the Minister confirm how many of the 40 promised new hospitals will actually have been built by 2030? Can he also confirm that they really will be hospitals and not extensions or refurbishments?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Twenty-one outline or full planning permissions have been given, which is totally on track with the target. Clearly, if some of those hospitals are not being built until, say, 2027, there would be no detailed planning permission yet. So those statistics are not representative of the situation, which shows that the programme of planning applications is on track. I am committed, as are my colleagues, to ensuring that we deliver the 40 by 2030.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, what are the Government going to do to end the ludicrous situation whereby even if NHS trusts have cash in the bank or access to the proceeds of asset disposals, they can be barred from improving major equipment on their estate because of arbitrary departmental capital expenditure limits imposed by the Treasury?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Clearly, we want to give each trust the freedom to spend where it needs to. Obviously, there are overall Treasury rules but the main thing is the increased allocation we have made available in this space. We have spent £1.4 billion in the past year, which is a 57% increase, recognising that it is a good thing to put preventive maintenance in place to get on top of the backlog.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I may not be doing the Minister much justice but I admire his ability to give straight answers. I also admire his ability to maintain the fiction of 40 new hospitals. Does he accept that the Nuffield Trust puts the number of hospitals that any person in the street would recognise as new at three?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I know that it is a lot more than that. The number of cohort 1 and cohort 2 hospitals being built at the moment is substantially more. This is a real programme; in fact, I invite all my colleagues here to a parliamentary open day, which I think will happen in the next month or so, when we plan to exhibit exactly what we are doing. We will have virtual reality glasses so that noble Lords can see the hospital of the future. Please come along and see for yourselves how real this programme is.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the old joke about how many men it takes to change a light bulb tends not to go down well in PFI hospitals, where the answer can be “Several—and a lot of money”. In November, the Minister said to me that he was re-examining all these ruinous PFI contracts. Can he tell the House what progress he has made?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We are actually making a lot of progress on them. A number of them, dare I say it, were introduced by Governments of a different colour and we are now working through and correcting those. At the same time, private capital can do a lot of good things. Many in the House will have heard me say just yesterday that if we put LED lightbulbs in every hospital, it would cost £400 million and save £100 million a year. That is the sort of thing private capital will fund every day of the week, probably at a 5% yield, giving us £95 million of savings a year. That is a good use of private capital, and the sort of thing I am looking at.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am surprised that more noble Lords have not dived into this report. It is fascinating, especially sheet 7 of the spreadsheet, which tells us that NHS England is spending £234 million a year on storing medical records. So while some parts of the NHS are working towards all-singing, all-dancing federated data platforms, in other places the height of modern technology is a new shopping trolley to move mouldering files in and out of a dingy basement. Will the Minister share with the House the Government’s plans to digitise or securely dispose of those paper records so that in future editions of this ERIC report, we will see that that £234 million has fallen close to zero?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an excellent point. As he knows, we are investing heavily in a federated data platform, which is precisely about stopping storing paper and making such savings. Even more importantly, it is about improving patient care so that we can ensure that records are transferred instantaneously and really build on the knowledge that will bring.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister really addressed the question my noble friend raised about the number of hospitals. He said that it was substantially more than three, then tailed off without giving us a number. He promised us a virtual reality opportunity to look at “the hospital of the future”, but I do not know whether that exhibition will show exactly which hospitals the 40 in question are, what is going to happen and how many of them a normal person in the street would regard as new. While he is on his feet, can he tell us what feedback Ministers have had from NHS staff working in hospitals about the physical state of those buildings and the extent to which that impedes their daily activities supporting patients?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We have eight cohort 1 hospitals, which all have full planning permission and are in various stages of construction. We have 10 cohort 2 hospitals, of which two have full planning permission, seven have outline planning permission and one is awaiting approval of outline permission. All have had the preparation works done. So that is 17 where massive progress is being made. We then have cohort 3 schemes: the new hospital 2.0 projects, which are introducing modern methods of construction to standardise production and get cheaper and more efficient hospitals at a quicker rate of output. That is what I invite noble Lords to come and see for themselves over the coming weeks. This programme is very real and I will happily take people through whatever detail they want because, believe me, it is all there.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Is the Minister aware that, from time to time I have asked his predecessors to discuss with Scottish Ministers how they can help each other? However, in this area I am not going to do that because in Scotland, the children’s hospital in Edinburgh was delayed by a year and the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow has had enormous problems. Is there a competition between the English Tories and the SNP to see who can bring the NHS to its knees first?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I can speak clearly on the subject of the new hospital programme, which I think the noble Lord will find is world-class. I will happily demonstrate that to him; indeed, people will see how ground-breaking this project actually is. We will see standardised designs with improved clinical standards, and more efficient productivity and costs as a result. It will be world-class, and we will export it around the world.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, if the Government are saying that these are to be world-class hospitals, what is the comparison? Is it hospitals such as those in the Netherlands, which are extremely well designed and function very well, versus the many hospitals here which do not function well and have appalling design features? As soon as the staff move into them, they deteriorate rapidly.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We are assessing best practice around the world in order to design them. That is exactly the point: we are taking on board things from the Netherlands and all round the world to make them state of the art and world class.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

I do not know how many hospitals have been completed, and I accept that there is a huge programme. But what I do know is that, since we came into power, in Liverpool we have had the brand new, state-of-the-art Liverpool University Hospital, a multi-billion pound hospital that has opened recently; Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, a first-class, world-renowned children’s hospital which has been opened in the last few years; and a huge cancer research centre—all within three miles of each other. I am sure there must be many others around the country. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me on this?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes. Now I am no longer holding anyone up in terms of time, I welcome noble Lords to visit places like Liverpool hospital and Chase Farm Hospital, where they will see brilliant examples of state-of-the-art hospitals. There will be many more—in fact, 40—going forward.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Supreme Court Judgment

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

11:50

Asked by

[Lord Morrow]

To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what assessment they have made of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the status of the Northern Ireland Protocol and its effects on the Acts of Union 1800 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and (2) what urgent proposals they plan to implement to prevent any deterioration in relations between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday the Supreme Court considered the appeal brought to it last year and found in the Government’s favour. Regardless of this outcome, significant problems with the protocol remain. These will require political, not legal, remedies. The Government remain determined to find a solution that protects Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom’s internal market and respects all three strands of the Belfast agreement. Intensive talks with the EU continue to that end.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. The Supreme Court judgment handed down yesterday states that the protection regarding constitutional change in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 pertains only to a situation where it is proposed that Northern Ireland fully leaves the United Kingdom to become fully part of the Irish Republic. This means that the critical prohibition in the Good Friday agreement on

“change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”

is not upheld in law. Given that, without this protection, the Good Friday agreement cannot stand, will the Government now introduce emergency legislation to give effect to the consent protections in the Good Friday agreement?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I gently point out that in the Supreme Court the Government won on all counts brought by the applicants. On his specific points, the Supreme Court was very clear that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom. The position set out in the Belfast agreement is very clear: Northern Ireland is either fully part of the United Kingdom or it is fully part of a united Ireland, which will only ever be determined by the consent of the people in Northern Ireland. That remains unchanged.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Supreme Court judgment is welcome in that it provides legal certainty where there was uncertainty. The protocol negotiated by this Government—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who was responsible for it, is in his place—is by no means perfect. There are problems with it, which is why it is being renegotiated. I distinctly recall Ministers in your Lordships’ House saying that the protocol was essential to protect the Good Friday agreement, but now the Government tell us they have to change it to protect the Good Friday agreement. Only one of those statements can be true.

Businesses in Northern Ireland have been forced to adapt to their circumstances. They have put a lot of effort into adjusting to this. To unilaterally remove it would be the worst thing for businesses in Northern Ireland. There are reports that some limited progress is being made in negotiations. How confident is the Minister that the outstanding issues can be resolved quickly and in a manner that can draw broad, if not unanimous, support from across Northern Ireland?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. As I have said on many occasions, she is a very distinguished former Northern Ireland Office Minister. We debated these issues at some length on Tuesday evening during the passage of the Northern Ireland Budget Bill. I was very clear that evening that for many businesses and sectors there are elements of the protocol that are working well. I referred to a recent meeting I had with the Dairy Council and Lakeland Dairies in Newtownards. For those businesses, EU single market access, as provided for in the protocol, is not just desirable but essential. We are committed to preserving that. I also said that there are many problems with the protocol for other sectors. It has led to diversions of trade and increased burdens on business. It has disadvantaged consumers and led to political instability—witness that there are no institutions at the moment.

On the noble Baroness’s question, I will not comment on what may have been written in newspapers. The Government’s preference is to resolve these matters through a negotiated agreement with the European Union. As I said in my initial Answer, we are working tirelessly towards that end.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, further to that answer, does the Minister agree that this ruling increases the urgency to make real progress on the negotiations as soon as possible? The sooner there is a return to Stormont and the Executive, the better this will be for the people of Northern Ireland, given the cost of living crisis they currently face.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that I have been a consistent supporter of the Belfast agreement since it was reached on 10 April 1998. We are about to mark its 25th anniversary. I agree with her earlier comments. A protocol that was designed to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and to protect the 1998 agreement in all its parts is now having the unintended consequence of undermining and placing strain on that agreement. I agree with the noble Baroness entirely that we need to resolve these issues as quickly as possible and get Stormont back to work.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all that he continues to do in the interests of good sense and Northern Ireland. Is he confident that, given sufficient time—we do not need to rush this or try to accomplish it as soon as we can—negotiation is the only sensible way to resolve this issue? The dairy industry, which has been to see me and others, will then feel that its protection is complete and will be very happy that others should have similar benefits.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend and thank him for his kind words. We are seeking to achieve, as I indicated in my opening Answer, a situation that respects the integrity of the EU single market and the UK’s internal market, and Northern Ireland’s constitutional position as an integral part of our United Kingdom—a position, I hasten to add, that I wish never to see change.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to having won in the court, but the Government have won on the basis of the argument that the Acts of Union have been suspended. Are the Government proud of arguing in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that the Acts of Union have been suspended? What action will the Minister take to restore the union?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I will resist the attempt to turn the House of Lords into another branch of the Supreme Court and relitigate the case on which judgment was reached yesterday. All I will say to my noble friend is that we are well aware of the defects in the protocol, which have become apparent. Some might say that they were apparent at the time, but they are very apparent today. We are determined to remedy what does not work, while preserving what does.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as one of the applicants to the Supreme Court yesterday, I welcome the clarity the Supreme Court has given to the legal position. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that there needs to now be a political solution to this problem for Northern Ireland, which has been ongoing since 2021. Paragraph 67 of the Supreme Court judgment yesterday, as my noble friend Lord Dodds has just referred to, says:

“The Acts of Union and article VI remain on the statute book but are modified to the extent and for the period during which the Protocol applies.”


At the time of the withdrawal agreement, we were told that the Acts of Union had not been changed and that the union was safe. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Acts of Union have been modified as long as the protocol is in existence. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to reinstate Article VI of the Act of Union?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to the former First Minister of Northern Ireland for her comments. We will of course continue to study the judgment very carefully, because, as I indicated to my noble friend Lord Dodds, I do not plan to get into a legal rehearsal of all the arguments that we were played out in the Supreme Court. As her former right honourable friend, the current leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, made clear yesterday, this issue was never going to be solved in the courts; it requires a political solution, and that is what the Government are striving to achieve.

There have been modifications to the Acts of Union in the past; if there had not been, 100 Irish representative Peers would still be sitting in your Lordships’ House and the Church of Ireland would not have been disestablished.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Shame!

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I note that the former First Minister is a proud Anglican. While there have been modifications, I take on board the noble Baroness’s comments. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government’s intention is to ensure that Northern Ireland’s position within the UK internal market is fully respected, along with its constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, a group of 18 year-olds from Northern Ireland visited Parliament yesterday. They told me that they were jealous of me because, for years, I had the opportunity to stand for election and to debate and make all the laws to which I was subject—an opportunity they will now be denied under the protocol, with laws being forced upon them over which they have no say. They told me that they felt like second-class citizens in the United Kingdom because of that. What does the Minister say to them?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Clearly, we do not want anybody in any part of the United Kingdom to feel like a second-class citizen. As I set out in my comments on the Northern Ireland Budget Bill on Tuesday, dealing with issues around governance and the democratic deficit, to which the noble Lord referred, are extremely important, and they will have to form part of a final negotiated agreement with the EU.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, we used to have a situation where there was a common citizenship across the United Kingdom and that every citizen of the United Kingdom was able to vote for representatives at either regional or national level who could set their laws. It is clear that the Supreme Court ruling yesterday has confirmed that that is no longer the case. As we rightly, as a nation, seek to propagate the values of democracy internationally, can the Minister tell us what message it sends to the outside world that we are tolerating a major democratic deficit in our own backyard?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

As I just pointed out in response to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, this is an issue we are seeking to resolve in the negotiations. I cannot really go into any detail at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, the Acts of Union were our country’s foundational charter. If the United Kingdom had a national day analogous to the independence days of other countries, it would commemorate 1 January 1801, when the Acts of Union took effect. How can any British Government, least of all a Conservative and Unionist British Government, tolerate legislation that is now held in the courts to be at odds with that foundational document?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I can assure my noble friend that, as a staunch unionist, I would have no issue whatever in commemorating or marking 1 January 1801 every year. I have already answered his question: issues around governance and the democratic deficit have to be resolved in our ongoing and intensive dialogue and negotiations with the EU.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, can the Minister comment on the issue whereby people elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly are then subject to laws in some 300 areas made by a legislature of which they are not a part and to which they have no representation?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hay, for his question, which I think I have covered in my previous answers.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, up to half of all goods and produce exported across the border from Northern Ireland to the Republic are produced in Northern Ireland, and therefore cannot be validated as to whether they meet EU conditions at the border between GB and Northern Ireland. Should we not remove the border between GB and Northern Ireland and rely on export controls and the SPIRE system, which I used to exercise as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to ensure that goods exported to the European Union meet European standards? That would solve the problem.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My noble friend, as a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, makes a valuable point. He will of course be aware that the Government have proposed, and are currently discussing, a system of green channels and red channels at points of entry, whereby goods that will never leave the United Kingdom will not be subject to the controls that will be placed upon those goods that will enter the single market.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, would the Minister care to speculate as to why the guilty men who got us into this mess in the first place remain silent?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I have great admiration for the noble Lord, but I am never one to speculate, especially at the Dispatch Box. As I have said on many occasions, I prefer to dwell less on how we got into this place and more on how we get out of it.

Omagh Bombing

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 2 February.

“With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on the Omagh bombing.

The Omagh bombing of 15 August 1998 was an horrific terrorist atrocity committed by the Real IRA that caused untold damage to the families of the 29 people and two unborn children who were tragically killed, and to the 220 people who were injured. It remains the largest loss of life in a single incident in Northern Ireland, and it took place mere months after the signing of the landmark Belfast/Good Friday agreement, just as Northern Ireland had overwhelmingly expressed its desire for a future of peace and stability based on democracy and the principle of consent, and a future without the violence that had dominated the previous three decades and that, once again, caused untold pain and suffering to families on that day in August 1998. That atrocity, as well as other acts of terrorism before and since, had absolutely no justification.

The Omagh bombing has been subject to a number of investigations, both immediately after the event and in subsequent years. This includes the original inquest and the investigations by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and by the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, as well as a review by Sir Peter Gibson, the then Intelligence Services Commissioner, at the request of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In 2013 my right honourable friend the Member for Chipping Barnet decided not to establish a public inquiry into the Omagh bombing. Her decision was made in the light of the situation as it was at that time. Michael Gallagher, who lost his son Aiden in the bombing, pursued a judicial review of the decision not to establish a public inquiry into whether there had been a failure to investigate whether the Omagh bomb could have been prevented. Following a short summary judgment in July 2021, the Northern Ireland High Court found in October 2021 that plausible arguments could be made that the state had failed to comply with its obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to take reasonable steps to prevent the bombing.

The Northern Ireland High Court identified four grounds that gave rise to the plausible argument of preventability: the handling and sharing of intelligence; the use of cell phone analysis; whether there was advance knowledge, or reasonable means of knowledge, of the bomb; and whether disruption operations could or should have been mounted, which may have helped to prevent the tragedy. The court did not prescribe the form of investigation that should take place. It left that to be decided by the state authorities.

Since coming into post, I have taken time to carefully consider the full judgment. I have met Mr Gallagher and representatives of the support group he chairs, the Omagh Support and Self Help Group, which works to promote and advocate for the needs of victims of terrorism. I visited the site of the bomb with them—it was a very sobering experience—and crossed the road to the memorial garden that commemorates all those who lost their life. I have also met representatives of Families Moving On, another support group that is doing incredibly valuable work in helping victims and survivors to recover, grow and sustain a sense of well-being. I have listened to the representations of these families and taken their varying perspectives into account.

I have considered important factors such as the independence of any future investigation, the cost to the public purse and how best to allay wider public concern. I have weighed these against the clear findings set out by the court, which we must meet for any investigation to be effective and compliant with our international obligations, and which are at the core of my decision.

I intend to establish an independent statutory inquiry into the Omagh bombing. I have informed Mr Gallagher and members of the Omagh Support and Self Help Group, as well as representatives of Families Moving On, of that decision. The inquiry will focus specifically on the four grounds that the court held as giving rise to plausible arguments that the bombing could have been prevented. The inquiry will also need to take account of the findings of previous investigations in order to avoid duplication.

I know that this is a significant decision, and I am keen to explain to the House why I believe it is also the most appropriate course of action. First, the inquiry will allow us to meet our Article 2 procedural obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, as it will have powers of compulsion and will be capable of compelling the production of documents and witnesses and of subjecting their accounts to scrutiny. The 2008 Gibson review of the Omagh bombing did not have such statutory powers, meaning that Sir Peter Gibson had no means of compelling witness testimony. It is important that any investigation has at its disposal sufficient tools to access all necessary evidence and materials. It is for that reason that I discounted the option of a non-statutory inquiry.

I also discounted referring the Omagh case to the yet-to-be-established independent commission of reconciliation and information recovery, which will be established by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, which is being considered in the other place. That new body will have all the powers required to access all evidence and compel witnesses. However, it has been designed to consider cases that occurred before the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed on 10 April 1998. That is a well-established approach to distinguish between cases that happened before and after the agreement. I do not think that we should change that approach now, and the legislation setting up the commission has yet to pass into law.

Secondly, an independent statutory inquiry is an appropriate forum for examining the vast volume of national security-sensitive information that the court has deemed to be at the core of the question about whether the bombing could have been prevented. A disclosure protocol will be agreed between the inquiry and all relevant partners to take account of the national security-sensitive material involved in this case.

Thirdly, the inquiry will involve the next of kin and will be open to public scrutiny where possible. That will, of course, need to be balanced against national security considerations. It is important to note that it will not be possible to examine some of the material in public. A final report will be published and will respond to each of the issues identified by the High Court. Justice Horner expressed in his judgment a desire for a simultaneous Article 2-compliant investigation to occur in Ireland. He recognised that it was not in the court’s power to order a cross-border investigation. Nor is it in my power, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to do so, but I remain in close contact with the Irish Government on the issue.

I wish to assure the House that this decision has been taken following careful consideration of the facts, of the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, and of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that the decision to establish an independent statutory inquiry gives some comfort to the families who have long campaigned for that outcome. I recognise, however, that not all the families affected by the bombing desire such further investigation. Some have worked hard to process their trauma and move on with their lives, and do not wish to re-examine the past. I hope that the targeted nature of the inquiry, allowing it to answer the four points I have mentioned, will provide the middle ground whereby answers are sought for those who want them without reopening avenues that have already been investigated to satisfaction.

On the next steps, I will now proceed to identify a chair for the inquiry and finalise the terms of reference following consultation with that chair. My intention is that the terms of reference will be heavily based on the grounds set out by the court. Further details will be announced in due course, but it is my full intention to establish the inquiry as promptly as possible and for the investigation to proceed at pace.

It must be remembered that those responsible for the deaths and destruction on that awful day in 1998 are the immoral terrorists. As Justice Horner highlighted:

‘It is important not to forget that the responsibility for this terrible atrocity, the worst in the last 60 years of Northern Ireland’s history, lies with those malevolent and evil dissident republicans who, with complete disregard for human life, planned, planted and detonated a huge bomb among shoppers in Omagh’s town centre on a Saturday afternoon in August.’

I fully concur with those words. I commend this Statement to the House.”

12:06

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, throughout history there are incidents of such appalling horror that where we were when we heard the news remains embedded in our memories. Many in your Lordships’ House will have sharp and very painful memories of the Omagh bombing atrocity. On 15 August 1998, just months after the people of Northern Ireland supported the Good Friday/Belfast agreement with hope and optimism for a brighter, peaceful and more democratic future, as the Minister indicated in his answers to the Private Notice Question, the close-knit community in Omagh was thrust into the spotlight in the most shocking way possible: 29 people and two unborn children were killed, 220 were injured and the shockwaves were felt throughout Northern Ireland and far beyond.

While for many of us it remains a terrible memory, for far too many others it has blighted their lives as they have struggled with the consequences: some because they lost loved ones or were physically injured, and others because they suffered from the trauma as members of the community. That includes those who worked for the emergency and health services at the time, for whom it took a huge emotional toll. I remember visiting a centre in Omagh which gave support, counselling and therapies, both to those who lived in Omagh and to those who were part of the emergency services, to help them cope. So while for some it is a memory, others are still living with it, and the consequences remain part of their lives every day. As they have said, they want answers and are seeking the truth of what happened to try to reclaim their lives, even though it will never be the same. I pay tribute to those, including Michael Gallagher, who have campaigned for so long.

The Secretary of State’s announcement of an independent statutory inquiry is welcome. In his Statement, he explained why he has agreed to take that step and how the inquiry will work. The Northern Ireland High Court judgment in October 2021 found that plausible arguments could be made that the state had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

“to take reasonable steps to prevent the … bombing”.

We also welcome that the Secretary of State has put victims first in considering this issue. The judge did not define what kind of investigation it would be, but the Omagh families and community are at the very core of this decision—and that is right. We must acknowledge that, for those directly affected, this will not be a pain-free process—getting to the truth never is—and additional support for them may be required.

Whatever the outcomes, nothing can absolve the perpetrators of this atrocity, who retain the ultimate responsibility. The Real IRA knew that their bomb would kill and maim, while others across the whole of Northern Ireland had rejected violence and were working for a better, peaceful future. The bomb was a huge betrayal of Northern Ireland’s desire for peace and reconciliation.

Knowing the Minister’s understanding of these issues, I know that he will not be surprised at the issue I want to raise with him today. As I have said, we generally welcome the approach that the Government are taking, but it is impossible not to note that it is so different from that of the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. With this announcement, the Secretary of State has engaged and responded in a way that has been regularly and widely welcomed. Yet the Bill that the Minister is steering through this House does not have the support of any of the Northern Ireland political parties, does not have the support of those who continue to live with the consequences of the euphemistically named Troubles and does not have the support of this House.

I know that the Minister is able to tell us how hard he has personally engaged across Northern Ireland with those who represent victims and with the political parties. He has done that. But engaging is a two-way process and I am not aware, even with all the work that he has undertaken, that he has managed to deliver any significant support for the Bill going forward. So there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to these two issues.

While we welcome the Statement, we look forward to hearing more information going forward, such as who will be the chair and some of the terms of reference. Will the noble Lord and his ministerial colleagues reflect on what has happened and the welcome for this Statement, to see if we can halt that Bill and work in collaboration for a better outcome?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland Secretary’s Statement from last week and I very much echo and agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.

The decision to hold the inquiry is welcome. It is the right decision, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be commended for it. He listened, and he changed his mind. He has given the families and community in Omagh the hope that they will now learn the truth. As Michael Gallagher, whose son Aiden was murdered on that day, said:

“This is not a case of deflecting the blame from those who are responsible—that was the criminal terrorists who planned, prepared and delivered this bomb into Omagh. What we’re looking at is the failings of the people that are there to protect us.”


The murder of 29 people, including two unborn children—twins—happening as it did just months after the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998 was a truly appalling and barbaric act of an unprecedented scale throughout the Troubles. The devastation to the community and the impact that it has had on the victims and their families, as well as the 220 people who were injured, is almost unimaginable. It is a credit to the peace process that the terrorists did not succeed and it was not derailed.

The Secretary of State said in his Statement,

“the inquiry will allow us to meet our article 2 procedural obligations under the European convention on human rights”.

That is also to be welcomed.

Will the Minister say what he expects to be the timetable now for the announcement of the chair of the inquiry and the publication of the terms of reference? How will he undertake to keep Parliament informed? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I am slightly surprised by the different type of approach to this inquiry from that of the legacy Bill. Will the Minister say a little more about how he imagines this very different process will fit in with the proposals in the current legacy Bill?

The families of the victims and the injured have already waited nearly 25 years. It will, at times, be a difficult and painful process, but as Michael Gallagher has said,

“If we don’t have this process, for the rest of our lives we’re going to be wondering ‘what if’.”

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will have her opportunity shortly. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lady Suttie, for their broad support and welcome for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s announcement.

Before I respond in detail, I would like to place on the record my own heartfelt sympathy for the victims of the terrible bombing that took place on 15 August 1998. As the noble Baroness reminded us, it was only a few short months after all the hope and optimism that was generated by the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Like many noble Lords across the House, I can vividly remember where I was and what I was doing on that terrible Saturday when I heard the news.

I add my own tribute to the Omagh families’ Omagh Support and Self Help Group, and to other groups, such as Families Moving On, for the work that they have done over the years. In particular, I join those who have paid tribute to Michael Gallagher for his campaigning over the years, not just for a public inquiry, but in respect of the civil case which took place over a number of years and identified four culprits behind this dreadful atrocity.

I concur very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said about never forgetting who actually carried out this atrocity. I can do no better in this respect than to quote the judge, Mr Justice Horner, in his ruling on this in the Gallagher court case. He said:

“It is important not to forget that the responsibility for this terrible atrocity, the worst in the last 60 years of Northern Ireland’s history, lies with those malevolent and evil dissident republicans who, with complete disregard for human life, planned, planted and detonated a huge bomb among shoppers in Omagh’s town centre on a Saturday afternoon in August.”


I concur with every one of those words.

I am grateful again to the noble Baroness for her kind words about the Secretary of State. He met the families last week in person, before the Statement, in order to tell them of his decision. As we noted, the families obviously very much welcomed what the Government have announced.

Both noble Baronesses talked about the legacy Bill and the difference in approach. The House will be aware that the legacy Bill itself will deal with Troubles-related cases between 1 January 1966 and 10 April 1998, when the Belfast agreement was reached, so this case is by definition outside the scope of the legislation. Were it to be put in scope, it would have a consequence, which I do not think would be particularly welcomed across the House, of enabling people who were involved in this and subsequent dissident republican activities—people who rejected the Belfast agreement and the peace process—to apply for conditional immunity in certain cases. As I say, I do not think the House would welcome that.

However, I do not entirely accept that there is some kind of total contrast between what we are doing here and what we are doing on legacy. Of course, not every case can have a public inquiry, but the legacy Bill seeks to establish structures, which will enable families to access greater information about what happened to their loved ones in the Troubles, in much the same way that a public inquiry will try to establish the facts of what happened in this particular case. So I do not necessarily accept the premise of the noble Baronesses’ comments.

On their other questions about the chair and terms of reference, we will of course work as quickly as we can to identify the person to chair the inquiry and finalise the terms of reference. I should point out to noble Lords who are not necessarily familiar with the process that the inquiry will be targeted in scope and will investigate the four grounds which the court held could give rise to plausible arguments that there was a real prospect of preventing the Omagh bomb. These relate to the handling and sharing of intelligence; the use of cell phone analysis; whether there was advance knowledge or reasonable means of knowledge of the bomb; and whether disruption operations could or should have been mounted, which may have helped to prevent the tragedy. Those will be the areas on which the inquiry will focus. As I say, we will set this up as quickly as possible. I cannot give a definitive timetable, but I will undertake to keep Parliament informed in the usual ways.

12:19

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, for 14 and a half years in the other House, I represented the people of Omagh, and I visited the scene of carnage on the day that the bomb took place. Coming from a family with loved ones brutally murdered, I know the deep anguish and pain that these families have suffered over the years. Sadly, that pain will not go away. Can the Minister assure me that while the inquiry learns the lessons of any failures that may have taken place by security personnel, no focus will be taken from those who planted this bomb and carried out this despicable, murderous act, and therefore that every effort will continue to be made to bring those responsible to justice?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I fully acknowledge the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and I am well aware that he has, sadly, during his political and ministerial career—ministerial in a religious sense—had to officiate at funerals and bury many loved ones over the years. On his specific question, as I indicated earlier, the people who are responsible for this vile atrocity are of course the terrorists who carried it out and nothing should detract whatever from that. I concur entirely with his comments in that regard.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I carried out an investigation into matters relating to the Omagh bomb and published a report in December 2001. I very much welcome the announcement of this inquiry and pay tribute to Michael Gallagher and all those who have fought for knowledge of what happened on that terrible day. When I published my report—I remind the House that I had only the powers to investigate the police—I said:

“The persons responsible for the Omagh bombing are the terrorists who planned and executed the atrocity. Nothing contained in this report should detract from that clear and unequivocal fact.”


I repeat that today. I express my sympathy to all those affected by the bomb, because, as noble Lords have said, this is going to be a very traumatic and difficult experience for them, because it will raise again the things that they have suffered for so long.

I shall just ask the Minister a couple of questions. Can he assure the House, because of the questions that have been asked in the media, that this will be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005? Can he assure the House that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide and, in particular, that they will encompass all intelligence and information received prior to the Omagh bomb which related to Omagh, and that it will not refer only to—I quote from the Statement—“knowledge of the bomb”? I ask this in light of the fact that detailed information was received on 4 August 1998 by the police that there would be an attack on police in Omagh on 15 August, the day on which the bomb exploded. It is vital that all intelligence is capable of being considered by this inquiry.

Finally, I join noble colleagues in asking the Minister whether—in light of this recognition of the Government’s legal obligations and the fact that those legal obligations did not terminate as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement, nor was it ever the intention of those who entered into the Good Friday agreement that it would effectively act as a statute of limitations in any way—he can confirm that His Majesty’s Government will now withdraw the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It is not compliant with those legal obligations.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

It is with some trepidation that I rise to answer the questions of the noble Baroness, given her previous role as a distinguished Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland: she probably knows as much about this case as any other living person. In answer to her questions, of course I can confirm that the inquiry will take place under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry will have full powers of compulsion and access to all the relevant material. Naturally, we expect as much of the inquiry as possible to be conducted in public, but as she will understand, some of the material will be of such a national security-sensitive status that it will not be possible in all circumstances.

On the terms of reference, I refer to the targeted nature of the inquiry in respect of those areas where the judge has held that we have not fully discharged our obligations. The final terms of reference are, of course, a matter to be decided between His Majesty’s Government and the individual who chairs the inquiry, but I very much take on board the noble Baroness’s comments about the Northern Ireland legacy Bill, which has been debated extensively in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place produced a report on Omagh under my chairmanship, and I take this opportunity of saluting the courageous persistence of Mr Gallagher and others, which has led to today. I also take up the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. If one had to categorise the Statement, I would say that its hallmark was sensitivity. The problem with the Bill is that its hallmark is insensitivity, and frankly I believe that it is incompatible with beginning this inquiry to continue with the Bill. My noble friend has handled this with extreme care, but will he have a special conversation with the Secretary of State, who made this Statement last week, and say to him, “Really, as far as the legacy Bill is concerned, enough is enough. Let’s start again”?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful, as always, to my noble friend for his kind words. He makes his case with customary force and eloquence. Of course, we have yet to complete Committee on the legacy Bill in your Lordships’ House, there is still a further amending stage to come after that, and I remain committed to fulfilling the pledge that I have made on a number of occasions, from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere, to do whatever I can to improve the legislation and to send it back to the House of Commons in a much better state than when the House of Commons sent it to us. I will, of course, continue to have discussions with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State towards that end.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I send my best wishes and support to all the families impacted by the Omagh bomb, many of whom I know very well. They will never forget who it was that planned, prepared and executed the bomb in Omagh on that fateful day. Indeed, the Real IRA planned and prepared for the bomb in the Republic of Ireland and then executed its dastardly actions in Omagh.

In the Statement, mention was made of the fact that Mr Justice Horner hoped that the Irish Government would also undertake an Article 2 investigation into what happened in the run-up to the execution of the Omagh bomb. I am afraid to say that the Irish Government’s record on dealing with legacy in Northern Ireland is at best patchy and at worst non-existent. I have had the great honour and privilege to attend, with many victims’ groups, meetings in the Dáil and in Dublin Castle with various Governments of various different hues. We did receive tea and sympathy; I have to say that we received little else. Will His Majesty’s Government now put pressure on the Irish Government to hold a similar inquiry in the Republic of Ireland? The bomb was planned and prepared in a different jurisdiction, and if we are to get totality of answers for the people of Omagh, then that needs to happen as well.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for her comments and question. She will be aware that, in the course of meeting many victims’ groups in Northern Ireland, I have had similar points put to me, not least by the South East Fermanagh Foundation in the constituency the noble Baroness used to represent in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Others have made the similar points over the years also. My noble friend is right to point out that Justice Horner did express a desire that a simultaneous Article 2-compliant investigation should occur in Ireland. He recognised it was not within the court’s power to order a cross-border investigation, and nor is it in the power of His Majesty’s Government to compel the Irish Government to do so. However, it is an issue which I take seriously, as do many others, and I will raise this again, including when I next see Irish Ministers to discuss legacy matters in Dublin or elsewhere, which I hope to do very soon.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this decision while noting, as other noble Lords have done, including the Minister himself, that we cannot fully scrutinise it until we know who the chair will be and the finalised terms of reference for the inquiry. I wish to associate myself with the words of sympathy, support and admiration for the Omagh families, and Michael Gallagher in particular, who tragically lost his son, Aiden, in this dreadful atrocity. They have shown amazing resilience.

I commend this Statement in particular because I think it very fully sets out the history of investigations and inquiry thus far and shares with us the factors which were taken into consideration by the Secretary of State, the department and, I suspect, the Minister who is answering these questions, in coming to this decision.

Following on from the question the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, asked the Minister, does the Minister appreciate that the process of thought in this Statement, which inexorably leads to the conclusion that a judicial inquiry is necessary to meet the Government’s Article 2 procedural obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, provides a template for any future legal challenge that will undoubtedly follow the passing and implementation of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, if it passes this House in its present form?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is another distinguished former Northern Ireland Office Minister. He referred to Article 2 obligations, and of course His Majesty’s Government do take those obligations very seriously and considered them carefully when coming to the decision in this case. I am grateful to him for his support for the decision that has been taken. He will be aware, notwithstanding, that it would simply be impossible to have a public inquiry into every unsolved killing in the Troubles. What we are trying to do in the legacy Bill, as I have explained on a number of occasions, is provide more information about what happened to loved ones, victims and survivors of terrorism. We are confident that the bodies that will be established under that legislation, should it pass your Lordships’ House, would be Article 2-compliant and the noble Lord will be aware that I brought forward amendments in Committee to make it very clear on the face of the Bill that Article 2 obligations would be met. I will continue to look at that issue as it progresses further through your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I too join in tributes to the families of the victims of the Omagh atrocity, and to Michael Gallagher in particular, whom many of us have met, for his courage and bravery. I also plead that, in all of this, we remember that terrorists were responsible for this atrocity.

I add to the calls for the Irish Republic to be put under pressure to do more in relation to this, and to other areas where the IRA carried out terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and found a safe haven in the Irish Republic for many, many years. I refer to the recent case where the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, which again has been found to be a totally sectarian murder of Protestant workmen by the IRA, has been forbidden from revealing secret Garda evidence about the attack, following special legislation passed in the Dáil to prevent that becoming transparent and open to the public. Many of us are really concerned about the lack of input from the Irish Republic in getting justice for victims. I urge the Minister to continue to press the Irish Republic on this matter.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am of course aware of the case to which he refers. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at the Dispatch Box, to comment directly on a case which is still live and ongoing. However, I do hear the comments of my noble friend very loud and clear and, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I will raise these issues when I next meet Ministers from the Irish Government.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join with voices from all sides of this House in welcoming this inquiry and pass my sympathy and thoughts to the families of this horrendous and heinous crime.

In response to a number of questions, the Minister has rightly indicated that the focus should remain: we must not be deflected from focusing on the perpetrators of this evil act. Will he agree also that, whatever direction the inquiry takes, it should not be exploited by some others to try to deflect that focus, either by turning the security forces into scapegoats or by trying to besmirch the bravery of their actions down the years in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who makes a very important point. Of course, the inquiry will be established and set about its work, which it will do thoroughly, and in due course a report will be published. My noble friend makes a hugely important point about the security forces. We all acknowledge that mistakes were made in the course of Operation Banner; I speak as somebody who helped to write David Cameron’s Statement in response to the Saville inquiry in June 2010. However, as I have always maintained, over the course of 30 years, over 250,000 people served in the security forces and the overwhelming majority did so with great bravery, distinction and restraint. I put on record again that, without the service and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross and our Armed Forces, there would have been no peace process in Northern Ireland, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I remember that terrible day, in particular because I received a telephone call from the office of the then Prince of Wales to check a small historical point with me. It was borne in upon me, as I spoke to one of his Private Secretaries, how deeply the then heir to the Throne was affected by the news of this awful atrocity. I place this before the House today so that Members are aware of how deeply our now monarch felt about that quite dreadful atrocity.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for bringing that point to the House, and it certainly concurs with the experiences of myself and the Secretaries of State for whom I have worked, who will all attest to His Majesty the King’s huge personal interest in, and affection for, Northern Ireland.

Ukraine

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

12:39

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

That this House takes note of the situation in Ukraine.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, we hold this debate against the sombre and shocking images emerging from Syria and Turkey of the devastating earthquake which has visited such tragedy and suffering on these two countries. I know the thoughts of us all are with the families and citizens who are affected by and in shock from this horrendous catastrophe. That is a horrific consequence of the destructive power of nature, so it is an incredibly cruel irony that we see tragedy and devastation in Ukraine not from the force of nature but because a human being made an avoidable decision to inflict that horror on an innocent sovereign country.

Almost a year ago, President Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine, which was a move that shook the whole world. Putin imagined that Ukraine would fall within a matter of days, but the Russian army completely failed to anticipate how proud, determined and brave would be the reaction from the forces of Ukraine which ferociously resisted Putin’s troops on every axis. We have now reached day 351 of the conflict. The Kremlin’s attack has cost Russia the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers, not to mention a vast quantity of tanks, armoured vehicles, jets and one prized flagship.

Ukraine has retaken more than 50% of the territory lost in the initial chaos of the Russian advance. A merry-go-round of Russian generals have come and gone, replaced with monotonous regularity. Most recently, General Surovikin has been replaced by General Gerasimov, who is derided by some of his own countrymen as the “Plywood Marshal”. Throughout it all, the Kremlin—aided by Iran’s kamikaze drones—has kept up a relentless, cynical and despicable bombardment directed against civilian infrastructure. Thousands of innocent civilians have died in botched, indiscriminate attacks, adding to the charge sheet of the litany of alleged war crimes.

Take last Wednesday evening—2 February—when an Iskander-K tactical ballistic missile slammed into an apartment block, killing three and wounding many more. Separately, in the past few days, we have heard a former Russian military officer admit that Russian troops have indeed tortured Ukrainian prisoners of war, claiming that at one site in southern Ukraine,

“the interrogations, the torture, continued for about a week”.

That is utterly appalling.

Yet despite laying waste to vast swathes of Ukraine and imposing unnecessary suffering on much of the population, Russia has still failed to accomplish any of its strategic aims. In recent weeks, Russia has trumpeted several tactical advances. In mid-January, Ukrainian forces withdrew from the small Donbas salt-mine town of Soledar: the first notable settlement Russia has gained since early July last year. But this was a pyrrhic victory achieved at enormous cost and resulting in several thousand casualties. Human wave attacks were deployed to secure a ruined town inhabited by just 500 people. It underlines the Kremlin’s callous attitude to dehumanise not only its opponents but its own troops, who are quite simply regarded by the Kremlin as dispensable cannon fodder. In recent days, a force of Russian naval infantry further south has also been attempting to make gains near the central Donetsk Oblast town of Vuhledar, south-west of Donetsk city. It is another case of Groundhog Day. Russia makes creeping gains but simply lacks the capability to achieve its strategic goals.

Intriguingly, the Wagner paramilitary group, bolstered by the mass deployment of at least 40,000 convicts, has been prominent in many of these recent manoeuvres. The extraordinary expansion of this group, and the corresponding increase in its public profile, raise interesting questions about the current nature of the Russian state. Wagner founder Yevgeny Prigozhin continues to indulge in the most direct criticism of his military counterparts. It is difficult to imagine that this tension will not implode sooner or later. In a sense, tracking the implications of this war on the dynamics of Moscow’s power structures is as important as following the events on the front line.

For all Russia’s recent tactical advances, winter has imposed an effective operational stalemate in the active areas of the Ukrainian front line. Both sides are now bogged down in attritional warfare that has more in common with World War One. Military casualties on both sides have been high, with each side struggling. We are seeing a Russian security apparatus that is increasingly factional and overstretched. It is highly unlikely that the hundreds of thousands of mobilised reservists have been formed into cohesive formations capable of major offensive manoeuvre operations. None the less, with spring around the corner, there are signs that President Putin is amassing his forces in preparation for a surge in the coming weeks. Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s Defence Minister, believes that Russia is planning a major offensive to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine on 24 February. In other words, President Zelensky and the Ukrainian armed forces require the support of their friends in the international community more than ever.

One thing is clear: the UK will remain at the forefront of that effort. It is worth perhaps a brief summary of how we have led so far. Like many, we were taken aback by President Putin’s actions on 24 February 2022, but we were not unprepared. Indeed, since 2015, we had trained more than 22,000 Ukrainians through Operation Orbital following the annexation of Crimea. As soon as Russian boots touched Ukrainian soil, we were again determined to lead the international response. The UK was the first European country to provide Ukraine with lethal aid to help stall the Russian advance. To date, we have donated thousands of short and long-range missiles, Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak missile launchers, and multiple launch rocket systems capable of striking targets up to 80 kilometres away with pinpoint accuracy. Last month, we led the world by providing modern main battle tanks to Ukraine.

I know that many noble Lords today will wish to know about the effect of these donations on our own supplies, so it is worth noting that even as we gift capability, we are seeking to restock and replenish. We are reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet. We are accelerating the Army’s Mobile Fires programme so that, instead of delivering in the 2030s, it will do so earlier in this decade. Subject to commercial negotiation, an interim artillery capability will also be delivered. Furthermore, we are commissioning the backfilling of 155-millimetre artillery shells. In November, we signed a contract for high-velocity anti-aircraft defence missiles to replace the ones we had gifted. On top of that, in the Autumn Statement there was a £560 million increase for our own stockpiles.

Ours is a calibrated response—one that is necessitated by Russia’s growing aggression and indiscriminate bombing, but also intended to act as a force multiplier. The UK’s announcement generated unstoppable momentum, with countries following our lead to pledge main battle tanks to Ukraine. Germany’s decision to send Leopard 2 tanks and the United States’ to send Abrams tanks, coupled with the pledges of Poland, Spain, Canada and France, have enabled us to send a unified signal to Moscow that is more important than any individual contribution. It is a signal that says no one is acting unilaterally and that we are united in helping Ukraine to defend its land and evict the illegal invader.

Let us be clear: in 2023, the UK’s support to Ukraine will remain unwavering. We have already committed to match the £2.3 billion in military aid we spent last year. Yesterday the Prime Minister went further still, not just expanding our training offer for Ukrainian troops to include fighter jet pilots—enabling Ukrainian aviators to fly sophisticated NATO-standard fighters in the future—but offering to provide Ukraine with longer-range capabilities to inhibit Russia’s ability to target civilians and critical national infrastructure while also relieving pressure on Ukraine’s front lines.

Make no mistake: we will continue to use our influence and convening power to keep that global support solid. Once again, we are joined in this great endeavour by our friends in the United States. They have invested approximately $24.2 billion in support for Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s invasion. They have delivered thousands of anti-aircraft and anti-armour systems as well as Patriot air defence battery and munitions, refurbished T-72B tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. As an aside, the other week I met a group of American congress men and women, and I can tell your Lordships that the US absolutely approves of what we are doing. They pointed out to me that in their country those tempted to think that this was a remote European issue have been given a wake-up call. They now understand how the conflict can reach them, not just in the form of hostile aggression but through its wider impacts, including economic fluctuations, energy shocks and cost of living crises.

Many other allies are part of the broad pro-Ukraine coalition. On 19 January, the United Kingdom—alongside Estonia, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, and the representatives of Denmark, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Slovakia—signed the Tallinn pledge to collectively pursue

“the delivery of an unprecedented set of donations including main battle tanks, heavy artillery, air defence, ammunition, and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine’s defence”.

Separately, our international fund now stands at over £500 million. Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Lithuania and Iceland have donated generously, and we shall soon be announcing the first round of bids.

However, our efforts are not confined to supplying aid or raising donations. The United Kingdom will continue to demonstrate global leadership by hosting both the international Justice Ministers conference on war crimes in March and the Ukraine recovery conference in June. We are playing a critical role in training Ukrainian forces too. Besides teaching Ukrainian tank crews how to operate Challenger platforms and how to fight as a formed unit with those tanks, we are providing specialist basic training to Ukrainian recruits. I went to see that happening last week. It was a privilege to be there; it was both inspiring and humbling. The training is excellent and the Ukrainians receptive, quick to learn and agile. So far, we have trained more than 10,000 Ukrainian personnel in the UK. This year, we are doubling down on that success by increasing the number to a further 20,000. If noble Lords want an illustration of international solidarity with Ukraine, they should just consider our partners in this extraordinary training effort: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, Norway, New Zealand and the Netherlands.

President Putin’s flagrant breach of international law has forced us to come to terms with a new reality. It has brought the resurgence of state aggression into sharp relief. For the first time since World War II, we have seen the manifestation of an illegal land-based war in Europe: a desperate attempt by one nation to conquer another country’s sovereign territory. However, there have also been a number of other interesting outcomes that President Putin certainly did not foresee, because the 2020s have not proved a mirror to the 1930s. Nations have not been cowed or coerced into staying silent. President Putin wished for a weaker NATO, but NATO is more solid and more determined and—with the anticipated accession of Finland and Sweden—even stronger. Indeed, we will continue to do all we can to ensure that the final hurdles are removed to allow their swift entry into the alliance.

It is equally striking how nations outside NATO’s orbit have also come to the same conclusion: that their interests align and that they too have a role to play in defending international order. Notably, the United Kingdom has once again been instrumental in bringing northern European neighbours together in solidarity under the auspices of the Joint Expeditionary Force, ensuring a steady supply of lethal and non-lethal aid to sustain Ukrainian resistance.

Back on the home front, we now have a clearer picture of the more serious threats and a renewed understanding of the significance of traditional war-fighting capability. We are planning to refresh our 2021 integrated review and Command Paper. This will be an important opportunity to address the hollowing-out of our land capability over many years under successive Governments, to restore our combat credibility, to rebuild our land industrial base and to modernise the whole of defence to confront the threats of tomorrow.

Kremlin propagandists will inevitably paint any support for Ukraine as an attack on Russia, so-called NATO-orchestrated aggression, or even a proxy war. For the avoidance of doubt, the escalation is not happening today. It started in February 2022, when the Russian Government chose to invade Ukraine illegally to pursue their vain imperialist dream. No one who watched President Zelensky give his stirring address in Westminster Hall yesterday can fail to have been impressed by his courage, his indomitable spirit and his powerful conviction that, in his words,

“bravery takes you through the most unimaginable hardships to finally reward you with victory”.

He and his people are an inspiration, and in 2022 they achieved impossible things; but the reality is that bravery and heroism will not be enough against Russia. Ukraine needs its friends to continue upping their support, which is why, in 2023, as the Prime Minister has said, we must seize the opportunity to accelerate our support for Ukraine before Russia tries to recover its equilibrium.

Putin hopes to wear down the West. He hopes our unity will fracture. He hopes we will seek a rapid return to the status quo. However, history has already taught us that you can never let wrong go unpunished because, if you do, you do not know where that wrong will end up. Therefore, we must show the Kremlin the error of its ways, working with our international partners to aggregate our military muscle and diplomatic clout. We must do all in our power to help brave Ukrainians expel Russia from their sovereign soil. Ultimately, as President Zelensky put it so eloquently yesterday, Russia must lose so that freedom will win. I beg to move.

12:55

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords—just to pick up that last point—I thought that yesterday’s visit of President Zelensky was a remarkable parliamentary occasion, echoing the leadership that this country showed in World War II, particularly the leadership of Winston Churchill. In that setting, I am very much looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. Standing in his fatigues next to Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker, President Zelensky’s message was clear: “Do not forget Ukraine or this war in Europe.” As the Lord Speaker said in his thanks to the President, leadership is about visibility, and the President has not been afraid to stand with his people and be where they have suffered most: in the front line.

On the point about visibility, it was also important for the world to see Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak presenting a united front in their determination to help Ukraine defeat Vladimir Putin. Both reaffirmed to President Zelensky their support for Ukraine and expressed sympathy for the horrors suffered by the Ukrainian people. This war must end with Putin’s defeat and Ukraine’s freedom secured.

As the Minister reminded us, this month represents the first anniversary of Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine, which has resulted in immeasurable suffering. Britain is united in its support for Ukraine, and the Government will always have our full backing to provide military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance as it defends itself. However, we also want to see support in the long term, and a move from ad hoc announcements to more systematic assistance. This means setting aside individual announcements, and instead setting out a clear strategy, in partnership with our allies and Ukraine.

Putin’s recent shift to attack civilian infrastructure shows that he has no regard for the rules of military conflict, and it also means that the war is unlikely to conclude in the immediate future. While the UK’s crisis response to Ukraine has been undoubtedly strong—and the Government deserve credit for this—we now need to look towards the future as well. It is on this basis that the Government should consider proposals for a 2023 action plan, encompassing military, economic and diplomatic support. This must include a strategy to ensure a sustained stream of future supplies, and efforts to urgently ramp up our own industry; but it should also encourage our allies to do more. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively about the intention to publish such a plan.

In the immediate term, the Government must also contend with how they can best support the people of Ukraine through the final months of winter. Putin’s illegal invasion has left key areas of the country’s infrastructure decimated, and the attacks on energy and water plants appear to be part of an attempt to freeze the population of Ukraine into submission. I hope the Minister can set out what the Government are doing to support the viability of Ukraine’s energy sector going forward. Can he also set out what additional support the United Kingdom will provide to Ukraine beyond the 850 generators already delivered, and what further measures will be taken to support Ukrainians in the light of these continued attacks by Russia on critical infrastructure?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, reaffirmed, we must remain committed to military support for Ukraine. Ultimately, we must constantly ask ourselves how we can better assist it in winning this war. Immediately following President Zelensky’s speech, the Prime Minister said that the UK’s provision of planes is “part of the conversation”, but that the immediate need is for longer-range missiles and tanks—the noble Baroness referred to this—and that it may take as long as three years to train pilots to use UK jets. He also noted that there are supply chain issues, adding that some of the UK’s aircraft are linked to joint treaties with other countries. The PM said that Britain was only making a different long-term offer on fighter jets, saying that the UK would be

“expanding its training offer to include fighter jet pilots to ensure Ukraine can defend its skies well into the future”.

I know that the United States has been allocating resources to that sort of training. Downing Street said:

“The training will ensure pilots are able to fly sophisticated NATO standard fighter jets in the future.”


What is the timeframe for this? What discussions have taken place with our NATO allies on such a programme?

Turning to next-generation light anti-tank weapons, although I am pleased that the Government have announced that a contract to start replenishing stocks has finally been signed, can the Minister confirm how many other contracts have been signed to start to replace the military aid sent to Ukraine? I heard the confident remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in this regard but it would be good to hear a little more detail to ensure that this is actually happening.

Of course, sanctions are another of the greatest tools at our disposal in supporting Ukraine and holding Putin to account. The Minister will be aware that the US recently imposed new sanctions on Russia, targeting a network accused of procuring military and dual-use technologies from US manufacturers and illegally supplying them to Russia for the war. Given that RUSI has confirmed that UK components are also appearing in Russian weaponry, can the Minister confirm whether the UK is looking to impose similar sanctions? No doubt the Minister will say that he cannot comment on future designations for sanctions, but we want to hear from him that we are confident we can tackle these leaks and breaches of our own sanctions and that we are absolutely determined to work closely with our allies to do this.

On frozen Russian assets, the EU and Canada recently set out a plan to repurpose such assets to help rebuild critical Ukrainian infrastructure and provide much-needed humanitarian aid to the country. Does the Minister have any plans to replicate this, work in tandem with these important allies and engage with the EU and Canada to support those efforts?

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the growing body of evidence of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. In addition to taking any steps we can to help the Ukrainians, we must consider how we can hold Putin and his regime to account. The reports of new mass graves in liberated areas and increasing evidence of war crimes demand accountability. It is in everyone’s interests that the UK supports all international efforts to document, investigate and prosecute these crimes. I know that the Minister has been committed to this strategy in other international scenarios. He will be aware that, since March, my colleagues in the House of Commons have been calling for a special international tribunal to prosecute Putin and members of his armed forces for the crime of aggression and other war crimes that have been evidenced. The EU backs the plan, as do the Ukrainian Government. Can the Minister explain why we as a country are not planning to support such efforts?

Unfortunately, it is now clear that Putin’s aim is not simply to take Ukraine. His regime has shown that it is prepared to use armed forces in contempt of international institutions and humanitarian law. For this reason, as Putin expands his war effort and amasses further troops, we must also remain alert to the more immediate threat to the United Kingdom and our allies. It is important that our commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and this must be paired with a rebooting our defence plans, as more than 20 of our NATO allies have done. We have heard repeated calls for the integrated review to be reviewed; however, we need not just the review but absolutely clear plans to reboot our defence mechanisms.

If this war is to end, we must make it clear to Putin that things will get worse, not better, for Russia. We must also give Ukraine the confidence it needs by announcing a longer-term strategy. On Britain’s military help to Ukraine and reinforcing our NATO allies on the border, the Government have had and will continue to have Labour’s full support. In standing side by side with Ukraine against this illegal invasion, we are not only reflecting our global values but defending our national interests.

13:07

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have a full debate on this issue. I welcome the comprehensive introduction from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, with his experience as a former MoD Minister; he will contribute greatly to this House and to this specific debate.

Last year, I watched the full expansion of the 2014 aggression into the invasion of Ukraine from a hotel room in Baghdad, before I flew to Beirut. I knew then what we all know now: that this unwarranted and illegal aggression by Russia against an independent sovereign state would have significant consequences far beyond the borders of Ukraine itself. The horror inflicted on the people of Ukraine—according to the UN Human Rights Office, it has so far claimed 438 children’s lives, among more than 7,000 civilian deaths; and of course, we know that women have been disproportionately affected by this aggression—has been compounded by Putin weaponising grain and food, thereby exacerbating famine in the Horn of Africa, where 5 million children are currently dangerously malnourished, an issue we debated earlier this week. His venally amoral use of the Wagner Group of mercenaries to deploy intimidation, rape and torture across a wider arc in Africa is even worse.

According to the Norwegian chief of defence, Ukrainian losses are probably over 100,000 dead or wounded in defending their country, and for Russia an astonishing 180,000 dead or wounded soldiers, many of whom we know were lied to and misled about what they were fighting for. A year on, today, a Ukrainian MP friend of mine from our sister party, President Zelensky’s party, WhatsApped me a message:

“We have just got information that Russia has started a new attack. It is a hell there.”


It is, and President Zelensky’s extraordinary address to us yesterday captured the totality of the consequences of what I believe will be a failed attempt by Putin to occupy a nation and subjugate its people. Putin wants to be a neo-Russian emperor. He has convinced himself that a Russian empire can only exist with Kievan Rus’ within it. However, he has miscalculated strategically and misunderstood the people of Ukraine to an extraordinary degree.

Like many colleagues, I have visited Ukraine. I have been there three times. The people of that country have a very differing view from Putin of their own future. They want to determine it themselves. Their clear desire to join the EU and to work with us and NATO for security I believe is now, for the long term, immutable. Putin made another miscalculation. A year ago, we could not possibly have forecast the German Zeitenwende, the sea change in Germany policies. We could not have forecast how European energy reliance on Russian gas has moved from 50% to less than 13% in one year—extraordinary changes. I and colleagues from these Benches have been in lockstep with the Government on support for the Government of Ukraine and we have all been impressed, as the Minister said, by the support from the British people for the people of Ukraine, from individual families and communities across all parts of the UK welcoming those in need, through to the Government providing hard military capabilities—“tea and tanks”, as President Zelensky may have put it.

We have supported the raft of economic sanctions and I have debated them all with the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I too put on record my appreciation of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for how he has engaged with us, informed us and been accessible to us. It is an exemplary way for a Minister to operate on foreign affairs. However, we did argue that we needed to have moved faster on closing London’s laundromat reputation. The data from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s Annual Review from the end of last year said that in 2021, £44.5 million of Russian assets were frozen. By November 2022, that figure had risen to £18 billion, showing the extraordinary exposure that the UK had to questionable Russian finance—to which, regrettably, all too often a blind eye was turned. The Government continue to refuse to state who on the sanctions list now had been issued with a golden visa and effectively paid to launder their money through Britain.

We have supported the Ukrainian settlement scheme, but it was only through scrutiny that we found out that this scheme in its entirety will be scored against development assistance—uniquely among OECD countries—meaning that it has been offset by cuts elsewhere. We must be self- aware that these reductions are a part of how Russia is opening what I described in the autumn as a second front in this war, in the east and the global south. I am fearful that the UK is not focused enough now on that front.

Last week I raised concerns with the Minister on the red-carpet treatment given to Sergey Lavrov by our friends in South Africa, and the naval exercises that South Africa, China and Russia will be carrying out in just 10 days’ time. India and Sri Lanka have increased oil purchases, and the gold trade from the east and southern Africa via the Gulf and into Moscow is flourishing. In certain sectors, the rouble is strong. Four years of reductions in UK development co-operation mean something, not just for the most vulnerable people in the world but geopolitically.

We must be self-aware and acknowledge that, while our economic sanctions have undeniably been extensive and in many areas effective, in other areas they have been offset and circumvented elsewhere. As Putin now enters a different phase, of slow, grinding horror against the Ukrainian people, we must also think of how to isolate Russia more. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the next phase of our sanctions and economic measures must be considered carefully and those measures must be strong. They must also ensure that our work on the second front is considered.

I have no doubt that Putin miscalculated when he underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainian people. He thought that the EU would splinter and that the EU, UK and US would not work as closely as they have. However, he has been more successful in presenting this aggression not as imperial expansion, which it undoubtedly is, but as Cold War alignment. In March last year, 25 African countries either abstained or refrained from voting on a UN resolution to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In South Africa alone, as I referred to, in one minor but telling example, the ANC Youth League sent observers to Russia’s phoney referendum in the four Ukrainian provinces occupied by Russia in September and described the referendum as

“a beautiful, wonderful process”.

From the Sahel to southern Africa, a sweep of Russian malign influence is seen, and, of course, they have their blood-soaked criminal mercenaries to act as a proxy. As I have mentioned in the Chamber before, I have seen with my own eyes the Wagner Group operate in Sudan. I was the first in Parliament to call for that group’s proscription. I did so to Ministers in this Chamber on 25 April, 23 May, 9 June, 17 July, 15 November, 21 December, and again on 26 January. At that time, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said that she would write to me. I have not had a reply yet. Ed Davey asked the Prime Minister about this issue yesterday. This group is a threat to our security and our safety, to British nationals abroad and to our allies. Why have we not proscribed it? Why are we acting so slowly? When the Minister winds up this debate, I hope that he can confirm that we will indeed proscribe this group. There cannot be impunity for the Putin regime’s human rights crimes, nor should there be for his proxies.

I very much welcome the shift in the Government’s position regarding the tribunal that was announced on 20 January, supporting the establishment of a tribunal on aggression. I call again on the Government to add the UK’s support to the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression. It is incongruous that we support now a tribunal under the authority of articles in the Rome statute that we have so far not supported, but the shift in government policy is welcome. As President Zelensky told us yesterday, if we support the rules-based international order there should be no impunity for those who break those rules or seek to circumvent them.

I attended an event supporting the International Criminal Court last autumn and spoke with a Ukrainian MP friend of mine, Galyna Mykhailiuk. I asked her a number of questions during the event about the situation with the people of Ukraine. She was extremely humble. She said, “Can I ask you a question, please?” I said, “Of course”. I thought that it would be about UK support or military equipment and missiles. She said, “Just out of interest, have you ever met the Queen?” I said, “Funnily enough, I have”. She said, “Can I please pass on the condolences of the people of Ukraine on the Queen’s passing?” She then said, “I have to let you in on a secret”—which I have her permission to tell your Lordships. “I watched, with a group of my fellow MPs, the whole of the funeral.” Then she said, rather cheekily, “I missed the plenary of the Parliament and my committee meeting to watch the funeral”. She paused and then said, “I did not see the Windsor Castle part because I had to attend my AK-47 training”.

MPs were told there a year ago that they should expect an imminent Russian special forces attack on their Verkhovna Rada building, where they would be either murdered or held hostage as part of the installation of a puppet regime. They thwarted that and their Parliament carried on. It legislated. Its staff, some of whom were also conscripted to the front, and others, continued to help ensure that the raft of emergency legislation could be passed. It continues to function.

Putin has no feel for, nor knowledge or understanding of, a representative parliamentary democracy—he has persecuted his own opposition at home—but the people of Ukraine do. I hope the Minister will support what I am calling for, which is a nomination process for the Ukrainian parliament to be given the George Medal. That parliament, as an institution, a representative democracy at a time of horror and aggression, has been humbling for all other parliamentarians in the world.

One of the reasons that I feel so humble is that I see that they are managing to do what we, in this building, did 80 or so years ago. On the night of 10 May 1941, a bomb fell through the roof of this Chamber and hit the very spot where I stand. It did not detonate. Bombs did not stop our Parliament from carrying on, and Putin’s missiles will not stop Ukraine’s either.

13:20

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. While it is his first in this Chamber, it is but his latest contribution to an already long and distinguished parliamentary career.

We are about to reach the ninth anniversary of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the first anniversary of the latest and most violent phase of the conflict, during which the total casualties have run into the hundreds of thousands—a butcher’s bill that will only grow, and grow rapidly, over the coming months. As this reality continues to unfold and the suffering of the Ukrainian people mounts, the question I hear most frequently is: how and when will it end? The answer, of course, is that nobody knows. Just about all wars begin and end in politics, and this one is no different. Eventually, there will have to be a political conclusion, but that appears to be a long way off and it does not imply, as some seem to believe, the appeasement of Russia.

In thinking about what it might imply for the near term, it is worth taking a step back and reflecting on broader strategic objectives. The Ukrainians are clear about theirs: the full restoration of their country’s pre-2014 borders, including the recovery of Crimea. The Russians’ position today is less certain. Their initial objective was undoubtedly the removal of the Ukrainian Government and their replacement by a regime friendly to, if not under the control of, the Kremlin. Whether events of the past year have changed this calculus is open to debate, but I doubt it.

Putin is certainly aware that making progress towards his original objective is a lot harder and taking far longer than he had imagined, but there is no reason to suppose that he has given up on it. To the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that he is doubling down on his original intent.

As far as the UK is concerned, our strategic objective must be to ensure that Putin’s aggression is widely perceived to have failed; that such illegal assaults on the international order are seen as not just very costly but unlikely to succeed. But I believe we should go further. As I observed last week, in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, Russia’s war in Ukraine is being spearheaded by the Wagner organisation—a group that has at the heart of its activities terror, torture, murder, rape and all other forms of brutality. A supposedly civilised world should not countenance the existence of such a force, and we should seek to eliminate its presence from the wider international scene.

From looking at these strategic objectives, it is apparent that they differ markedly. That is unsurprising in the case of Russia and Ukraine, but it is also true with regard to the UK’s aims and, I suspect, those of many other countries that support Ukraine. This makes it very difficult to see what shape a long-term political solution might take. However, there is far less uncertainty about the near term. This is because, if Putin’s aggression is to be widely perceived as having failed, Russia must end up in no better a position than when it started the conflict and preferably in a worse one. That means Ukraine recovering its southern coastline and at least some of the Donbass.

Both those outcomes are, at best, some way off, so for the moment we need not concern ourselves about how much further the Ukrainian Government’s ambitions might stretch. That may become a pressing issue if Russian forces are driven back significantly, but there are a great many bridges to cross, both literally and figuratively, before we get anywhere near that point. For now, we should focus our minds and efforts on those bridges, and not worry unduly about what forks may lie along the road in the far distance.

Our immediate priority, like that of Ukraine, must therefore be further reversals of Russia’s territorial gains. But Ukraine’s continued success in this regard relies not just on the sustained valour of its people but on the willingness of western nations to maintain their high level of material support. That, in turn, depends to an extent on the perception of military progress—something of a chicken-and-egg situation.

My conclusion from all this is that the Ukrainian forces will need to make demonstrable gains over 2023. That, though, begs the question of the means required to achieve such an outcome, so I turn to some detailed points and questions for the Minister.

We have seen the very recent, welcome decisions, by Germany in particular, on the provision of tanks to go along with the other armoured fighting vehicles and artillery already delivered and promised. We should be in no doubt, though, that offensive action to retake and hold ground is a very different proposition from mounting a defence against the kind of unco-ordinated and poorly led attack that we saw from Russian forces last summer. Tanks in sufficient numbers will be very helpful in this regard, but the ability to manoeuvre sizeable units with concentrated firepower, to clear obstacles, both natural and man-made, and to co-ordinate different elements, both on the ground and in the air, is a significant challenge to any military. Of course, the offensive forces need extensive logistical support, technical capabilities and, crucially, sufficient weapon stocks. The important aid that we and other countries have given to Ukraine has resulted in a multiplicity of equipment types, each with its own logistic tail and often with different ammunition requirements.

Can the Minister therefore tell the House what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of the scale of development of Ukraine’s offensive capabilities and, in particular, of its sustainability in the light of the requirements I have outlined above? Is there more that we should be doing to improve the coherence of Ukraine’s capabilities rather than focusing just on quantity?

I turn to the air. It is clear that the continued existence of capable ground-based air defences on both sides has led to something of a stalemate. What advice and aid is the Ministry of Defence giving the Ukrainians to help them break the impasse, particularly in light of the advantage that air superiority would give an attacking force? I note the Government’s announcement yesterday that the UK will provide fast-jet pilot training for Ukrainians. This may be an important contribution to Ukrainian capability, but training pilots, even advanced training, takes a long time and they need aircraft to fly once they are trained—not that we have much to offer in that regard. Our Typhoon force is already overstretched maintaining the air defence of these islands and flying combat air patrols over NATO nations bordering the conflict.

Can the Minister explain how this initiative will fit into Ukraine’s broader operational plans? Is it intended to bolster the military effort in the present conflict or is it part of the longer-term development of the Ukrainian armed forces? Can he also say what impact this new undertaking is likely to have on our military? Given the signal failure, over the past few years, of the military flying training system to deliver sufficient capacity to meet the RAF’s needs, only compounded by the recent problems with the engine on the Hawk T2 aircraft, how confident is he that it can now rise to such an additional demand? Is this not yet another example of the stripping out of our military capabilities, which has gone on for so many years, coming home to roost? Until now, the Ukraine war has largely focused attention on the paucity of our weapon stocks, but this latest initiative highlights a much deeper and wider problem of capacity. Will the revision of the defence Command Paper address this?

Finally, I turn to an issue already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and very ably highlighted yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, in the briefing on Ukraine that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, kindly arranged for us. Outside of the NATO area, Russia seems to be having considerable success in the battle of the narratives. This has important implications for the longer term. In the Middle East, Asia and Africa, the danger posed by Russia and the plight of Ukraine are widely misunderstood. There is indeed sympathy for Russia, which is supposedly facing encirclement by a hostile and aggressive NATO. I know that the Minister understands the importance of countering this narrative, but can he reassure the House that the Government are working hard with allies to develop a co-ordinated and sustained response? We may not be able to win over everybody, but at the moment we are winning over far too few.

The conflict in Ukraine continues to throw up many complex and difficult questions, but this is a time for clarity. We should not expect the war to be decided this year, but it will be a decisive period in determining whether both we and Ukraine are able to achieve our objectives. With that in mind, we should bend every sinew to promote Ukrainian military success over these crucial months.

13:30

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, it is rather humbling to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Soames and look forward to his maiden speech.

As everybody has said, after 12 months of conflict, death, destruction and huge suffering, everybody is wondering how long this war will last and how it will end. At the beginning of the war, no one believed that Ukraine could outlast the might of Russia. President Biden even offered Zelensky and his Government exile in the United States. Zelensky’s famous refusal,

“I need ammunition, not a ride”,

and the amazing resilience and courage of the Ukrainian people that followed, stunned the West. Helping Zelensky contain Russia’s aggression soon turned into a proxy war for the West.

Since then, as we heard earlier, the West has provided a massive amount of military and economic support. With Germany’s recent agreement to release the Leopard 2 tanks, more than 300 heavy tanks will be delivered to Ukraine by European countries, while the USA will provide 31 Abrams tanks. Yesterday our Prime Minister announced that Britain could also provide fighter jets and train Ukrainian pilots.

Unsurprisingly, Zelensky and the West believe that Ukraine can win the war outright. But Putin too believes that he can win the war outright. He has shown no sign of intending to stop the war, scaling down his demands or looking for a way out, let alone making serious proposals for peace. For Putin, this is a crusade. He and his siloviki—men of force, mostly ex-KGB—are in an existential struggle against the West. For Putin, as much as for them, it is a matter of life and death. There is no chance to back down now and, if Putin goes, they too lose everything. Their only interest is to keep their wealth, and they are too afraid to raise their voices and criticise Putin anyway.

A recent report published by the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service concluded that we should not expect Mr Putin to give up on his faltering war, and should bury any hopes of a successor toppling him anytime soon. The report goes on to say:

“Putin is playing for time, believing that Ukraine and the West will wear out before Russia.”


Ukrainian intelligence services, as the Minister pointed out, believe that Putin is planning a major counteroffensive, maybe as early as on 24 February to mark the beginning of his “war against the Nazis”.

The Russian army may be disorganised and the number of deaths, injured and deserters may be in the region of 200,000, but Putin has a large reserve at hand. There are three times more Russians than Ukrainians. This is reminiscent of Stalin during World War II; the Germans would kill 10 divisions, but 20 would resurge. Putin’s war stock is vast, while the delivery of western tanks may not arrive in time for the upcoming battle—and let us not forget that Russia is one of the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

Dr Kissinger recently questioned whether we were sleepwalking into a conflict similar to World War I, which none of the European leaders would have entered into had they foreseen what would follow. The President of Croatia—a NATO member—criticised western nations for supplying Ukraine with heavy tanks and other weapons, saying that it will only prolong the war and adding that it is “mad” to believe that Russia can be defeated in a conventional war.

I am enormously proud of our Government’s unwavering support and of the lead role they have taken immediately, not only in military aid but in economic and humanitarian aid and in their diplomatic efforts and successes with other countries.

However, in view of Putin’s revisionism, and Russia’s nuclear weapons, oil and gas, skills in cyber technology, and its proximity to Europe, I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify exactly what our strategic aim is and say how we can achieve it. When we look at Russia, we can be clear about its strategic aim—which is possibly also to take control of the nuclear power in Ukraine. Ukraine’s strategic aims are also clear but can all the NATO nations have the same aim? How can we ensure that we work together to make a safer future for our country and the Ukrainians?

13:37

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, who has worked hard as the Prime Minister’s envoy on Ukraine. It is also good to look forward to the maiden contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who is not only an old colleague and friend but a former Minister for the Armed Forces, with a distinguished record that was only enhanced by him being denied the Conservative whip in the House of Commons before he came here.

The most famous expert on strategy during the Second World War was Sir Basil Liddell Hart, who once wisely said:

“The profoundest truth of war is that the issue of battle is usually decided in the minds of the opposing commanders, not in the bodies of their men.”


Therefore, the question for us is: given that Vladimir Putin, in his own mind, made the decision to invade Ukraine, ignoring the advice of his military experts and recklessly misreading the intelligence on the resistance of the Ukrainians, can we change his mind? I believe that we can and that we must do just that. Getting into the mind of someone like President Putin is not easy, even for me who dealt with him personally 20 years ago in what now seems to be another universe. But I offer to the House some recent examples of the kind of mind shifts among authoritarians that might just give us an indication of where we could go in the future.

The first example is the decision of President Xi of China only a few weeks ago to abandon overnight the draconian lockdown policy on Covid. Even an authoritarian in a country such as China will watch public opinion closely, and he could see that the ground was moving—and fast. My second example was less than a week ago. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, a notably repressive regime, decided without notice to release thousands of prisoners who had defied the law on headdress. Even the Supreme Leader could see that the ground was moving against the regime. With women’s demonstrations escalating all the time, the mind of the commander was changed as a consequence. My third example was the exit by the Soviet Union in February 1989 from its disastrous invasion and intervention in Afghanistan. In the Kremlin, they understood that they were losing the war, the casualty list was producing a massive backlash among mothers and it was costing an already troubled economy a substantial amount of money. So, without any off-ramp being offered, no face-saving formula being available, they ordered their troops simply to come home. My fourth example to the House is 4 June 1989, when Solidarity was elected the Government in Poland. On that day, there were 55,000 Soviet troops in Poland but the Soviet Politburo ordered them to stay in their barracks. It could see the writing on the wall, that the ground internationally was moving and that its mind had to change—and it did so.

What, then, will it take to change Vladimir Putin’s mind without, as it happens, the advice to him of a politburo, a parliament or even a security council? The answer is: primarily by the determination of the West to stand by the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its people. Only by the united resolution of the countries of the free world insisting on the right of Ukraine and the Ukrainians to live as they want will the mind of Putin change when he sees that he cannot succeed. That unity of western Europe was Putin’s first serious miscalculation and so, too, was the renewed link between Europe and the United States. Both must be reinforced.

We must give President Zelensky, who inspired us all yesterday in Westminster Hall, the tools to defend his nation. The main thing, however, is to give long-term commitments to providing help. Piecemeal decisions do not have the same effect on the Kremlin as our united promise to continue providing the missiles, guns, ammunition and training that will help Ukraine to throw out the invader.

It is a brutal fact that the people of Ukraine are fighting for their lives, their country and democracy, but they are also fighting for us. It is again a brutal fact of the new world that Vladimir Putin has created that our front line of defending Britain is no longer the white cliffs of Dover or the north German plains but the mud and blood of the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. We must make sure that that front line is defended with vigour, determination and total resolution. That means that the Government must make a difficult but necessary choice to spend the cash, replenish all that we have sent to Ukraine and restore the defences of our own country. We can all now see the threat to us that is on display in technicolour in Donetsk, Luhansk and Mariupol. There is absolutely no excuse possible for skimping on the defence of our nation and our people. The first and overwhelming duty of any Government is the protection of the nation, and that duty cannot and must not be avoided.

13:44

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I start with a couple of declarations of interest. I am one of the elected vice-presidents of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and I work very closely with our five sister parties in Ukraine. I am also a former trustee of UNICEF UK, and I am vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.

It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. His decades of experience and strategic view have given us a hopeful speech about changing mindsets. The House should be grateful for that. The only issue I have is that one other factor is beginning to emerge, which is the Russian people themselves. However downtrodden they are, however much protesters are imprisoned, however much Navalny and his Anti-Corruption Foundation and our sister party Yabloko do what they can in a country where it is almost impossible to speak up, it is now becoming clear that the Russian people are concerned about the number of deaths and beginning to understand that things are not as Putin has told them. Let us hope that that continues to grow as well.

I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. I had the honour of meeting his mother on a number of occasions over 30 years at Churchill College. It is delightful to welcome yet another Soames into your Lordships’ House.

I will focus on the extraordinary cross-party political co-operation, not just in the UK and Ukraine but in many parts of the western world that have come together to try to turn the tide on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I will illustrate that with one example, that of removing landmines. I will also focus on Ukrainian children abducted and forcibly adopted by Russia.

But first, I echo the points my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed made. Our Ukrainian friends are extremely keen that the UK looks at Russian assets, not just those of oligarchs and individuals who are in power but those of the nation itself. I gather that £58 billion of central Russian assets are held in London. We need to go beyond targeting just individuals because at some point, I hope very soon, we will have to find the resources to help Ukraine rebuild. It and the West should not pay for that; the aggressor should pay.

I mentioned that I work with our sister parties in Ukraine. There are five, but two are particular key: Servant of the People, or Sluha Narodu, which is obviously in power and led by Zelensky, and Golos, which is led by Kira Rudik as leader of the opposition. The example of cross-party co-operation is so evident when you talk to any MP in the Ukrainian parliament, because one thing they all do is come together. Their debate in parliament usually universally accepts that there is one priority role. Kira, who is also a vice-president of ALDE alongside me and has become a friend, uses her role as an international ambassador to go wherever she is asked by her country to speak about its priorities and concerns. She is an example to us all.

It was Kira who, in May last year, contacted me to ask whether the UK could provide support for landmine clearance and ensure it arrived as soon as the Russians had vacated Donetsk and Luhansk, which they were just in the process of doing. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and to Amanda Milling, whom I wrote to at the time to ask whether we could ensure that specific resources were available. I have worked somewhat with MAG over the past year. The one thing that still concerns it, despite everything that has gone extremely well, which I will come back to in a minute, is that there will still need to be considerable mine-clearing resource available in Ukraine as we move forward. The Government have done the right thing and not let it impact on landmine clearance that the UK funds elsewhere in the world. Will the Government continue to ensure that there are enough resources? I would like to point out the level of mine clearance elsewhere every year. My noble friend Lord Purvis spoke about the issues in southern Africa, and the numbers there are astonishing. In Somalia I think it is about 70,000 and in Myanmar it was 98,000 landmines last year alone. The numbers across the world are good, and this is something that the UK should be proud to do.

The key issue that I wanted to raise is that, now that the Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust are in touch with Ukraine, they have managed to work with a united Ukrainian Government. Every department that had to give permission to work with them has done so and did so quickly, within three to four weeks, and they are training their own Ukrainian people now to clear mines as well, which is something that both MAG and the Halo Trust do in every country that they go into. We know that the number of Russian attacks mean that there is a significant and serious problem that is continuing to grow with landmines and other things that can injure people, so I hope the Minister can give some reassurance on that.

My other focus is on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I note that Russia signed it in 1990 just after it was first launched, so there are other things that Russia has signed but chosen not to be party to. Articles 6, 11, 19, 21 and 38 are vital when it comes to protecting the children of Ukraine, both in terms of simply being victims of war in areas where there are attacks and, particularly, in relation to children who are being adopted. Article 21 says that adoption must be safe and lawful, and that every adoption must prioritise the child’s best interest. That has not happened. It is now thought that over 13,000 children were forcibly removed from Ukraine by Russia, and some 2,000 are completely untraced. It is astonishing that the Russian media have promoted the fact that they were proud to take those children from those regions, saying:

“More than 1,000 babies from the liberated Mariupol have already found new families … More than 300 babies are on temporary maintenance in specialized institutions of the Krasnodar Territory and are looking forward to meeting their new families”.


This is the straightforward abduction of children of one nationality who are then moved to another country. It must be stopped. When the time is right, these children must be reunited with their birth families.

I shall end on some of the issues in UK civic society, where extraordinary things have happened. First, we need to pay tribute to those families who have hosted Ukrainian families; to the many schools that are taking in, right from day one, Ukrainian children and making sure that they can settle in; and to the many Ukrainian families working together to make sure that Ukrainian heritage is upheld and supported while the children are abroad, not just in the UK but elsewhere. I have seen friends running vans of goods, sometimes specialist goods such as pharmaceutical goods, to Ukraine as they are needed. As a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, I find it notable that the national fire chiefs have had four convoys of firefighting equipment, including fire engines, that have already gone to Ukraine, and further trips are planned. These are not things that get national press in the way that day-to-day war does, but it shows us that in this country we have come together as best we can as ordinary people to try to play our part.

I was talking to Kira Rudik in the period between the Queen’s death and her funeral. I had just had a family dinner with my stepmother and my mother-in-law, both of whom grew up in the war, one in the Blitz and one in a northern city where there were daily bombings. Both of them said that the pictures from Ukraine were reminiscent of their childhood and that, in the early days of the Blitz, they all thought that things would end fast, but they did not. That is the big message from our own generation who have witnessed this at first hand. We must be there to help Ukraine every step of the way for however long this trial takes because we know that we can come out the other side of it—as we did—but we have to do so as a united world to stop Russia’s continued aggression.

13:54

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who brings great focus to a number of very important issues concerning the Ukrainian scene. I also look forward with warm anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames.

I wonder if President Putin ever heard about the principles of war before he launched his special operation. Most important of these principles is:

“Selection and maintenance of the aim”.


His aim was clear: to make all Ukraine again part of Mother Russia. He had established to his satisfaction that China would be supportive, while many in the third world might see his special operation as no part of their business. Eastern Europe is a far-off land and for some—for example, South Africa—a developing friendship with Russia was important.

Probably, there was also an expectation that Russia would soon succeed, as it had with Crimea. Then, after diplomatic tantrums, apoplectic condemnations and some more useless sanctions, Russia’s conquest would become accepted—in which case, why side with others against Russia? Almost 50 countries either abstained or did not choose to vote on the United Nations Assembly motion seeking to condemn Russia’s aggression. In some parts of the world, criticism of Russia is thus more nuanced—sympathetic, even—in spite of that totally unlawful behaviour, as indeed outlined by the Minister.

A year on, Putin has not changed his strategic aim. His claim last September that Kherson and much of the Donbass were now part of Mother Russia underlined his continuing strategic aim. Russia is expected to launch a further offensive. Will this one take the form of shock and awe, one wonders, with massive use of airpower? Russia has that ability, although it has been noticeable—even surprising—how little attempt it made at the outset, or in the past 12 months, to establish air supremacy in its classic form.

Putin’s military commanders will be instructed this time to use all means, short of nuclear weapons, to defeat the Ukrainians. But at the back of their minds must be a fear that NATO would take advantage and maybe use the conflict as a pretext for advancing further east. We know that is not true, but truth is not a feature of Russian thinking or practice. They employ untruths—blatant lies—and will assume that NATO would too. A chasm between cultures is there. It exists.

How much, then, will Russia keep in reserve against a fear of NATO attack? That must affect its decisions about a shock and awe air-led assault and other advances further into Ukraine. Occupation would require stationing forces to keep Ukrainians under control; that too must be planned for. Will production fully match its high rates of ammunition consumption? In sum, it is a difficult operational and logistic balance to strike, but I expect Putin to try to strike it.

Another great principle of war is “maintenance of morale”—that is, on your side, along with the destruction of the morale of your opponents. Here, one must hand the winner’s cup to Zelensky. His leadership of his country stands with the likes of a Caesar or a Churchill. Putin’s leadership, too, depends not just on the rigours of an authoritarian regime but on inspiring Russians that his cause is noble. However, when it comes to those engaged in the actual battle, differences in morale are striking.

Ukrainians have been given astonishing leadership from the top, and they have responded magnificently. What could be more inspiring than when, as has already been mentioned, at the start of the conflict Zelensky was offered a safe flight and responded, “I don’t need a ride; I want more ammunition”, or his message and the symbolism yesterday in Westminster Hall? He is going to need more and more ammunition and much other support for his military. His plea for fighter jets, which will take time to implement if agreed, means he is up for a long struggle. Will the many new Russian troops, freshly conscripted and exposed to brutal conflict, feel as inspired as the Ukrainians? No way.

Finally, faced with further assault, the Ukrainians stand firm; they do not fold. What then? If they do not just hold ground but gradually force the Russians to retreat and give up more and more of the country they occupy, even Crimea, Putin must face the truth: he has not achieved his aim. He must fear, however unreal, that behind any Ukrainian success, NATO would choose to venture even closer to Moscow—even further than Sweden and Finland joining NATO. That is a position unacceptable to Putin. In his eyes, it would directly threaten to destroy his Russia. How would he respond if he were to be booted out of Ukraine? That is the big unknown for all to ponder. I hope, even now, that we and our allies are in deep deliberation and gaming these future issues.

14:02

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, like others in this House I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for tabling this debate. I wish to convey the apologies of my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, having recently travelled to Kyiv, wished to take part in this debate but is detained by the business of the General Synod. He will follow the deliberations closely in Hansard. My most reverend friend and several others from these Benches took time away from the General Synod yesterday and were delighted to join Members of both Houses to hear the President of Ukraine address us.

I count it a privilege and not a little daunting to precede the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, whose insight and wisdom on the matters before us are truly formidable. On behalf of the Lords Spiritual, I look forward to listening to and learning from his contributions to the work of the House in the coming days.

I would like to explore some of the issues which have arisen in recent weeks concerning how we assist Ukraine militarily while ensuring that we avoid strategic miscalculation. There can be no doubting the illegality, immorality and brutality of the Russian invasion. Nor can there be any doubt that Ukraine has a legitimate right to self-defence and to arm itself with the necessary equipment to do so. The military, financial and political support NATO countries have shown Ukraine since the start of the war has been just, necessary and proportionate. It is surely right that, as the war progresses and the early predictions of Russia’s swift victory prove ill-judged, our support for Ukraine grows significantly. The recent announcement that NATO countries will send tanks to Ukraine, a decision that would have been seen as taboo this time last year, has already given way to fresh debate on whether Ukraine should now also be supplied with fighter jets and longer-range missiles.

Such is our support for Ukraine that this is no longer being seen as a war solely between Russia and Ukraine. That is hardly surprising given that many western commentators now openly call for Russia’s complete defeat in Ukraine, either to bring down the evil Putin regime or to press for the decolonisation of Russia. Yet we need to be careful that, as the war progresses, our objectives do not shift from helping Ukraine defend itself to more comprehensively defeating Russia. Neither should we wishfully assume that a post-Putin Russia would see the country pathway seamlessly to democracy. In the meantime, we need to be reassured that we are not depleting our already diminished military resources, and we should strengthen our capacity for future defence without delay. Putin needs to see that we are serious in our preparedness for any widening of the conflict, should that be needed. This surely now requires a robust financial plan for immediate and medium-term increased defence spending and a strategic defence procurement plan, especially in the light of the sudden shift in security priorities because of the heightened threats in Europe.

Additionally, there can be no reduction in the need for supporting those fleeing the trouble in Ukraine. The initial early public support for the refugees was remarkable, and the government scheme very welcome, but more of the elderly relatives are now starting to come, and they have been harder to house. People in my diocese have found that there is also a particular problem for those leaving their host families to be able to find sufficient resources for a deposit for rented accommodation. We cannot keep taking from the international aid budget; we need a budget more in keeping with the fact that we are, in many ways, strategic players in a proxy war—a war that will need a long-term, committed response.

However, as we and our allies continue to support the people of Ukraine to defend themselves, how do we ensure that we do not become overconfident in our supply of advanced weaponry or so convinced by the rightness of our cause that we find ourselves in direct confrontation with Russia? There are significant cultural, religious and historical antecedents that need to be understood as having value in themselves if Putin is not simply to exploit those very things to bolster his increasingly costly war by framing western aggression as an attack on all that is instinctively and proudly Russian. In this, there is a propaganda war that we may not yet have properly addressed. I believe that we should, therefore, not defer from the Prophet Micah’s call to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. That should not soften strategic or military resolve to reply to violent aggression, but it may help, in the process, to avoid lapses of judgment caused by conflict fatigue. Indeed, it ought to stiffen the moral imperative to continue resisting such a grotesque evil, even though the financial and more tragic human costs may continue to increase.

In his response, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether there are limits to the military support that Britain is willing to provide to Ukraine. Is there a clear set of criteria against which such decisions are being made? I would also value clarity from the Government as to what success looks like. We have pledged to help Ukraine win and to provide it with the weaponry to do so, but as an alliance we remain undecided on what victory means or looks like. What will territorial integrity look like? Would a post-ceasefire and internationally supervised referendum in parts of Donbass and Crimea be respected by all sides and sufficient to end the dispute over the territories? Are we looking to supply weaponry so that Russia can be evicted militarily from all of Ukraine, including Crimea? Or do we want Ukraine to be able, credibly, to threaten Russia’s control of Crimea in order to strengthen Kyiv’s position in any future negotiations?

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that we cannot

“allow this to drag on and become a kind of First World War attritional-type stalemate”,

but we need to be careful that such understandable frustration does not lead to mission creep and, with it, further unnecessary escalation.

14:09

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his very kind words. It is difficult for me to adequately express the great sense of honour that I feel in rising to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House.

I start by thanking your Lordships for the generosity of the welcome that I have received, including some very kind words today, and expressing my particular thanks to Black Rod and her staff, Garter, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the IT wizards, the doorkeepers and attendants and, of course, the police, for their kindness and patience in steering me about the place. My thanks also go to my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Benyon for generously agreeing to present me to this House; to the Government Chief Whip and her excellent office; and to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham than whom there could be no better, no more sympathetic and no more knowledgeable mentor.

My first impressions, after a very few weeks here and as a former Member for 35 years of the House of Commons, are that your Lordships’ House is a highly successful but unsung institution, quietly and effectively getting on with vital, detailed, irreplaceable work of scrutiny, complementing but not rivalling the House of Commons. This week alone it has been a great privilege to listen to the ebb and flow of passionate, well-informed argument by some of the most distinguished and eminent Members of your Lordships’ House on two Bills of absolute profound importance to this country: on Monday, the debate on retained EU law and, on Tuesday, on matters touching on the fundamental liberties of the people of this country in the Public Order Bill. It has become clear to me very quickly that your Lordships’ House has a membership of often extraordinary wisdom, expertise, knowledge and experience, and I feel deeply privileged and very humbled to be part of it.

There could hardly be a better day for this House to take stock of the situation in Ukraine after the extraordinarily powerful and symbolic visit to London by President Zelensky and his inspirational speech to both Houses of Parliament. His leadership of Ukraine, as Moscow has sought to collapse his country as an independent and democratic state, has been heroic and exemplary and was brilliantly and movingly expressed yesterday.

I think it fitting to pay tribute to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who immediately grasped the significance of President Putin unleashing a war on our European continent without any provocation or credible excuse. He rightly said that this country and its allies could not and indeed would not allow the values of democracy and freedom to be snuffed out, and made clear the United Kingdom’s policy. He said:

“Now we have a clear mission: diplomatically, politically, economically and eventually militarily, this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/2022; col 564.]


I also congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whose drive and leadership in the equipping and training of the Ukrainian armed forces has been admirable. I pay tribute to the tremendous skills of those members of the British Armed Forces, of all three services, who have been and are training our Ukrainian friends. As a former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I have always been very aware of how exceptionally skilled the services are in their delivering of these training programmes. They are probably the finest training organisation in the country.

As we witness the unfolding reality and costs, in both men and materiel, of high-intensity conventional land warfare in Ukraine, it has added to the grave and now widespread concern that this country needs to pay a great deal more attention to defence and to sustaining our capabilities. Frankly, it is no longer possible, in my view, for defence to be reduced to an almost discretionary budget. I strongly believe that we need to reverse the slide in defence spending and to recognise that unless we invest at scale, we risk being left behind—very left behind—by the United States and, indeed, outgunned by other European states.

We all know that there are grave dangers ahead—the war in Ukraine is not the only challenge we will face. There are the global ambitions of China, including as a military power; serious difficulties in the Middle East; and instability in Africa and elsewhere. Further, I strongly believe that we need to pay the most careful and detailed attention to shoring up other areas, such as the Balkans, where Russia exhibits daily its malign intent. We need to concentrate on this with the same clarity, focus and decisiveness as we devote to Ukraine. We should most definitely not underestimate the danger of the fracturing of western resolve. We must ensure that there are no doubts about our staying power, our determination, our resolve and our unity. Your Lordships will be very aware that the President of China will be watching with great interest and care as he makes his calculations about Taiwan.

Finally, I support a sentiment expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who I was with yesterday on a very helpful Zoom call briefing with the Ministry of Defence, and expressed in an earlier speech by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and yesterday by my noble friend Lady Helic: that we need urgently to address the lack of understanding—other noble Lords have also mentioned this—of Ukraine’s position in Africa, South America, the Middle East and India, where Russian propaganda seems to have been, in some places, dangerously effective. This should, in my judgment, be a priority for the Foreign Office.

Our country can and should be proud of the role we have played in supporting Ukraine, and we must continue to be absolutely steadfast in our support in every way we can. It is worth remembering that Ukraine is one of history’s great survivors: two world wars, Stalin’s famines, the Great Terror, the Chernobyl explosion and finally a decade of subversion and occupation by Russia, followed by a full-blown invasion. The terrible lessons of history teach us that Ukraine is surely in need of all the help we can muster. I look forward to playing a further part in these debates and to continuing to learn, as I have done in the past few weeks, from your Lordships across the House.

14:18

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to follow the maiden speech of my noble and long-standing friend Lord Soames, which contained much wisdom, as we have just heard. It was a very fine speech. I remind your Lordships that my noble friend, throughout the whole of his career, has been a beacon of balance and common sense in a world plagued by distorting polarisation and extremism, and has enormous experience, including his time as a highly successful Defence Minister. In my view we are indeed lucky to have him with us. We should all listen very closely to what he says, especially on these intractable world issues, which seem remote to some but in fact affect us all, our future and our children’s future.

This dreadful war is being fought on three fronts, if not more. There is the battlefield war, where we are now being told to expect an imminent and major Russian assault, and maybe some nasty blows. How this has come about, I do not know. They will be full of cunning—full of Russian maskirovka, as they call it—and difficult to anticipate. There is the war of sanctions, finance and trade, and especially energy trade. I am very glad to see the resuscitation of my old department, Energy, which will help to handle the very difficult problems lying ahead. There is the shadowy war of cyber and intelligence, fake news, and attempts at demoralisation and undermining civil order.

On the battlefield, I hope the enthusiasm with which we all greeted President Zelensky in Westminster Hall yesterday lunchtime will now be followed not just by tanks—that is good—but by much longer-range missiles, helicopters and advanced drones, which are improving technologically all the time; and, from the United States, if we can help and support them and jog them along, F16s. Without these coming—and coming in time—I foresee a prolonged and bloody stalemate at best. Even then, much more will be needed on other fronts as well.

I am going to focus on the other front where there could be a breakthrough: via sanctions and economic pressures, and Russian trade isolation. The question is, have sanctions of all kinds worked so far, and what more could be done? The answer to whether they have worked is, awkwardly, yes and no. On the “no” side, the Russian economy is not yet crippled and Putin has not withdrawn; on the contrary, he is gearing up for new assaults. The rouble is stronger, not weaker, than at the start of all this. The $60 cap on Russian oil, along with insurance sanctions, is not much different from what Russia was getting anyway, and Russian oil and frozen gas are pouring into Asia at a discount, benefiting hugely countries like China, which I cannot believe is something we intended or wanted. A lot of this oil is being moved illegally by so-called ghost fleets, evading Western eyes. As a result, Russian crude exports have surged enormously this last month, even if their revenues have not. The reality is that half the world is not playing the Western game, which means that the sanctions system is being undermined constantly.

On the other hand, turning to a more optimistic stance, Russian GDP is heavily down, some say by at least 15%. There is a massive disinvestment and capital flight, where people can get their money out—and they will find the means to do so. The Russian budget deficit is up to 6% of GDP and, much more encouragingly, Europe is now in far better position on energy resources than last year. Gas storage facilities are almost full, except, regrettably, here in the UK, where we are still arguing about who should pay for the storage we should have had from the start. Overall, Russia has much less leverage on western Europe today than it did a year ago.

The issue now is: should the wider world try to tighten sanctions further and, as some suggest, make the oil price cap much lower still—say, $35? Would that really begin to limit Putin’s capacity to wage this war? It is a very difficult call, with events often backfiring and unfolding in the opposite way from that intended. Yet it is here, in this sphere of economic pressures, with the major political consequences that could follow inside Russia, that the real weak point could lie.

Whatever happens on the battlefield now, the best supporting strategy could be to aim at increasingly isolating Russia, as the unquestioned pariah in the comity of nations, from its markets, from its arms and component suppliers, from investors, from so-called neutrals, even getting China to back a little further away from its old ally, as has been hinted at by others. Remember, China is scared stiff that Putin will go nuclear and ruin its world business and recovery from Covid, as backchannel discussions with the Chinese are confirming all the time. Please remember also that China now accounts for 30% of all world manufacturing.

If we could weaken Chinese support; persuade India—which my noble friend Lord Soames rightly mentioned—to come round, despite its long-standing reliance on Russian goods and arms; and persuade our 55 like-minded fellow Commonwealth members to stand firm, that would be a real strategy. We could then take a bold leap internationally which might help to break the deadlocks on the ground which will otherwise develop. This should be the overwhelming and priority task for our diplomacy and national security strategy but, quite frankly, attention on this external aspect has been rather on the slow side and, from my point of view, far too weak from the start.

When Russia’s brutal invasion began, we found that half our Commonwealth friends did not even see things our way, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, rightly reminded us. We then found that our supposed friends in the Middle East and the Gulf—who are always claiming such close relations with us—still wanted to keep in with the Russians and that OPEC had other priorities than easing our unbearable gas and oil costs by quickly pumping more oil, as it could well have done. Those countries were looking a different way altogether.

Things are now easing a bit. In 2023, there is every chance that energy prices will come down—what goes up does come down in an immense cycle of investment in the energy field. However, this is where we should press much harder, building relations, mending fences and using the international influence and powers of persuasion which were always available to us, and always here, but which we neglected. We should now use them much more vigorously.

Whatever the resistance of the brave Ukrainian soldiery, it is only by leveraging up a solid world front all around against Russia and by intensifying internal hardship and anger inside Russia that the pressure on the Putin gang, or on Putin himself, might break the stalemate, force Russian withdrawal and begin Russia’s return to sanity as a nation in the comity of nations. That is the brutal truth. The fight continues on the ground, but the more it can be reinforced by these other strategies, the better the chances are of—as Zelensky himself said yesterday—

“victory over the very idea of the war”,

and the better the chances are of the closure of this unjust, unjustified and barbaric conflict.

14:27

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Soames, to his place. We go back a long way—30 years in the Commons. I recall that when he and I were on those Benches, he always did his homework.

There is feedback on the line at the moment.

I have been a dissenting voice on this issue on a number of occasions. I support NATO, and I have supported wars in central Europe, the Falklands, and even Iraq, which I argued for in Washington—but this is different. If we had troops on the ground, I would be loyal, but we do not. We are fighting a proxy war. To date, 8 million have fled the conflict, with 6 million internally displaced.

I believe that a series of miscalculations and missed opportunities have provoked a worldwide economic crisis that could have been avoided. I confess that I have no practical hands-on experience of foreign policy management, but I have followed in detail developments in foreign affairs over three decades. In my analysis, Russia’s oil blockade response was predictable, as was its impact on the oil price and the explosion in wage inflation. Both have consequences. The people paying the price are the unemployed, the poor, the rent and mortgage payers, the elderly poor and those struggling on marginal incomes. The impact on those with resources has been minimal. Millions in poverty now rely on friends, food banks and social centres while the stock market booms.

In truth, the world is changing. New alliances are being forged; trading patterns are changing; Russia is forging stronger trading links with China, India and parts of Africa. These changes have consequences for our alliances and trading patterns in the longer term. I ask myself: are we getting it wrong? I go back to a time of hope, when my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen met Putin in October 2001, following the final years of Yeltsin’s presidency. It had ended in an atmosphere of suspicion, following years of argument over NATO’s expansion. It is that which stands at the heart of today’s impasse. Russia had been humiliated with a collapsed economy and a loss of strategic influence. Genscher, as early as 1990, had recognised this and assured the Russians at Tutzing that there would be no NATO expansion to the east. Baker, to assure volatile rocking public opinion, gave similar assurances to Gorbachev. Indeed, it was Gorbachev’s willingness under duress to show flexibility in response on NATO that cost him the leadership in favour of Yeltsin.

Yeltsin himself showed huge statesmanship in seeking to square the circle, but he too fell when he could not deliver, giving way to Putin—his protégé. As Yeltsin had made clear in the arguments over Ukraine and NATO, the loss of Ukraine would upset the balance in former Soviet states, between Slav and Islamic nations, creating an Islamic majority, most of which carried an overlay of debt. We should at least try to understand the background.

However, the Russians then sadly made the catastrophic mistake of meddling in Chechnya—again, the Islamic factor. In doing so, they played right into the hands of the later expansionists. On reflection, I believe that we misread the problem. My own two speaking visits to Moscow during that period left me with a clear impression of Russian fears. In the Second World War, we lost 500,000 dead; they lost 25 million—50 times more. Nearly one in four Russians died. Surely that provides us with an explanation for Russia’s obsession with the external threat, which Putin is now ruthlessly using to justify his response to NATO expansion. I ask colleagues: are we really listening to their concerns? No. Do we ever stop to consider the impact on Russian public opinion of prospective NATO status for a ring of states, from Finland in the north to Georgia in the South—hitherto non-nuclear, neutral states—pointing nuclear weapons at Russia? No.

What of the Azov brigades, with their historic connections and their impact on Russian public opinion? Why have we compromised Germany into supplying tanks in the face of German public opinion, ever conscious of Russian memories of World War II? By our actions and inactions on all these counts, we are ignoring the credibility of a brutal Putin-driven Kremlin propaganda machine within Russia, exploiting these matters.

Where do we go from here? I believe we need to set out our bottom-line war aims and feed them into Russia, using every propaganda tool available and challenging disinformation, using the written word, telecommunication from satellite links, the internet, audio communication in all its forms, intel and the underground media. We should be proposing a settlement that avoids humiliation of a proud nation. We cannot blame the Russian people for the sins of a brutal, cruel leadership that keeps them in information lockdown and ignorance of the truth.

We need to bypass the Putin machine, and talk of a settlement based on, first, a ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian and Ukrainian combat forces, including the Asov battalions, from the Donbass; and, secondly, the recognition by Ukraine of separate regional devolved status under Ukraine sovereignty of the Donetsk and Luhansk, one of which is majority Russian-speaking, the other not. Then we need the reversal of Ukraine’s decision to ban the official use of the Russian language in the Donbass; an agreement on Russian access to arrangements for the Crimea; and the rejection of any NATO application by Ukraine under an agreed review timetable of up to 20 years—or earlier, depending on the negotiations. Finally, we need the retention of non-nuclear barrier status under the agreed review timetable.

In closing, I must express my admiration for the Ukrainians, families and military alike, and their belief that their strategy is right. They have been prepared to lay down their lives in the face of escalating levels of brutality. I argue not with their laudable objectives in pursuit of liberty; I argue only with the detail of the strategy that they have set out to pursue, and warn of the real dangers of escalation, perhaps nuclear, for the whole world.

14:36

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I very much regret that I cannot accept either the analysis or the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. However, I know from personal experience that he is a man of principle and commitment; I must say, I very much admire the fact that he has consistently argued against the overwhelming opinion of support for Ukraine and what it is doing in both this House and the other place.

It is a particular pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Soames. His lineage is beyond reproach; likewise his contribution to this debate. I look forward to hearing him again, not least when we are both members of the International Relations and Defence Committee where he will, I am sure, make a much-valued and well-informed contribution.

On analysis, it seems to me, perversely, that Ukraine presents both certainty and uncertainty. We see daily certainty on the part of Russia’s illegal brutality. Reference has already been made to Russia’s aim in the debate, but I would put things slightly differently: it is clearly to dismantle the state of Ukraine, destroy its infrastructure and eradicate its identity. Ukraine’s aim is to survive. That is an uncertain aim, not least because it has lost 40% of its economy and 25% of the value of its currency. It has also given up 15 million refugees and we see its infrastructure being destroyed daily. Russia, on the other hand, is certain in its conduct. Ukraine is uncertain in its future. The only thing that they have in common is the fact of the casualties—the dead and injured—the precise numbers of which are not being revealed but are certainly estimated to be very substantial indeed.

Out of that, the conclusion is inevitable: to survive, Ukraine must win. On the other hand, leaving aside the possible political and other consequences for Mr Putin, Russia can afford to lose. Its economy has survived sanctions with a little help from its friends—albeit with damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out. Its infrastructure is untouched. Its alliances have survived. Its statehood has suffered nothing. It is still proving an obstacle to the activities of the Security Council of the United Nations.

Let me put my conclusion a little more dramatically. Ukraine must win or be destroyed. As well as that, and of equal importance in the long run, is that if the credibility of NATO is to be preserved, Ukraine must not be destroyed. This involves the continued supply of top-quality equipment to Ukraine. However, top-quality equipment comes with some obligations. It requires top-quality maintenance and top-quality training. If these things are necessary for the proper use and taking into action of tanks, they are so much truer when we consider the possibility of fast jet aircraft. Let us remember that the older the aircraft, the more demanding the maintenance.

I question whether the United Kingdom has sufficient aircraft to release fast jets while maintaining the defence of the home country and fulfilling our obligations to NATO. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to the combat air patrols. I add that we maintain a flight in the Falklands for obvious reasons. I add that the Quick Reaction Alert, based at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby, necessarily requires the presence of Typhoon aircraft. I am still tempted to call it Eurofighter, but in the interests of unanimity I will call it the Typhoon.

Notably, the Prime Minister has promised pilot training but not aircraft. That is a well-informed decision. I have sought to raise in writing with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who will close this debate, that there are some legal implications to be drawn from Russia having used an aerial bombardment of drones armed with missiles to mount indiscriminate attacks on infrastructure and citizens of Ukraine, contrary to the principles of humanitarian law. If it could be established that the manufacturers of these drones and the suppliers in Iran knew what they were likely to be used for and the extent to which they would breach the principles of humanitarian law, liability could be attached to them also. The issue is worth investigation. Without sounding too dramatic, I rather think that the principle was established at Nuremberg.

This issue will not be resolved by economic sanctions or diplomacy. It will be won or lost on the battlefield. That is the imperative for the supply to Ukraine of the means to win. This is a bloody war, and we are in for the long haul. I leave your Lordships with not a prediction but a possibility. In the event that Mr Putin were successful, might not triumphalism encourage him to turn his attention to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? If Mr Putin were defeated, for his own survival he might then be tempted to turn on Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. If that were his conduct in either circumstance, we most certainly would be in for the long haul, because that would trigger Article 5.

14:45

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

My Lords, I sometimes hear noble Lords complain that people outside your Lordships’ House do not pay enough attention to what is said inside it, but I assure you that, today, one part of our external audience is listening very carefully: the Russian embassy in London. People there are not listening because they want to hear the strength of support for Ukraine or because they are looking for arguments to change their President’s mind. They are looking for evidence that we are not united, that there is division in the United Kingdom and that there is hope for Russia and its propaganda. I fear that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will be the one on which they focus most, but I hope that the first secretaries in the embassy are honest enough to report that the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, much better reflected the mood of the House.

The day after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February last year, we had a debate. The atmosphere in the House was uncertain, even fearful, because back then we could see, more clearly than we do now, why President Putin thought he would succeed. He thought that he was confronted by a divided West. He knew that we had failed to respond adequately to the invasion of Crimea in 2014. He thought that his back was covered, and that China and the South would support him; that his army was the best in the world and would arrive in Kyiv in three days; and that his opponent was hollow, and Ukraine was a corrupt country with an elite who was mostly in his pocket and a President who was a clown.

The few days after the invasion were more difficult than we remember. Things were touch and go. We did not know whether the Ukrainian army would hold or whether Zelensky would rise to the task. Already, in those first days, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, reminded us, Zelensky showed his mettle. When offered a route out, he said:

“The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”


After nearly a year, we look back and see that Putin miscalculated in everything and in some things comprehensively and disastrously. First, the West is not divided. It has come together as never before and is supporting Ukraine to the hilt. The weakest link in our chain was supposed to be Germany and, even though it took some time to get going, it is with the programme. Remember, a year ago, Nord Stream 2 was about to be commissioned. The Russians thought that the Germans could not do without their oil and gas and that, however reluctantly, they would acquiesce. That did not happen. Nord Stream 2 is now mothballed indefinitely. A year ago, Russia supplied about 40% of Germany’s gas. Germany managed to reduce that to zero by September last year, so Germany has retooled and the West is in a similar place. The West is hanging together.

Secondly, Putin thought that Russia’s traditional partners would be with him, but China, frankly, is not. China has taken this opportunity to benefit from cheap, discounted Russian oil and gas. It has not done anything practically to support Russia; this is key. I learned over my career to disagree rarely and gently with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, but I think that in diplomatic terms Ukraine has also scored a triumph in the South. The Security Council of the United Nations cannot function in these circumstances because Russia has a veto. But the General Assembly is still working, and in the resolutions that come to it, Ukraine has attracted 140 positive votes—141 altogether supporting Ukraine. Russia, by contrast, has attracted four: Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Eritrea. I submit that that is a measure of success; although there is no doubt more we could do, the international community, including the South, is more sympathetic with Ukraine than it is with Russia.

Thirdly, on the excellence of Russian forces: they are not excellent. They are losing the fight on the ground; they made some initial progress but, as the Minister reminded us in her opening statement, Ukraine has already recaptured 50% of what was taken in those early weeks. Russia’s forces are demoralised and badly equipped; they are going through their weaponry at a rapid pace. The only place that is resupplying them is Iran; it causes trouble but will not strategically affect the picture. As we all know, this was supposed to be a special operation. This was supposed to be wrapped up quickly, but the Russians had to conscript people. The moment they started to conscript, we saw the weakness. More young Russian men left the country than were conscripted into the Russian army. Russia’s army is not doing well.

Fourthly, and lastly, Ukraine was already a country. It had been independent since 1990—an independence recognised by Russia. But countries gain their national identity in phases; war is often the crucible in which a national identity is forged. That is what has happened in Ukraine in the last 12 months. A country that may have been a bit too much on paper is showing itself to be vibrant and determined, and it is doing this under the leadership of an amazing President: a man who, on paper, was not at all equipped to do the job he has to do, but a man who has risen to that task magnificently. I will gently disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Soames about yesterday’s visit; it was not symbolic but was purposeful. He had an agenda, and although he was addressing us in Westminster Hall, he was also appealing over our heads. My favourite line was when he said:

“In Britain, the king is an air force pilot and in Ukraine today, every air force pilot is a king.”


This was the prelude to asking us for fighter jets. Although we are hesitating, and I can see reasons to hesitate, I can also feel the national debate moving ahead of us.

So what are we going to do? In order for Ukraine to win, which is in our collective western strategic interest, we must do everything that we can to support it. The military training is vital. The tanks are important. The jets, too, will be important and we can take the risk. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, was talking about forward defence. Right now, Ukraine is our front line, too. What is done in Ukraine is done for our defence too. What we do there contributes directly to the defence of the United Kingdom. What is supplied to Ukraine is fulfilling a national purpose. We can take some risk because it will help us.

Also—this, I admit, is a personal calculation—the Russians are completely extended in Ukraine. They do not have the option to strike anywhere else. They cannot hit the Baltic states right now because they have nothing with which to hit them. Another little piece of the Russians’ miscalculation was as regards NATO. The only thing stopping Finland and Sweden from joining today is Turkish hesitation, but that will be overcome. We collectively need to do all that we can to help them.

One other thing that President Zelensky said yesterday, which received less interest, was the value of preventive action before armed conflict starts. One of the most important things for him was the training of Ukrainian forces in the UK, which started under Prime Minister Johnson. This meant that, when things kicked off, they had sufficient resilience to resist. Zelensky’s challenge is to expand that sort of assistance, and yet the DAC in Paris and our development community is resistant to the idea that military training can be a proper subject for overseas official development assistance. It would be good to take up his suggestion and reconsider that resistance.

Lastly, there are the ultimate objectives, which are all about Ukraine. The ultimate objective does not touch Russia, and that is important to acknowledge and repeat, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham did. We are not at war with Russia. We are not going to touch its territory and there needs to be clarity about that. Once Ukraine has won its war in its territory, that will be enough.

14:57

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on behalf of the two Greens on these Benches. I am sure that that is a first. It was a good speech and I thank him. There was just one jarring note, which was that after 35 years in the other place the noble Lord had no understanding of the value of us—how wonderful we are in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps he can take that revelation back to his former colleagues in the other place and explain just how valuable we are, and what a wonderful job we do. I also very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. It was impressive for him to speak for that long without notes. It was very good.

On the issue of the Russian embassy listening, it is a real pleasure to think that it is showing a lot of interest in what we are doing here—more, obviously, than at the other end. I tweeted yesterday about the speech that we had heard and the President’s visit. It was remarkable that within moments abusive tweets were directed back at me. They were abusive towards me, the President, Ukraine and the Green Party. It struck me that most of them were anonymous with few followers. I do not know how many noble Lords are on Twitter, but that sort of thing—the lack of followers and anonymisation—is often from bots, people who do not exist. That suggested that the tweets were from fake accounts and were probably pro-Russian propaganda. They have failed. I am sure that they are doing their best, bless them.

Ukraine has presented a persona for the President and the country right from the start of a united Government, of opposition and bravery. Even the look of the President has been very carefully thought through, wearing his military colours and always speaking out and being heard by the people, with clear updates on the war. Ukraine has allowed journalists to report from the front lines but also in towns and cities. That sort of thing has given us a very positive image of Ukraine and its President. If any noble Lord has not watched “Servant of the People”, which is where the former actor Zelensky showed us what he could do as President of Ukraine if he ever got there, I really recommend it. When I see him now, there are still times when I see “Servant of the People”.

Since Russia began its illegal and, I hope, futile war, it has weaponised energy supply. It has tried to punish Ukrainian society in many ways, and those indiscriminate strikes trying to hit energy supply have definitely been part of it. Hitting the energy infrastructure has meant that innocent civilians have not only died but gone without heating and water at a terrible time of year—the winter is very hard there. NATO has placed much emphasis on the continuation of military supplies. Although new Challenger, Leopard and Abrams tanks provide some hope for Ukraine possibly to repel a spring Russian offensive, they do very little to keep women, children and old people from freezing to death.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, outlined that the West needs to think long-term. That is not easy to do when events are happening so fast, but we have to do it. Just as Truman engineered the economic revival of post-war Europe through a comprehensive plan, the West needs to devise a green Marshall plan—a strategic plan that offers Ukraine the economic capability to secure its survival. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very good speech as well. She actually stole my thunder—so thanks for that—because an energy-secure Ukraine is perhaps Europe’s best safety net against future Russian aggression.

However, the West cannot simply throw money at the problem and potentially burden Ukraine with debts that it cannot pay. Green planning and investment must be at the heart of Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine has set a target of sourcing 25% of its total energy generation from renewables by 2035; it currently has 15%. Solar infrastructure projects must be built in southern Ukraine, where solar irradiance is highest, and, of course, wind farms.

I have not been to a war zone, but I worked as an archaeologist at Axum near Eritrea in the 1990s when the civil war had paused temporarily, so I know the difficulties that a local population can face after war and the sort of assaults individuals have to face—violence, rape and torture. The hardships they face after the conflict has stopped are sometimes almost worse, because they do not have anything else to distract them. In Eritrea at that time it was very hard to eat. I was not very fat to start with and I lost half a stone within a couple of weeks, simply because we could not feed ourselves—and we were the privileged people. The Eritreans wanted us to be there to excavate Axum to find out even more about their heritage, but we could barely get enough food to survive ourselves. I was a vegetarian when I went there, but when I left I had eaten a lot of goat—boiled goat at that—which I would not advise anyone to do.

All the infrastructure and rehabilitation is put at risk by a major obstacle: landmines. Ukraine is littered with them already. Ukraine’s Government estimate that 160,000 square kilometres of land is contaminated with landmines. That is astonishing, and of course the actual figure is likely to be much higher because it is difficult to see things that are buried underground. Schools and local infrastructure cannot be physically built in such a dangerous environment; it renders any plan to reconstruct Ukraine futile. As much as the West might fund Ukraine’s military defence against Russia’s invasion, it needs to simultaneously fund and support the demining effort with equal conviction. The US has already pledged $89 million for demining, but Ukraine needs much more financial support on this front because demining is labour intensive and extremely expensive.

Given the enormity of that challenge, demining has so far been more of an afterthought than a central priority. The UK can help by directing funds and equipment to the demining effort. It should use the British Army’s training facilities here to train Ukrainians in demining procedures, and it should send a fleet of demining machines. Demining the areas where the urgently needed energy infrastructure can be built should be a priority today rather than later, to help a green Marshall plan to be implemented as soon as possible.

15:06

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, particularly in her suggestion that it is not too early to start thinking about the long term. She is quite right.

I say to my noble friend Lord Soames, who is no longer in his place, how much I admired his contribution to our discussion. I know we will have many more quality contributions of that kind from him, and it is a great pleasure to have him in our House.

A lot of wise things have already been said in this debate. We have reached the point in our discussion where much of the important ground has been covered one way or another by previous speakers. I intend to be brief.

I think there is widespread understanding that we are at something of a turning point in this war. The bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people and their leadership was exemplified by President Zelensky in his remarkable performance yesterday, crucially underpinned by the military assistance given by the allies. That has led to a level of Ukrainian success in the field that has come as a fairly nasty shock to the Russians; the situation on the ground is not one that they either wanted or expected. However, when they gear up for the next offensive, they are not likely to make precisely the same mistakes. It seems to me that they will be better organised and their attempt at combined-force operations will be much more effective. General Gerasimov, who is no fool and whose prestige is now directly engaged, and for that matter Putin, even though his position is not necessarily in danger, must be conscious of the damage done to their reputation for competence. There is not a lot more that they have to claim in that regard. All those factors mean that we shall see a different quality of military performance when fighting really resumes. Economy is not going to be the Russians’ main consideration; I think they are going to throw everything they have at it, so the challenge to the Ukrainian forces could be formidable.

HMG have given real leadership in supporting Ukraine’s military capability. I commend the Government on the absolutely consistent and strong role that they have played, frequently being the catalyst for action by allies that might not otherwise have occurred, or certainly not have occurred in sufficiently good or timely a way as has been the case as a result of the actions of our Government. Perhaps we are at another of those turning points in the equipment debate, now that the UK has undertaken to train pilots. This is against the background of the rather curious charade which has been played out over previous weapons decisions—I take tanks as an example—whereby the allies start out by saying that a given weapon or munition is either too escalatory to risk in the theatre, too sophisticated for the Ukrainians to master, or insufficient in supply or inappropriate. There were all those things and you could not tell, frankly, whether they were real reasons or excuses but they then vanished at the 11th hour.

This game of red lines being put in place, defended and then lifted at a late hour is a rather odd way of going on. I hope that we can, as an alliance, do less of this in future. There is clearly an important decision to be taken about air power and I hope that the Minister, when he speaks, will be able to respond to the question of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup: where does the UK place its action in offering training for jet aircraft? Is it going to be followed by supply and do we reckon that it is part of a short or immediate response to military need, or is it actually related to a much longer view of the kind of armament that Ukraine will need? It sure is going to have to be an armed country when the war comes to an end.

Turning to the post war for a moment, one has only to think about the consequences of not helping Ukrainians to defend themselves successfully to realise how important that task is. There will be no acceptable basis for ending the fighting if Russian forces have not been driven from Ukrainian territory and are still occupying it. If there is no end to the fighting, there is no basis for negotiation—and no negotiation means no legal basis for security in Europe. I take issue slightly with my former colleague the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, when he says that it is all about Ukraine. A great deal of it is about Ukraine but it is also about European security, and that is why its fight is our fight. It is about European security and the whole of our continent. Clearly, we therefore have to be in a position not only to secure the future of Ukraine as a free and democratic country but to secure a continent in which we can live in reasonable stability.

I want to use the word “peace” but I have a very unhappy feeling that the Europe we will inherit after the end of this war is not going to be quite as peaceable or relaxed, if I put it that way, as the political climate that we have enjoyed since the fall of the wall and German unification. It seems that we are going to be in a more militarised continent, one where our defence spending will be at a higher level on a sustained basis. That will be so for not just this country but the whole of the alliance. We will be coping with an aftermath of decisions and difficulties. This poses the question: are we moving towards an attempt—with success, I hope—at once again resuming co-operative security in Europe, or will we be dealing with a Russia that is contained and where the objective of the exercise is to prevent more damage rather than to return to any kind of active or positive relationship? These seem to be some of the choices that we are going to have to confront.

There are questions of what happens to sanctions, over what period they can be lifted and how we balance the need to demonstrate that there is a cost of war to regimes like Russia’s against the issue of the long-term future of the Russian people—who are also victims of the actions of their leadership. These are going to be very difficult issues. It will behove us to start thinking about how we handle some of them and laying out some of the options for ourselves, because we may have to make very difficult choices and we need to be united about them. There would be nothing worse than the West falling apart when it comes to trying to deal with the consequences and the aftermath of war.

To conclude, I agree very strongly with those who say that the Ukrainians’ fight is our fight because their security is part of ours. While they make the sacrifice with their lives, the least we can do is offer our maximum support to help them towards their success.

15:15

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. I agree with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it is essential that we plan for the longer term. I believe that in Euro-Atlantic security—strategic stability in the space between Vancouver and Vladivostok—now is always the time to plan for the longer term. In the past I have been critical of people not thinking in those terms. To some degree that may have contributed to where we find ourselves today.

It was a privilege to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. I congratulate him on an excellent and characteristically robust speech. It was informed, wise and delivered exceptionally well. I think the best I can say for him is that in that speech, and otherwise, he has earned and deserves the ear of your Lordships’ House.

I find myself for the second time in a few weeks embarrassed and apologetic to be in a position where I know that, as I am contributing to a debate on a Thursday afternoon, it is improbable that I will be here for the winding up if I hope to get home today to Scotland. Today it is a function of the addition, at relatively short notice, of important business to the list. It is also a function of the increasing unpredictability and lack of capacity of the transport systems to Scotland. I know I am not the only Scot in your Lordships’ House today who is suffering to some degree because of this. In any event, I explained my problem to the Whips’ Office, my own Whips and both Front Benches. I am immensely grateful for the generous way in which they responded.

As the US State Department, among many others, predicted, winter has brought with it a relatively static front in eastern Ukraine along lines largely unchanged since that extraordinary Ukrainian counteroffensive in September. However, we must guard against complacency, and many speeches have echoed that. Troop movements over the last few days indicate that Putin is moving his planned spring offensives forward and we must expect an intensification of fighting in pretty short order. If the WhatsApp from the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, proves to be correct, that order may be shorter than many of us expected. Although the front is relatively static for the moment, we must ensure that this does not result in any abatement of focus from the NATO powers.

This debate gives us a welcome opportunity to remind ourselves of the ongoing consequences of Russia’s unprovoked aggression. Russian forces continue to occupy more than 100,000 square kilometres of Ukraine, around 15% of its total territory. Fierce fighting continues in Bakhmut and elsewhere, and civilians continue to die on a daily basis. On 14 January a missile struck an apartment building in Dnipro, killing at least 46 people. It was deliberately targeted there. On 29 January at least one civilian was killed in strikes on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, which has been under constant attack since the invasion began. On 1 February a Russian missile killed at least three people in Kramatorsk, a city in the Donetsk region.

Noble Lords will recall the profound trauma this nation experienced on 7/7, when 52 people lost their lives to co-ordinated and malign terrorist activity. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that more than 7,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russian activity since February last year, with many more thousands seriously wounded. That is equivalent to 134 7/7s, with no end in sight. It is a daily experience for the people of Ukraine.

Human Rights Watch reminded us:

“Russian war crimes began literally from day one”.


Russian cluster munitions hit a hospital and a preschool on 24 February last year, the first day of the invasion. The European media director of Human Rights Watch asserted last week:

“Russia has committed more atrocities than all the human rights groups in all the world could ever have the capacity to investigate.”


I make these points as a reminder that the front line becoming static does not in any way mean that the horrors of conflict have begun to dissipate. Civilian lives, and those of soldiers, are still being lost every day. That fact should act as a constant spur to action, ensuring that we continue to give Ukrainian forces what they need so that they, in turn, can continue their efforts to repel Russian aggression.

I will also mention the situation of Russian conscripts. In many cases, they are young men who have no desire to threaten Ukraine and are being compelled to enlist for service through a mixture of intimidation, avowedly prescriptive legal pressures and crude propaganda. They are Putin’s victims too, as are their families and loved ones.

What of the broader strategic picture? Last week Putin reached into his quiver of bizarrely inapt historical parallels and compared the Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine with the Battle of Stalingrad. It is evident that his faltering offensives, undertaken without provocation, bear about as much similarity with the Soviet Union’s heroic rearguard action as they do with the battles of Jutland or Thermopylae. But his recourse to historical parallels, however tenuous, usually tells us something about his intentions, as it does in this case. Noble Lords will recall the essay he produced in 2021 entitled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. Academically, it was valueless and reminiscent of the work of David Irving in issuing a miasma of pseudo-scholarship to conceal its central immorality. But it made plain his ambitions, including his belief that Ukraine and Belarus have no right to exist and his desire to reshape Eurasia accordingly. What might his evocation of Stalingrad tell us? Coupled with his stated desire to broaden the parameters for the next wave of conscription, it may suggest that he is preparing the ground for an attritional conflict and that he is preparing the Russian nation’s psyche for the reality of a lengthy struggle, costing thousands of lives, to be pursued even where progress is minimal or non-existent.

In a previous debate in your Lordships’ House on this subject, I echoed all the wise senior military officers I have met in my engagement in these issues, two of whom have already spoken in the debate. I said:

“In modern warfare, there is no such thing as a conflict that can be won by purely military means. The best that combat can offer is to fashion a context within which an acceptable settlement can be reached.”—[Official Report, 1/12/22; col. 1956.]


When we are asked to justify our support for President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine, I believe an answer is that we, together with NATO allies, are determined to allow him the scope to shape a context within which this conflict can be ended on terms that are equitable for Ukraine and on a scale commensurate with its sacrifice. We know that ultimately there will have to be a set of terms to which both Ukraine and Russia will be prepared to accede if this conflict is to end. The timetable and context of those negotiations is a matter for President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine. But our military and humanitarian support gives them the opportunity to resist the use of unprovoked brutality and to avoid the necessity of chafing under the terms of a Russian-dictated peace, with all the risks of revanchist violence that would engender.

Even as the military challenges continue, we must not fail to consider the different but enormous challenges we will face in assisting Ukraine to rebuild. Figures from Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index show that endemic problems with corruption remain, with Ukraine ranking 122nd out of 180 countries. President Zelensky’s recent dismissal of his deputy infrastructure Minister and a number of regional officials shows that he is aware of this problem and its implications for the efficacy of military and humanitarian support today and for the post-conflict reconstruction process.

In thinking about how our support can be directed where it will do the most good for the people of Ukraine and the most harm to Russian intentions, it would be useful to consider the example of the US, which last month sent its own auditors to Ukraine for just that purpose.

We all want this conflict to end as swiftly as possible, and in terms that reduce the risk of further aggression. I believe that continuing our military and humanitarian support and intensifying it where necessary is the course of action most likely to achieve those aims.

15:26

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, it is an immense privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I always learn a great deal from him in the field of geostrategy and defence. In fact, I am acutely aware of speaking after so many noble Lords, on all sides, who have direct ministerial experience, as well as noble and gallant Lords who have held senior office as servicemen.

In common, I suspect, with a number of noble Lords, I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine a few times since the invasion. I never fail to be impressed by the cheerful and uncomplaining courage of local people. My last visit was to Odessa and Mykolaiv in September. Mykolaiv at that point was the front line. It was the time, as your Lordships will recall, when there was a lot of talk of the Kherson offensive, but it was a deception—what the Russians would call a maskirovka. In fact, the offensive at that time was in Kharkiv.

This was and is a very Russophone and historically Russophile part of Ukraine. We can see it in the toponymy. Why are so many of the places there called “pol”, rather than “grad”—Melitopol, Mariupol, Sevastopol or whatever? The answer goes back to Catherine the Great’s Greek plan, which energetic emperors had: to try to restore the Romanov claim to the Byzantine throne. She had a grandson who was conveniently called Constantine, and this idea of filling that part of the coastline with Russian settlers as a prelude to taking Constantinople. So, this has always been a Russian-speaking territory and, sure enough, the people there had historically voted for the pro-Russian parties. They were for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions and its various successors—up until the offensive.

I had this conversation over and over again with local people in that part of Russia, saying, “When did you change? Here we are still with a big statue of Catherine the Great and all these Soviet war memorials, and a Russian-speaking population”. Odessa had its own Maidan in 2014 and could easily have gone the same way as Donetsk and Luhansk. It was only the merest chance that it did not. The answer would come: “We had an idea of the kind of Russia we thought we had a kinship with. We did not want to be absorbed by it, but we thought we had a special relationship with the other east Slav peoples. But there came a moment for all of us when it became impossible to sustain that view. For some it was the annexation of Crimea; for some it was when Putin started lobbing ordnance at Russian-speaking populations in southern Ukraine; for some it was when he started firing missiles at our own city. But we have all got to the point where we have been jolted out of our dreams. We have to accept that the real Russia, the Russian we are dealing with, is not the one with which we aspired to have some sort of kinship or special relationship.” That is what makes it so hard to imagine a negotiated settlement from here. There is not a landing zone between the minimal positions of the two sides.

As recently as April, Zelensky was talking about referendums in Donbass, and so on. That is now utterly impossible, given what people have suffered, especially, in his case, the very personal reaction he had to seeing the abominations at Bucha. When you have seen something like that, it becomes very difficult to compromise. How did Yeats put it?

But who can talk of give and take,

What should be and what not

While those dead men are loitering there

To stir the boiling pot?

Just as Ukraine now has minimum terms for settlement, so does Russia. I cannot see any situation where Putin would accept a return to the status quo ante of between 2014 and last year, because that would leave him having to explain why more than 100,000 Russians have died while the economy has been set back a decade and NATO has reached the frontiers of Russia—for nothing. It is all very well people talking of realpolitik. The grand old man of realpolitik, Henry Kissinger, says, “Effectively, Ukraine is now in NATO, so let’s acknowledge that and let’s have referendums in the disputed territories.” Fine, but there is literally no scenario where either side could countenance such a thing.

We in this House might have various takes and modifications. We could say that we could have a demilitarised Ukraine, international observers or a demilitarised Crimea, but it is for the birds; it makes no difference in the world where these things are being determined. So, we are back, I am afraid, to the rather grisly proposition that one side or the other has to win—that the quickest way out of this situation is that one side is defeated and the other can settle from a position of strength. When we put it in those terms, it seems pretty clear who we should want to win. Anything short of a Ukrainian victory is a victory for Putin. If the front lines freeze where they are, Putin wins. If Russia gets to absorb its new oblasts administratively, Putin wins. If the West gets tired, bored or distracted and stops sending ordnance, tanks and planes, Putin wins. If China picks this moment to invade Taiwan, Putin wins. We are in a world of suboptimal alternatives—we have been since 24 February last year—but surely the worst option is for Russian aggression to be rewarded.

Let me answer those who ask why this is our business—not many, I am glad to say, in this Chamber, but there are voices beyond. I am not a great believer in the horseshoe theory of politics, but I notice that these are particularly voices on the far left and far right. “Why is this our fight? It is nothing to do with us; it is all stirred up by NATO,” and so on. I make just two points. First, we may want to be indifferent, but Putin has never been indifferent to us. He has been targeting this country in various ways for more than a decade, and arguably on two occasions carried out what were technically acts of war against us: the attacks that accompanied the Litvinenko and Skripal murder attempts. If you deploy state force in anger in an attempt to kill somebody who is living under the Queen’s peace, that is technically an act of war, so it is not as though Russia was peacefully minding its business and not crossing our radar.

The more direct answer is this. In December 1994, Ukraine was persuaded to give up all the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the USSR in exchange for an absolute commitment that it would have its territorial integrity defended within its existing frontiers—a commitment guaranteed by the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia. For Russia then to turn around, after Ukraine denuclearised, and invade it must rank as one of the most grotesque betrayals in history. So, as a country with honour, we have no option but to see this as our fight. I do not think we have the option of sitting back and pretending that it is a far-away country of which we know little.

My noble friend Lady Meyer said that if any of the participants in the First World War had known how it was going to end, they would not have joined in. I am sure that is true. None the less, it is worth dwelling on the fact that the two most terrible wars we entered into in the 20th century were provoked not because our sovereignty was threatened or because we had been directly attacked, but because we took seriously our commitment to defend the independence of a friendly country. If we are not prepared to stand for the international order, for the rule of law among nations and for the right to sovereignty of a friendly people, then we are not the kind of country I thought we were.

15:35

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my noble friend whose extraordinary geopolitical grasp, experiences as an MEP and brilliant journalism give him such insight. We are all always very pleased to hear what he has to say.

I thought the maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Soames was absolutely superb and very powerful. He will contribute a huge amount to this House. He and I were elected to the Commons together in 1983. I was serving as a PPS at the Ministry of Defence when he was the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and he had an illustrious career. Unlike mine, it was not interrupted by losing his seat in the landslide of 1997. He took the good caution to have uninterrupted service and we are very fortunate to have him here.

I agree with those noble Lords who said that yesterday was a historic day, when Zelensky came to this Parliament. The British public have taken him into their hearts, and I thought his expression of gratitude to Britain, for our military aid and our political assistance in aid, was absolutely effusive; it was very impressive. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, that aid has been crucial in enabling Ukraine to defend its borders against this quite atrocious aggression. The NLAWs, the Javelins and now the squadron of Challenger tanks which, along with American M1 Abrams, will unlock the 70 Leopards that are going to be donated by countries such as Finland, Spain, Portugal and Holland. That will mean that Ukraine will have the makings of an armoured division. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the need for logistical support, engineering and mechanical back-up, an all-arms input, and making sure that the problems around interoperability are dealt with, means that there are big challenges. However, I think it is a significant step forward.

As far as aircraft are concerned, I think the training is going to be crucial—I always have huge respect for the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who was station commander at Marham when I was the MP for that area and once took me up in an aircraft, which was one of the most terrifying experiences I have ever had. I suggest to the Minister that there may be a quicker way of getting these aircraft to Ukraine, by making sure that some of the eastern European countries that have Soviet-era aircraft donate some of their existing capability to Ukraine and have that capability replaced by modern aircraft from America and maybe the UK, perhaps with F-16s and Typhoons. That could be a much quicker way of ensuring that they have air cover.

Can the Minister say to what extent have our own supplies and reserves have been diminished as a result of our donations to Ukraine? A number of noble Lords have touched on that already. I know that the Minister of State at the MoD also touched on this, but we are obviously facing an incredibly urgent situation and, like my noble friend Lord Soames and many others, I would like to see defence expenditure increase immediately. If we cannot do that, we should be making sure that we have in place a really well-calibrated replenishment programme. I ask the Minister: if we had to deploy a battlegroup into a theatre now, could it be deployed with the requisite levels of ammunition? What would happen if that battlegroup were engaged in a heavy set of fighting early on; how long would the ammunition, and the back-up logistics, last to keep that battlegroup in place? I urge the Minister to address the point, which has been made by a number of noble Lords, that this could be a really critical, difficult situation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about a green Marshall plan, which is something I think we should all be very cognisant of. We have to look at what will be the massive reconstruction of a country that has been totally devastated. We have heard about the cities that have been caught up in the front line—Kherson, Melitopol, Mariupol, Bakhmut, Soledar—but many other cities, which have not been affected by the front-line fighting as such, have been bombarded with missiles and drones and have suffered horrendous damage.

Somebody told me that Kharkiv has suffered damage to 60% of all buildings and that in one of the oblasts some way back from the front line, something like 90 schools have been seriously damaged, so the necessary rebuilding will be absolutely vast. As the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned, there is also chronic damage to infrastructure, including power stations, dams, roads and municipal buildings; the list goes on and on. We will need a huge Marshall plan—a plan bigger than the actual Marshall plan. I urge the Minister to play a key part in making sure that HMG are well prepared for this and to be part of a major donor conference that encompasses all the key organisations and forums—the UN, the EU, and indeed the entire western world—to make sure that this plan is in place early on. Can I also ask the Minister what the Government’s thinking is about Russian reparations? Whatever happens, there will be an end to this war. Surely, the perpetrator of these really quite horrendous acts of violence against an innocent country needs to pay serious reparations at the end of the day.

A number of noble Lords have talked about the western alliance; I have been incredibly impressed by how it has held together. I think the Minister, rather than talking about the alliance as such, talked about the “pro-Ukraine coalition”, which is rather a good way of putting it. I do not think anyone expected that alliance to be quite so durable and effective so quickly, building on the military training that had already taken place. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McDonald—who has far more experience than I have in these matters—was optimistic that the alliance would continue and that the world would carry on in its efforts to support Ukraine. I would be perhaps a little more cautious than that, for reasons that other noble Lords have mentioned, particularly the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Ramstein showed that there were fractures at that juncture. Ultimately, Germany did step up and do its duty, which of course unlocked 70 Leopards from those other countries. The Republicans now have a majority in the House of Representatives, and they have been talking about the importance of Biden not giving a complete blank cheque to Ukraine.

We also have to look elsewhere in the world, such as Africa and the Middle East. This has been said already; I think the noble Lord, Lord Howell, made this point. If one looks not just at those countries one might expect to want to cosy up to Russia, there are others, including the two great democracies of South Africa and Brazil. South Africa recently hosted a Russian naval exercise. I think it is a great pity that, when President Ramaphosa came to this country, we did not have candid conversations with him about the support for the Commonwealth and for those western countries that are part of this pro-Ukraine coalition. In Brazil, the new president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, recently called for “an immediate negotiated settlement”. We have to be very pragmatic about this. The pro-Ukraine coalition is incredibly important, but I think HMG must do more in terms of reaching out to all those countries we are close to, including smaller countries in the Caribbean and Africa, and using all our diplomatic muscle and soft power to make sure that they receive the correct message and are not taken in by the Russian narrative.

No one knows where all this is going to end, and we would be speculating if we tried to make predictions. All we know is that it will go on for quite a lot longer. I take the view very strongly that it is not for us to tell Ukraine what it should or should not do. It is not for us to tell the Ukrainians that they should reach a negotiated settlement. It is not our country that has been attacked and decimated in this way. I am mindful of what Zelensky said before:

“It’s a victory when the weapons fall silent and people speak up.”

15:45

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I want to talk about the wider context for the post-Soviet space, so to speak, for the western alliance and for British politics as such. There has been a certain amount of debate as to when this conflict started. Was it last year? Was it 2014? Was it 2008, with the Russian invasion of Georgia, or was it earlier? In effect, it began with the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the different assumptions and illusions held by the new Government of Russia and the Governments of the other states that had emerged out of the Soviet Union.

One of the most vivid memories I have out of all of this was when, at very short notice, I was asked to join a Harvard University team going out to Kyiv six weeks after Ukraine became formally independent. On the first day of the conference, the new Foreign Minister of this new country came and gave us a speech, which concluded with the wonderful declaration: “Ukraine has two major strategic objectives for the next two years. The first is to join the European Union and the second is to join NATO.” My American colleagues turned to me and said, “You’re answering that, William.” I had to explain that life was not as easy as that.

We all know that we were struggling in the 1990s to explain to the Baltic states, the Balkan states and others that the transition was a difficult one; that corruption was always a problem; and that it takes an awfully long time to institute respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions and to change the old culture, and we have not entirely succeeded.

The Russian Governments who succeeded the Soviet Union have been interfering in their neighbours and former clients almost since the word go. I have been in and out of Georgia on a number of occasions and have seen that vividly. As we are talking about destruction, I remember going to Abkhazia in 2004. Over a third of the houses in Sukhumi had been destroyed. It was absolute devastation. When I went into South Ossetia, we found ourselves surrounded in the UN convoy by little green men who objected to our inspecting the damage in various places.

This is not just about Ukraine, and it has not just happened. When we talk about how we can resolve this conflict, we also have to talk about its implications for Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, potentially Kazakhstan, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, reminded us, Serbia and the Balkans. These are all areas where we have seen active Russian interference, and where the end of this conflict, if it involved a Russian setback, would set off all sorts of other minor earthquakes. It is not totally out of the question that current Russia would disintegrate further. I have been to Tatarstan, and everyone is conscious that there are all sorts of historical tensions, of which those who are there are well aware. Coming out of this conflict, therefore, is not going to be very easy.

We all know also about Russian interference in western politics. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia was very strong on the extent to which the Russians had penetrated the British establishment, including the Conservative Party. The incidents with the Conservative Friends of Russia and all that were not entirely spelled out in the report; let us hope that that is all behind us and that we all understand what we are dealing with.

We should still be worried that in the United States and a number of other countries, there are those on the right who sympathise with autocracy and illiberal democracy. If we were still to be in the conflict in 18 months’ time and the United States was approaching the return of a Republican President, we might find that the demand on European leadership, rather than American leadership, in resisting Russian interventions in Ukraine would be almost heavier than the Europeans could bear. After hearing the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who is a great expert on the American right, I wonder whether he thinks that is a real problem or that the debate in the United States has also moved on and we may relax a little about the willingness of the Americans to stay the course and help to pay for the reconstruction.

We have been discussing in this debate questions such as “How long will the conflict last?”, “How will it end?” and “What objectives are we fighting for?” Yesterday, President Zelensky set out those objectives on a pretty high level. He said that we are protecting the international legal order against a terrorist state and that we must make every effort to turn our achievements into the foundations of the future global security architecture. That is ambitious, and we have not thought much about that yet.

In the 1990s, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, did a great deal on what the post-Cold War European security architecture should be. We never got very far with it, I am afraid. Maybe that sort of question will come back. It will be very difficult for us to explain to the Ukrainian Government that joining the EU is not entirely easy, to dissuade the Georgians and heaven knows who else from wanting to do the same, and to manage the expansion of NATO if it cannot be avoided any further, while also managing the rest of the post-Soviet space. It will all be extremely difficult. We mishandled it in the 1990s, but it was very difficult to know exactly what to do.

I have some sympathy with the agony that the Russians have gone through, coming down from being an imperial power to being simply one of the major nations of the world. After all, Britain has been going through the same process and has been finding it extremely painful. There are those who wish to deny that we are not any longer as exceptional as we thought. I remember reading a wonderful book which used history to justify how exceptional Britain was: How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters. The American edition was called Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World, so I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has a degree of sympathy with the Putin essay using Russian history to justify his exceptional view of the world.

We and our public have found it difficult to adjust. The Russian population—certainly the Russian elite—have found it very difficult to adjust too. We do not know where this conflict will end. We know that it must end in a reassertion of international legal and political norms, and that does mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, that Russia must lose in one form or another.

Lastly, on implications for British policy, at present we do not have a coherent UK foreign policy. I look forward to the new integrated review because, after the illusions of the Boris Johnson “global Britain” order, we need to redefine. What are the implications for defence spending? Clearly, we must expand spending on defence. Political leadership, which is as important at home as it is abroad, will therefore require politicians to say, “If we are going to spend more on defence and not cut what we are spending on domestic matters, we will have to raise taxes and not cut taxes.” People, such as Liz Truss, who still go around saying that the most important answer to every single question that Britain faces is to cut taxes, may have to be countered.

Then there is the question of domestic policy on energy spending. We know that energy prices are likely to jump up and down until this conflict is over and perhaps for some time after. That also requires political leadership, in explaining to our public that these sacrifices are worth making, and that the domestic and international emergency we are in justifies these sorts of sacrifices and the additional financial burdens that we will have to suffer. We do not know where we are going or how long the conflict will last, but we know that we have to stick it out.

15:55

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on his maiden speech. I recall that I worked for his father for four years, in the first four years of our membership of the European Communities. I can just imagine his pleasure and pride at his son being the second Lord Soames in this House, in recent times.

It seems a little counterintuitive to identify any positives from the appalling events that have unfolded since Russia invaded Ukraine a year ago, yet such positives do exist and many noble Lords have referred to them. The first and foremost is the heroic and successful response of the people of Ukraine, symbolically epitomised by yesterday’s visit and speech from President Zelensky and by their response to aggression that aimed to wipe them from the map or turn them into a Russian satellite.

Secondly, the robust and effective decisions taken by NATO, ourselves, the US, Germany, France, the EU, the G7 and many others all went far beyond what might have been anticipated.

Thirdly, even our polarised politics have not stood in the way of a united, cross-party and no-party response to the aggression. I add to that the suggestion that the most effective contribution this country can make to deter any aggression against Taiwan is to ensure that Putin’s aggression in Ukraine does not succeed.

I make no apology for returning to some issues that I raised in the debate we held the day after Russia invaded, because they are still very active. Since then, an impressive array of sanctions has been imposed against Russia and there could be more to come, but it has all been done in a piecemeal and ad hoc way. We can be sure that massive efforts are now being made in Moscow, and in Beijing and Tehran, to find ways round or through those sanctions. The future success of this policy depends on effective implementation much more than on finding new sanctions—ones we have not yet found.

We need solid and structured co-operation to counter the efforts of those we are sanctioning to cut off Russia not only from gas, oil and commodity export revenues—they are very important, of course—but from access to sophisticated technology, without which its military-industrial complex will be severely handicapped. During the first Cold War, the West operated effective controls on exports of such technology through a system called CoCom. I would like to ask the Minister what structured systems we are putting in place now, with the EU, the US and the G7, because we need something more than mere improvisation if sanctions are to be fully and effectively implemented.

Secondly, what are we doing to counter the waves of disinformation being put out by the Kremlin and to ensure that ordinary people worldwide, even those under oppressive regimes that limit their access to information, get a chance to hear another version of events?

Well, cutting the resources of the BBC World Service hardly sounds the best move in the current circumstances. I would argue—I have argued this before in your Lordships’ House, and will repeat it now—that it would surely be better for the FCDO to take full responsibility for the World Service, recognising that this is a national foreign policy priority, and to augment its resources. I should add that it is not just a question of saying, as I am sure the Minister will, that they have found a little bit of money here for the Russian service or a little bit there for the Ukrainian service; I am talking about the BBC World Service and language versions which go worldwide, because that is where the damage is being done.

Thirdly, I wonder if the Minister could say what progress is being made to support the efforts of the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor to gather evidence which could lead to the indictment of Russians, high and low, for the crimes being committed by their troops in Ukraine. Can he confirm that that remains our own top priority in pursuing such crimes?

I have to say that I am not very convinced by the arguments in favour of a new and separate tribunal which we have heard expressed in this debate. I believe that it is unnecessary, because the International Criminal Court has demonstrated that it is capable of pursuing command responsibility for crimes that are on its statute book. It is also, I think, undesirable because it will be intensely divisive. There is absolutely no doubt that if we try to establish a new tribunal, we will split the rest of the world and many will not follow. But many of them are already signatories of the International Criminal Court statute, so they do not have to be asked whether they follow it; they are in it. So I do feel that that is not a good way; I would add that, unfortunately, the idea of a new separate tribunal directed against Russia’s undoubted aggression is precisely what Putin needs to feed the paranoia of his people. That is his way of keeping them on board, saying “The West is after me, and it’s after you.” Now, I do not think that it is very wise to feed that, and I think therefore that the pursuit of war crimes through the International Criminal Court is a much better route, but I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Clearly, we have a worldwide challenge for hearts and minds on our hands. No one can have seen the reception of Sergei Lavrov last week in South Africa without realising that there is an awfully long way to go. One key player will be India, now in the chair of the G20, a grouping whose 2022 summit meeting in Indonesia issued a notable rebuke to Russia’s nuclear sabre-rattling. What are we doing to consolidate support for Ukraine when the next G20 summit takes place later this year? What kind of approach are we and our allies pursuing throughout Asia, Latin America and Africa to counter the arguments that are enabling them to sit on the fence and say that it is something that they do not want to get involved in?

Now, this second Cold War—that is what we are in, and NATO is right, in my view, to do all it can to ensure that it is a cold and not a hot war—puts our own security and the defence of a rules-based international system based on the UN charter, over which Russia has ridden roughshod, right on the line, as so many noble Lords have said. The resulting stresses to our economy may be regrettable, but they do have to be borne, in my estimation. They need to be accepted and handled with calm determination not to let Russian aggression get its way.

16:04

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a very great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and that was a very wise speech. We should not be surprised, because he is the epitome of the experience and expertise which we often call in aid when we are defending your Lordships’ House. It came up earlier this afternoon because there was a question on Afghanistan, and he revealed that he was serving in Kabul in 1962. That says a lot.

I should also like to say how much I echo those who have paid deserved compliments to my noble friend Lord Soames. That was a magisterial speech and we look forward to many more. He is indeed a very worthy successor to his father. When I was a young Member of Parliament, I went out to be entertained at the embassy in Paris and was given the most wonderful, friendly welcome and the best lunch I had ever had. Then I had the great good fortune of serving for 10 years or so on the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, where his mother was a towering figure and a very worthy leader of that trust.

This is, in a way, a strange debate because it was changed yesterday morning when we all received an email at around 9 am telling us that President Zelensky was going to address Parliament in Westminster Hall. What a speech it was. It was brave, defiant and—as the noble Lord, Lord McDonald made plain in his splendid speech—had a large begging bowl at the end, but we all responded enthusiastically because we were in the presence of a great patriot. He is a man written off by Putin, a comic who turned himself into a statesman and to whom we all owe an enormous amount because, under other leadership, Ukraine might well have ceased to exist as an independent country by now.

We owe President Zelensky a great deal because patriotism, as he was saying in his speech, is not enough: you have to have the ammunition. I am glad we have been able to give him a lot and hope we will be able to give him more, but I hope also that we will have regard to our obligations to our own country. My noble friend Lord Soames was absolutely right in his splendid speech to underline that point: greater recognition of the need for more defence expenditure.

We are facing a terrible task. Look at Ukraine as it was on 23 February last year and as it is today on 9 February this year. All around one sees destruction, desolation, a country that has been robbed of much of its history. The history of a nation is often symbolised in its great historic buildings, museums and galleries. Many have been pillaged and looted and their treasures taken to Russia. Many a historic church and monastery has been destroyed. We are going to need trillions of pounds or dollars to restore Ukraine but we must all be committed to that. Whether Russia pays reparations, as it certainly should, or whether that does not come about, we all have a duty to rebuild, so far as we can, a brave country that must have boundaries no smaller than they were on 24 February last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, said in his very interesting speech that the war will be won on the battlefield. It is rather interesting that we had a politician say that and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, saying rather the opposite: that it will end, as all wars do, with politics and negotiated settlement. That is right, although I entirely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said what he did, because many have made the point that if Ukraine is defeated, we are all defeated; I have made it myself in past debates. The democratic cause would be defeated. That must not be allowed to happen, not just for us but for our children and grandchildren. They will inherit a difficult world whatever happens, but it will be made all the more barren and bleaker if democracy is on the run.

I will make one or two suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the BBC World Service. I happened to be at the same meeting that he, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others were at last night with the BBC, specifically in the context of Persian language broadcasts. It made the point that it really did not have a budget on which it could rely. Soft power is very important. We have said time and again over this last year that we are not the enemies of the Russian people, and we certainly are not. One thing the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was right to do was to point to Russia’s enormous losses in the Second World War of some 26 million people. They are a brave people and most of them are good people. We have to appeal to them and use every means that radio and modern communications give to us to get the message across: “You are not our enemies. We wish you to be our friends. You’ve never had the benefit of democracy; it’s something you really should have.” We have to get that message across day after day, hour after hour. It is essential.

The other thing we need is a diplomatic offensive. In his very fine speech, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, talked about the numbers in the General Assembly. He is right that four or five voted with Russia, but others were equally right when they pointed to the fact that India and the South Africans have not taken the side of Ukraine. Two very important members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which used to be the British Commonwealth, have, in effect, sided with the dictator.

We need to have a real diplomatic offensive. We need to try to arrange that all ambassadors be entertained by the Foreign Secretary here in London and, even more important, a meeting to be attended by Members of both Houses of Parliament to underline the unity in this Chamber and in another place. When Sir Keir Starmer and the Prime Minister stood together yesterday, it was a real piece of symbolism. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to it. It indicated that, whatever we might fall out about—as we do and we will, whoever is sitting on this or that side of the House—there are certain things on which we cannot and will not be separated. It would be very useful to have a series of ambassadorial meetings with those countries that are either hostile or wavering to say, “We in this democracy are totally united on this.”

I also think that we and our allies, all the countries of NATO and the European Union, should summon the Russian ambassadors in the countries concerned to say, “We are united. Of course we are prepared to talk, but you’ve got to withdraw your forces from Ukraine before we do.” I do not suggest that this will be an overnight success, but it should be done as a concerted exercise: an increased use of both soft power and diplomatic channels.

There is another thing that we must do, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in his excellent speech. A friend said to me the other day that we must “destroy Wagner”—pronounced as the late composer, which I do not think is quite what he meant. The noble Lord spoke about that dreadful organisation spreading mayhem and indulging in rape and violence of every sort. It must be a proscribed organisation. If nothing else comes out of this debate, although I hope that much will, a pledge from the Front Bench that that will be acted upon would send us all into the Recess feeling a little better and with a spring in our step. Let us hope that when we come back and we mark 24 February, some advance has been made on at least one of these fronts.

16:15

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack and a real privilege to contribute to a debate on such a critical issue of our time.

I confess that although—like all noble Lords, I sense—I was horrified by what unfolded on our screens on 24 February last year, I was originally cautious on Ukraine. Of course we should support Ukraine, I thought, but in moderation, in solidarity, careful not to provoke the Russian bear for fear of the consequences. I no longer hold that position. Others have referred to the torture, the rape and the sheer brutality. In light of the overwhelming evidence of the calculated barbarity that informs Russia’s criminal war strategy, I no longer believe that the position I held is still tenable. As other noble Lords have said, only one side can win, and that needs to be Ukraine. I therefore believe now that the West needs to do everything possible to help Ukraine to win as quickly as possible.

My noble friend Lord Soames, in his powerful maiden speech, reminded us of the “terrible lessons” of history, which of course his grandfather played such a prominent part in shaping, to the benefit of the world. For me, this situation—Russia’s aggression in Ukraine—threatens us as much as did Hitler’s marching into the Rhineland only 87 years ago, swallowing up independent Austria two years later and occupying first the Sudetenland and then the rest of what was Czechoslovakia within a matter of months—and all without a military response until it was too late.

With the luxury of hindsight, we now know that this was a drumroll for another criminal war of aggression. Surely it teaches us both that we need to invest at scale in our Armed Forces, as my noble friend Lord Soames said, and that we do not have the luxury of waiting for hindsight, especially in the much faster-paced world that we live in. In his memorable address yesterday, to which other noble Lords have referred, President Zelensky spoke about the need to defeat the fear of war in order to enjoy peace. As we all know, he thanked us in advance for planes to help secure that peace.

My question to my noble friend the Minister is this: since the Prime Minister has made the welcome commitment that we should train Ukrainian pilots, exactly how far in advance of those pilots actually being able to use that training was President Zelensky thanking us? We talk about ruling nothing out in the long term, but can my noble friend tell the House how long term is long term when Ukraine is being reduced to rubble now, in the short term? I do not know what the Russian is for long term, but I doubt it is a word that Putin uses much in connection with his battle plans in Ukraine.

If, as anticipated, Russia launches a new offensive within the next few days, possibly the next few weeks, how much worse does it need to get—how many of the new tanks that the West is supplying need to be destroyed by enemy fire—before we say, “Actually, let’s commit now to supply the planes to protect them from attack from the air”? Training needs to come first, of course. No one is disputing that, but surely now is also the time to assure the Ukrainians that once the training is completed the planes will be made available, and quickly. President Zelensky told the press conference that some of his pilots have already been training for two and a half years of the three years required.

I appreciate that I am not the only one wondering, if Putin triumphs in Ukraine, how long it will be before the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic and others, including us, are threatened directly as well. I know that the noble Lords, Lord McDonald of Salford and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who is no longer in his place, referred to our front line. If the front line were to shift beyond Ukraine, which it could well do if the Russians actually get their act together, how long is long term then?

We can still avoid the scenario where we come under direct threat, but I believe we can do so only if we act now to give Ukraine what President Zelensky said it needs now. We can tell ourselves that we are the ones doing the protecting and that we can afford the luxury of thinking long term. But what if the reality is different and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said, their fight is our fight? What if Ukraine is actually protecting us and time is not on our side?

16:24

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday my Cambridge University contemporary and friend Brigadier Justin Maciejewski, the current director of the National Army Museum located next to the Royal Hospital Chelsea, where I was proud to be a commissioner for six years, wrote an editorial. It was headed, “No one wants WW3 but lesson from history is clear: If we want peace, prepare to FIGHT for it”. Justin Maciejewski started his powerful editorial by saying:

“BRITAIN is facing a historic crisis that echoes the build-up to the Second World War.”


I sound like a stuck record, but back in 2019, in the debate in this House marking the 70th anniversary of NATO, I said—before there was any sign of the war in Ukraine—that we should increase our defence spending from the NATO minimum of 2% to 3%. I have repeated this suggestion several times since over the past four years. I also remember very clearly the SDSR in 2010 which decimated our Armed Forces, removing our maritime capability, destroying our Nimrods, removing aircraft carrier capability for years and ultimately cutting the size of our Armed Forces. According to recent reports, our Armed Forces are due to shrink to 73,000—smaller than the number during the Napoleonic Wars over 200 years ago.

I hear of pilots of the Royal Air Force and Navy who have been recruited but are waiting for over two years to even begin their pilot training. I have spoken to one of these individuals. Could the Minister explain why this is happening and how we can get these pilots trained straightaway? It is a waste of young talent. There needs to be an urgency about this.

Yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, said in his outstanding maiden speech, President Zelensky gave an inspirational speech in Westminster Hall. Zelensky said simply that they need aircraft. We were meant to receive 135 F35 Lightnings, the best fighter aircraft in the world, but we have only 48. We need these aircraft more than ever to give us cutting-edge air superiority on a global scale. Could the Minister confirm when we are going to be taking full delivery of these aircraft?

This reminds me of the excellent debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, exactly two weeks ago. In that debate, I asked the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, specifically whether we should give aircraft to Ukraine. If I am not mistaken, I was the only Peer to ask that question. I did not receive an answer and I ask the question again to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, particularly given President Zelensky’s direct request yesterday. Will we, along with our NATO allies, be able to provide aircraft to Ukraine? Additionally, I said, as did others, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that “size matters”. Boots on the ground and critical mass matter. This concept was exemplified greatly during the first Gulf War, when the British Army had over 165,000 full-time troops. At that very time, my late father Lieutenant General Faridoon Bilimoria was commanding the central Indian army, with a total of 350,000 troops under his command.

We must remember that the number one priority of any Government is the security of their citizens. We are sleepwalking into a potential nightmare. The British Army has overall been undefeated for centuries. We have to wake up before it is too late and this changes. When President Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, we did nothing. When he attacked Ukraine on 24 February 2022, he expected Ukraine to capitulate and give up, but the Ukrainian people and army did not.

When I was president of the CBI, I reached out to the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, Vadym Prystaiko, who has become a very good friend, the weekend after the war started. The following Monday, 28 February, at Ambassador Prystaiko’s request I visited him at the Ukrainian embassy. I was introduced to him well before the war by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, with a view to increasing UK-Ukraine trade. At the Ukrainian embassy in Holland Park on that Monday, I learned that Ukraine was not going to give up and was going to fight.

I am proud to say that I managed to rally our CBI members to help. The day after that I went back to the embassy. Sitting side by side with the ambassador in his office with leaders and captains of industry, we reached out for help. That call was immediately heeded. Millions of ration packs for the troops in Ukraine, as well as medical kits and food packages, were sent. Funds were raised over the following months, and all this contributed to the fact that Britain in the past year has been one of the top three humanitarian aid supporters of Ukraine and I am so proud to have been personally, alongside the CBI, part of that support. As a result of this war, NATO is stronger than ever.

On 9 March last year, I was invited by the then EU ambassador to the United Kingdom, João Vale de Almeida, to address the ambassadors of the 27 EU member countries at the EU embassy in Smith Square, round the corner from here. I asked the ambassadors of Finland and Sweden, “Are you now going to join NATO?”, and they both replied, “We are ready to join in five minutes”. President Putin has shot himself in the foot: not only is NATO more united than ever before but it will now be enlarged with two serious and formidable military powers. Those two countries have high-tech and highly advanced manufacturing capabilities and state-of-the-art weaponry, from the Saab Gripen fighters to sophisticated artillery. We should not forget that Finland, with its 1,340-kilometre border with Russia, has the ability to muster several hundred thousand troops from its reserves within weeks.

In the last year, we have all witnessed the amazing bravery of the Ukrainian people and its armed forces. With the CBI, I helped to organise the incredibly moving fundraising event, “Brave Ukraine”, at the Tate Modern in London on 5 May last year, where President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed us live from Ukraine. I stood next to Boris Johnson, our then Prime Minister, who was at the forefront of leading the global efforts. The exhibition displayed, for all to see, the true bravery of the people of Ukraine, which was, and still is, utterly inspirational. It is with real pride that we can say that the UK was one of the first nations to provide initial support and vital weaponry, which has now escalated to other countries joining in the efforts and providing hundreds of tanks.

There has been talk, time and again, of not provoking Russia and of worrying about Russia using nuclear weapons or chemical warfare. Surely, the time has come when enough is enough; it is coming up to one year since this wretched war started. We have had the worst global crisis since the Second World War with the Covid pandemic from 2020 to 2022, two years which brought the world to a standstill, completely decimating economies, including our own, which shrank by almost 10% in a year, requiring us to spend £400 billion to save our economy, businesses and jobs. Instead of the last year being a time of recovery from the pandemic, it has been an extension, if not a complete exacerbation, of the crisis, as the Ukraine war has led to global inflation, energy supply issues and supply chain problems. Most tragically, it has created a food shortage, with the notable prediction by David Beasley, the director of the World Food Programme, that 47 million people in developing nations were potentially at threat of starvation if the port of Odessa was not unblocked, as they were reliant on the grain from the food basket of the world, Ukraine.

In May 2022, Ambassador Prystaiko alerted me to the impending food crisis as a result of the port of Odessa being blocked, due to the war. Following up the next day, and using every opportunity I could, I brought it up in Parliament and I ensured that I brought it up face-to-face with the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, in Berlin, in my capacity as a member of the B7, before Germany presided over the G7. It was such a relief that, thankfully, with the help of the UN and our NATO ally Turkey, Russia finally agreed to the port of Odessa being opened and the grain is now flowing again. Can the Minister update us on whether the grain is genuinely flowing?

As has been said by many noble Lords in this excellent debate, it is clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its own freedom but for the freedom of us all. All our freedoms are at stake here. As one of my Harvard Business School professors outlined to me in September last year, one solution to end this conflict is a stalemate, in the sense that an effective line of control could exist, with Russia occupying some Ukrainian territory and Ukraine not officially acceding to it—a stand-off with non-stop skirmishes in the years ahead. That type of situation exists in many parts of the world, as we speak. But the best and only solution all round is to help Ukraine win the war, as it would send a strong signal to other countries that the free world will not accept aggression of this kind, will unite and will help the victim not just to survive but, ultimately, to win the war. We have the ability to do that without putting our troops on the ground, as the Ukrainians have shown themselves to be fully capable and utterly courageous, if we just give them the right means to aid their efforts. Why are we stopping now? Why are we hesitating? We should be giving them the fighter jets and missiles they are asking for and the artillery and tanks they need—everything possible to enable them to push the Russians out of Ukrainian territory and out of Crimea. Why are we now holding back? What are we scared of?

If President Putin dares to use nuclear weapons for chemical warfare, will the Minister please assure us that this act will not just be a red line, but a trigger to implement the full force of NATO? This will then be a lesson to other countries, including China, to not even dare to contemplate attacking Taiwan.

Almost exactly a year ago, on 8 March 2022, we had a historic moment in Parliament when President Zelensky addressed both Houses of Parliament in the House of Commons. He ended his speech by quoting Shakespeare. He said:

“The question for us now is, “To be, or not to be”. This Shakespearean question could have been asked over the past 13 days, but I can now give you a definitive answer: it is definitely, “To be”. I remind you of the words that the United Kingdom has already heard because they are important again. We will not give up, and we will not lose.”


He has stuck to those words almost a year later.

Fast forward to another absolutely historic and valiant speech by President Zelensky that we witnessed yesterday, which he delivered to all of us in Westminster Hall, amazingly, in person. He mentioned that he was about to meet King Charles later. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, has quoted, President Zelensky said:

“The King is an air force pilot and in Ukraine today, every air force pilot is a king”.


He then presented Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle with a Ukrainian ace fighter pilot’s helmet—a lieutenant-colonel’s helmet—with the compelling words inscribed on it:

“We have freedom, give us the wings to protect it”.


We must do this at once. Let us give them the wings to protect their freedom. What are we waiting for? This particular point in President Zelensky’s speech highlighted the sheer importance and incredible work of air force pilots in defending a nation. I pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Stirrup. It means so much to me as a proud honorary group captain in 601 Squadron of the Royal Air Force.

In his speech yesterday in Westminster Hall, President Zelensky spoke more than once about evil and how evil will crumble. This reminded me of when I was privileged to speak at the memorial service for Archbishop Desmond Tutu laid on by the South African High Commission. I quote Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1988 addressing the South African Government:

“You have already lost. Let us say so nicely, you have already lost. We are inviting you to come and join the winning side. Your cause is unjust. You are defending what is fundamentally indefensible because it is evil. It is evil without question. It is immoral. It is immoral without question … Therefore, you will bite the dust! And you will bite the dust comprehensively.”


To conclude, looking ahead, the world order has two superpowers that exist right now: the United States of America and China. A third very important and emerging superpower is India, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. As the noble Lord said, India this year has the presidency of the G20. Russia is not even a top-10 economy in the world. India today is the fifth largest economy in the world; we are the sixth largest. Within 25 years, India is predicted to be the second largest economy in the world with a GDP of $32 trillion.

Today, the Russian army has shown itself to be weak and ineffective. The Indian army is not only one of the largest armies in the world, but a highly disciplined and formidable fighting force, with capabilities growing in leaps and bounds. Our Armed Forces in the UK may be small in number, but we should remember that we have the finest, most respected Armed Forces in the world with our SAS, SBS, Royal Marines, and, of course, our precious Gurkhas.

Our role and aim in Britain has always been, and still is today—even with less than 1% of the world’s population—to remain a global power at the top table of the world and to be closely allied with countries such as India and the United States of America. I suggested a year ago that the UK should join the Quad, along with USA, Japan, Australia and India, thus squaring and circling the world. Does the Minister agree?

When the war in Ukraine ends, it will bring peace and prosperity, not only to Ukraine, but to the whole world. In helping Ukraine, we need not only to continue our efforts regarding the weaponry we have already supplied, but also to up our game immediately. In the words of the Duke of Edinburgh’s motto: “Fortune favours the bold”. Let us be bold right now. We need more troops and to spend more on our defence. I will finish where I started by quoting Brigadier Justin Maciejewski from his editorial yesterday:

“Armies need might and mass to win. That means good weapons, good people and enough of them to be a credible deterrent. Without an effective defence, everything that you treasure is threatened. Defeat in war means you lose everything: no health, no pensions, no education, no safety”.


He ends by saying:

“We need to be prepared, and preparation has a price”.

16:39

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to engage in a full, non-time-limited debate on something that is an existential threat to the security of the United Kingdom. I very much appreciated the introduction to the debate by my noble friend Lady Goldie. Can the Minister confirm, to be clear, that His Majesty’s Government’s absolute minimum strategic objective is to prevent Ukraine being defeated? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, told us that it is a much more complicated issue than the minimum objective, and we do not know what the long-term objective will be. I think all noble Lords will agree that if Ukraine were defeated, we would have to at least double our defence expenditure, with all the attendant difficulties that would ensue. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, gave us hope and evidence that, at some point, even autocrats have to give up. I will elaborate on why Putin will have to do so .

In state-on-state conflict, success for the aggressor will depend upon either an immediately successful attack, using overwhelming military or political superiority, or enjoying overall strategic superiority in the longer term. By as early as 26 February last year, it was likely that the former was not going to happen, and by 9 March, it was not at all clear that the Ukrainians would ever be defeated. To enjoy overall strategic superiority, an aggressor needs to have a larger population and industrial capacity and economy to match it. Russia’s population is quite a bit larger than that of Ukraine, as my noble friend Lady Meyer pointed out, but Putin is profligate in the way he tolerates casualties, and one should never underestimate the moral component of fighting power.

More important in terms of strategic superiority is the relative size of the economies and industrial capacities. While Ukraine is obviously inferior in this respect, it will benefit from the sum of all the NATO countries’ capacity, whereas I understand that Russia’s economy is only the size of Italy’s and is largely based on mineral extraction. Furthermore, we will not allow the Ukrainian Government to run out of money and we can share the cost of doing that. Sadly, this could make for a long war with much pointless, tragic and avoidable loss of life on both sides—and it absolutely pains me to see the loss of life of civilians and lovely young men on both sides. Of course, this is made worse by the Russian people’s tolerance of pain in order to avoid defeat. Nevertheless, the long-term outcome is not in doubt, so long as we do not give up: Putin’s position is not sustainable .

With one exception that I will come to, I believe that HMG, particularly the FCDO and the MoD, are doing an outstandingly good job. I share the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Soames about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, in my noble friend’s excellent maiden speech. I admire the way that each decision made by Ministers is very carefully calibrated and calculated: I hope that that answers some of the rhetorical questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria .

I recall that in around 2010, my heart sank when some Cameron advisers claimed that the British Army did not need armoured brigades with their armoured battlegroups. To be honest, these are extremely expensive to operate and maintain, with considerable logistic support required to keep them in operation. We cut them back because we could not afford them—or we thought we could not afford them. The problem is that to attack dug-in infantry without using an armoured battlegroup, with its protected mobility and firepower, is a suicidal endeavour. That is no doubt why the Ukrainians are desperate to create more such fighting units: they cannot afford the immoral casualty rates that the Russians appear to accept in making such dismounted attacks. I point out that for both sides, training for armoured manoeuvre warfare is not quick, easy or cheap, but hopefully we can enable the Ukrainians to be more effective in that regard.

I have heard and read concerns that donating a squadron of Challenger tanks to Ukraine would leave us short. I do not believe anything of the sort; we have plenty of surplus tanks and we can rehabilitate any tanks much faster than we can train the gallant Ukrainian soldiers to operate and maintain them. Challenger 2 is a very complex tank to take into service and sustain. Now that we have managed to get the Leopard 2 released, there are some tricky questions about how to deploy Challenger 2, but I am confident that the Government and MoD will make the correct decisions, and these are not something we should seek to influence.

I echo the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the logistics for this equipment. If Challenger 2 and the AS-90 are to be deployed to the front line in Ukraine, I urge Ministers to obtain categoric assurances from the staff that there will be first-line and second-line maintenance in place within Ukraine, a robust repair loop for engines and main assemblies, and the black boxes that proliferate in armoured fighting vehicles.

It is not clear to me that HM Treasury is fully seized of the strategic objective of at least preventing Ukraine being defeated. How can we be sure that it is not still penny-pinching the MoD? Noble Lords should understand that we cannot determine what our future defence posture should be until the outcome of this war is clear and the lessons have been analysed.

However, I want to refer to a more immediate problem. In order to support government-to-government arrangements, the Ukrainians, through commercial agents, have been buying up private and commercially owned armoured fighting vehicles in the United Kingdom. These vehicles will allow their troops to move around the battlefield with less chance of falling victim to artillery fire or other perils, as I have explained. Every AFV that is sent out provides another group of brave Ukrainian soldiers with the protective mobility they deserve. The Government’s export control organisation has been doing an excellent job of processing the licences for these AFVs, and no doubt it carefully considers all the relevant factors, including where the vehicles are going and, most importantly, where the money is coming from. It obviously has access to all the facilities and capabilities of the state, coupled with the close involvement of the MoD.

Noble Lords will appreciate that locating, purchasing and preparing these AFVs is a specialised business that only a few are effective at undertaking, and only a few have the necessary contacts and facilities. One of these dealers is called “Peter”—that is not his real name, which I cannot divulge for security reasons. I understand that Peter has export licences for at least 100 AFVs. Peter contacted me to ask for my help, because his bank wrote to him on 20 December last year to tell him that his bank account will be closed on 20 February. The bank made it clear that it was not prepared to discuss the matter or say why it was necessary. Peter suspected it was to do with money laundering, because his turnover has rocketed, and he is dealing with Ukrainian businessmen.

I have sought to deal with this matter discreetly and behind the scenes. The major high street bank has been very helpful and, so far as I can discern, it has done nothing wrong and has only been implementing the money laundering regulations. Thus, it would be unfair to name the bank. At a senior level, the bank has made it clear to me that it could continue to provide banking services if it received a letter from a Treasury Minister telling it to do so, or if Peter promised to stop selling AFVs to Ukraine.

I am grateful to the appropriate Treasury Minister for agreeing to have a meeting yesterday about this matter. Unfortunately, within two hours of us feting President Zelensky in Westminster Hall, the Minister was unable to agree to relax the money laundering regulations, even in a specific and minor way. The best advice from the Minister appeared to be that Peter should engage—wait for it—a consultant who would help him be compliant. The problem with that approach is that it is obvious that the bank was unhappy about the Ukrainian businessmen, and it is not clear to me how an expensive consultant can overcome that difficulty. It is also not what the bank thought to recommend to me.

I apologise for raising this matter in such an important strategic debate. However, as matters stand, Peter will have to cease exporting armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine on or before Monday week if he is to pay the wages to his staff and continue in business. As I understand it, this is because Treasury Ministers believe that the complete integrity of the money laundering regulations is more important than supplying armoured fighting vehicles to Ukraine. The consequence of this will be that some heroic Ukrainian soldiers will die because they have been denied the opportunity of protected mobility on the battlefield. When my noble friend Lord Ahmad comes to reply, can he confirm that refusing to relax the money laundering regulations in the way I have suggested is the settled policy of His Majesty’s Government?

16:51

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I feel that this debate has begun to justify the generous tribute to your Lordships’ House paid by my noble friend Lord Soames in his powerful and memorable speech. Perhaps the most intriguing aspects of Putin’s special military operation in Ukraine are how he dared to start it; why it so rapidly became a military humiliation for Russia; why the disastrous strategic, economic and human consequences for Russia were not anticipated; and why it will almost certainly—it certainly should—result in the end of Putin’s rule in Russia.

The relationship between Russia and Ukraine this century has been one of suspicion, resentment and hatred, and the seeds of this were sown by Stalin a century ago. On 7 August 1932, the Central Committee of the USSR ordered that the Soviet theory of the collectivisation of agriculture be imposed on Ukraine. The Holodomor, which involved deliberate starvation as a form of genocide in Ukraine, led to the death by starvation of over 3.5 million people by April 1933. Some claim that as many as 10 million people died. It involved Soviet enforcers seizing all grain and livestock from farmers. Collectivisation was well described by Robert Conquest in his book The Harvest of Sorrow, published in 1988, with his conclusion that,

“in any future crisis in the USSR, it is clear that Ukrainian nationhood will be a factor and a vital one”.

On 9 April 1933, the British embassy in Moscow received a desperate appeal from Ukraine, which said:

“England, save us who are dying of hunger; help us get rid of the Bolsheviks”.


Sadly, there was no response.

By July the Soviet intelligence service, OGPU, had turned into the much-feared NKVD, with Yagoda—later executed, of course—in charge of it. In November 1933, famine arrived in Russia following collectivisation and the implementation of Stalin’s call for the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. On 25 July 1934, your Lordships’ House debated famine in the Soviet Union. Looking through the debate, it seemed to me that our Foreign Office was more anxious than anything to avoid criticism of the Soviet system. But that was then: the new shadow of fascism had emerged, even more threatening and dark than that of communism.

History has taught us to be clearer and bolder. In September 1936, the even more feared Yezhov took over the NKVD, launching Stalin’s great terror, with 1.5 million people arrested, of whom 44% were executed. Yezhov was shot in February 1940. In May 1937, Stalin started his purge of the Soviet army. The first bunch were shot in June and, by November, most military commanders were dead. Perhaps that explains the huge loss of Russians before the Nazi invaders were defeated.

Russia’s military has never lacked numbers, courage or endurance, but they have seldom had the training, leadership, equipment, logistics, competence or professionalism needed in a modern army. The result of this has been demonstrated in Ukraine over the last 12 months, with Putin making frantic changes of military command, moving from one general to another. How has he survived the humiliations he has brought upon his country?

To protect the leader, the shadow of the secret police has always dominated everyone in Russia, but Putin has gone one bit better. Since the end of the USSR, the Russian Federation has become largely Christian. Putin himself is a churchgoer. He has, from the start, had spiritual blessing for the Ukraine operation from Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, who leads the Russian Orthodox Church. A 2020 survey by the American Government estimated that 63% of the population are Orthodox believers, so the Church endorsement may help explain the continuing public compliance, if not support, for Putin’s war. Surprisingly—no, not at all—Patriarch Kirill, who is now 76, was a KGB agent from his youth. The Swiss Government have recently declassified their police archives on Kirill to show that in the 1970s, as agent Mikhailov, the young priest was the KGB’s man in Geneva, and he represented the Russian Church on the World Council of Churches.

I understand that, generally, there are 10 clinically accepted indications of the personality default known as psychopathy. They include behaviour that conflicts with social norms; disregarding or violating the rights of others; an inability to distinguish between right and wrong; difficulty with showing remorse or emotion; a tendency to lie often; manipulating and hurting others; disregard toward safety and responsibility; expressing anger and arrogance on a regular basis; and a tendency to engage in behaviour that is reckless or impulsive or may lead to harmful consequences. I suggest that Putin ticks half those boxes.

Let us hope that, with our undaunted support, President Zelensky can save Ukraine from Russia—but I fear that it may need the Russian people to save the world from President Putin.

17:01

[Lord Risby (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Soames on his excellent maiden speech. I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was a Minister in the MoD. He was extremely successful and popular, largely because of his amazingly good judgment and common sense. Those characteristics will, I know, inform our discussions in the months and years to come.

It was my role in the other place to take through for the Opposition the legislation to enlarge the European Community, which was unanimously agreed. I say this only because, at the time, I had some remarkable conversations with an exceptional individual who was the Polish ambassador. On a number of occasions, he said clearly to me that we needed to provide a pathway for Ukraine to come and join the family of European nations; and that, if this did not happen, a certain other country would inevitably interfere. That is exactly what has happened, of course; his words were of great prescience.

I have been to Ukraine on multiple occasions, having in the past chaired the British Ukrainian Society for some time. I should declare an interest. For more than a year, I have been much involved with a new think tank, the Council on Geostrategy. We have done much work on Ukraine; we wrote a paper before the invasion as we were already alarmed at the anarchic environment in the Black Sea being created by Russia.

No country is more committed to the freedom of the seas than ours, as we have demonstrated by Royal Navy activity in the Black Sea. Given our current considerable credibility, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, when this horrific war ends, we should promote and encourage much closer co-operation among Black Sea states—particularly given the critical importance of Ukraine as a food exporter with huge energy exploration potential and the importance of the Black Sea as a central gateway between Europe and Eurasia, underpinned by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Montreux convention?

Ever since the construction of the trans-Siberian pipeline into western Europe, European nations have had to live with the leverage provided by Russia’s energy exports. This has created inordinately high dependence and, at times, unacceptable supply abuse, with the price of energy before and after the invasion being determined by political judgments, not market conditions. Of course, this has all funded Russian aggression and expansionism. It is insufficiently known that Ukraine has the second-largest gas reserves in Europe and holds equivalent to 27% of the EU’s gas storage capacity. It has huge potential as a reliable and diverse energy provider, enhanced by more integration of the Ukrainian energy sector with Europe, to our mutual advantage.

As many of your Lordships have said, we do not know when this terrible conflict will end, or on what basis, but your Lordships will welcome the hosting by the UK and Ukraine of the Ukraine recovery conference, drawing international support and building on the Lugano principles, which takes place in London in June. All of us will want Ukraine to embrace formally the Euro-Atlantic defence and political umbrella, but the cost of reconstruction will be enormous, and Ukraine itself will need to undertake reforms, particularly on the rule of law, which it is already addressing.

In July 2020, the Lublin Triangle was agreed between Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, at the heart of which is the creation of a zone of security and prosperity, linked to Euro-Atlantic alliances and strengthening military, cultural and political co-operation. In this spirit, in 2022, ahead of the invasion a trilateral memorandum of co-operation was agreed by the Foreign Ministers of Poland, the United Kingdom and Ukraine, to demonstrate a commitment to further strengthen strategic co-operation and engagement. With considerable support and encouragement, think tanks in Warsaw and Kyiv and ourselves will be meeting this month in Warsaw to take matters forward.

This trilateral could play an instrumental role in the post-war reconstruction effort and in putting Ukraine more fully on the track towards Euro-Atlantic integration. In the longer term, the trilateral initiative could assist Ukraine towards a platform where the three countries work together to secure economic and geopolitical objectives, especially as Poland’s role in the European Union becomes more significant.

I echo the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. When we reflect on post-war reconstruction, let us not underestimate the huge depth of the problem. More than 20,000 Ukrainian children have been taken from their families and orphanages and sent to Russia. The terrifyingly traumatic experiences of children will require special educational responses. On another level, reports suggest that mined areas are now equivalent to the size of Great Britain, and the clearing will be a huge undertaking, so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Can my noble friend please give consideration, during the important reconstruction conference in London in June, to issues such as this being discussed too? This should be an integral part of the successful reconstruction and recovery of Ukraine that we are planning.

Finally, I add my support for a clear mechanism to punish those who initiated this war in such an atrocious and shocking way and to seek reparations for the totally unjustified invasion on the people of Ukraine.

17:08

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is commonplace to thank whoever has initiated the debate and very often to thank all the speakers for a wide-ranging debate. On this occasion, we certainly must thank the usual channels and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for moving this debate today. Two weeks ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, had his debate on defence, there were calls from both sides of the House for a debate on Ukraine. Nobody could have predicted quite how timely the debate would be. Waking up yesterday morning and hearing on the news that President Zelensky was going to be in Parliament, in person, was quite extraordinary.

It has been a wide-ranging debate but, as the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said, those people who might be watching from the Russian embassy are really looking for divisions. In his opening words, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed pointed out that the Liberal Democrats are in lockstep with His Majesty’s Government and the Official Opposition. When speaking on defence matters, it often feels that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I are simply rehearsing the same lines, precisely because, on so many defence issues, we are all singing from broadly the same hymn sheet. We are committed to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and we acknowledge the debt that we all owe them. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine, we particularly acknowledge the training that is going on to support Ukraine and its valiant servicepeople.

So my first point is on the importance of support from all political parties of the United Kingdom. It was notable that the Conservative Benches picked up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, about a green Marshall plan. There is a great deal of unanimity across the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was a lone voice. It came from a genuine place, but most Benches do not really agree.

This important debate is about Ukraine, but also about much wider issues of European security, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, stated, essentially the frontiers of British security are no longer the white cliffs of Dover or even Germany; we are looking to the blood and mud of the Donbas.

This debate is about the effects on the United Kingdom and our security, and it fundamentally matters for a reason that was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere. Ukraine is not just a country in the middle of Europe to which we have no obligations. It is not a NATO member nor a member of the European Union, but we agreed the Budapest memorandum and to support the security of Ukraine. It is vital that we do so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, reminded us, one of the things that has been so clear over the last 351 days is the commitment and resilience of the Ukrainian President and the people of Ukraine. To stand up against Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion for almost a year, to keep fighting and to keep coming to remind the West of the importance of supporting Ukraine is incredible.

But we have to be honest. President Zelensky has not managed to persuade all the West or all the free world of the importance of standing up for Ukraine against Russia. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, pointed out that very few people in the United Nations voted to support Russia. That is true, but there have been numerous abstentions or countries that simply were not present to vote. That is significant and we are talking about very influential countries that are listening not just to Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, but to Russia. They include, as my noble friend Lord Purvis pointed out, South Africa, India and other Commonwealth countries.

One question I have for the Minister to answer in his winding-up speech is on the conversations His Majesty’s Government are having, with our Commonwealth partners in particular, to explain the importance to freedom and democracy globally of supporting Ukraine. We need to make absolutely clear that this is not about some sort of neocolonial western support for Ukraine; it is about the rule of law and democracy.

So, what conversations are being had? I did wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, with his extensive contacts with South Africa and India, might also be working with His Majesty’s Government to see how persuasive we can be. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has been very persuasive—not in the Chamber today but elsewhere —in explaining how the message that we all understand implicitly in your Lordships’ House has not necessarily reached the hearts and minds of many people. That is partly because of the Russian disinformation machine—and that goes to discussions maybe in southern Africa or in India, but also other countries in eastern Europe. We like to think that the EU, NATO and the United Kingdom are speaking absolutely as one on the issue of Ukraine, and broadly speaking they are, but some of the disinformation going into eastern Europe is being propagated by Russia. It is not supportive of Ukraine, for very obvious reasons, so there is a whole campaign that we need to wage not just to persuade Vladimir Putin that public opinion in Russia is changing—although if the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is right, that would be a very welcome way forward—but for hearts and minds generally.

We also need to think about expectations in the United Kingdom. This time last year, when we had the debate after the invasion, I remember suggesting that if we had sanctions, as we now do, we needed to be very explicit to citizens of the United Kingdom about the economic consequences we would all have to face. Those sanctions might be against Russian oligarchs—here, I agree with my noble friend Lady Brinton—but they should also hit all Russian assets.

But the consequences of sanctions have domestic implications as well, and I am minded to reinforce that point looking at today’s newspaper headlines. The headlines are all about yesterday’s visit from President Zelensky, and his message could not have been clearer: “wings for freedom”—give us fighter jets, not just help with training. The Daily Express and the Daily Mail, on their front pages, are not saying that President Zelensky says this; they are saying, send fighter jets to Ukraine. Are His Majesty’s Government in a position to do that? If they feel they are able or could be in a position to send fighter jets in addition to tanks, there will be consequences for our own defence budgets.

At the start of today’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what contracts have been signed to ensure that we have the equipment we need, as we are supplying Ukraine. I would reinforce that question with the question I raised, along with others, on Monday with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, passed it on to the noble Lord—about F35s. There are questions about British defence capabilities. From these Benches, we absolutely support the considered approach taken by His Majesty’s Government, in particular the nuanced approach of Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence. But if we are going to give further support to Ukraine, we also need to make sure that our defence budget can manage that. Capabilities matter.

Finally, I support the comments of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Purvis of Tweed in discussing questions of accountability, the questions that will be raised at The Hague and what support His Majesty’s Government are going to give to ensure that there can be a tribunal to bring to account Vladimir Putin, his forces and anyone else who has been perpetrating war crimes of the hideous sort we have heard about—rape, the abduction of children and the targeting of civilians in Ukraine. Those are all things we need to be thinking about in the longer term, but we need His Majesty’s Government to be clear about the strategic approach in 2023 and moving forward.

17:20

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had some important and informed contributions from many noble Lords across the Chamber. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and the usual channels for ensuring that this debate could take place over a long period and not be curtailed to a couple of hours. Given the significance and importance of this issue, the Government are to be congratulated for enabling the debate to happen this quickly. Given the significance of what happened yesterday, it was also fortuitous.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the informed remarks that started this debate so well. However, it would be remiss of me not to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and welcoming him to the Chamber; it is nice to see him here. I think he got here under better circumstances than me. We are all delighted he is here for all sorts of reasons, not least his informed opinions, his general courtesy and, obviously, his lineage, which brings an important historical perspective. But in his own right, he has added considerable knowledge and experience to this debate, and he will no doubt do so in many other debates going forward. We are pleased that he is here with us, and I wish him good luck with his contributions in this House.

I also want to start from the point of view of unanimity, which is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friend Lord Collins talked about the importance of symbolism. The television pictures that are beamed around the world and seen in so many countries are particularly important in these circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friend pointed out the importance of the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak being seen alongside Sir Keir Starmer and other leaders of our political parties. That is of huge significance and shows that, although we obviously have some questions for and points to make to the Government—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has rightly just done—that is done on the basis of unanimity. I take the well-made point of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald: this is an important debating Chamber, one of the most significant in the world, alongside the other place. An incredible number of people watch our proceedings. It sometimes does not feel like that, but it is watched by significant numbers of people across the world. It will be being watched and analysed for any sense of difference between us— and there is none.

Perhaps I may say one thing as an aside. We heard the lone voice of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It is good that in our democracy, someone can stand up and say something, even if they are a lone voice. He was heard with courtesy and respect. I think I am right in saying that no one here agreed with him, but he had a right to say it. That is important, because there may be people listening in countries whose parliamentarians would be arrested and imprisoned if they expressed a view so contrary to that of their Government. My noble friend has an absolute right to say what he said. I totally disagree with him but that is not the point. In one sense—and the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, has more experience of these things than me—that symbolises what the conflict is about. This is an important conflict between those who would undermine democracy and those who would stand up for it.

It was a truly historic moment yesterday when so many of us gathered together to hear the inspirational words of President Zelensky—an occasion when he came to thank us, to ask for our continued support and to mention the need to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs. It was also to restate what this battle, this conflict, this war is about.

I start my remarks by reiterating the importance of ensuring that Putin does not succeed. We can once again be proud that our country was among the first to support, and remains at the forefront of supporting, this battle for the rule of law and for the principle that force and aggression cannot be allowed to prevail. Our stand with Ukraine is for democracy, human rights and justice. This country has a proud tradition of standing up for those principles with our friends and allies, and we will do so once again in Ukraine as we have done so many times in our past.

It is a battle that is well understood not only here in Westminster but across our country. As President Zelensky will have witnessed, there is immense good will among our people to stand firm with the people of Ukraine. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham highlighted that point, as did many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Risby, just now. The British people understand that it is not just us in Westminster who believe that this is important; they understand that the Ukrainian fight is our fight, that their battle is our battle, and that the battle for democracy and freedom in Kyiv, Ukraine and beyond is the front line for us as well. It is a struggle for democracy and is therefore our struggle.

As many noble Lords have pointed out, Putin believed the West to be weak. He believed that we would cave in, that we would not stand with Ukraine, that we would be frightened and intimidated. He made many miscalculations but this was clearly one of the biggest. Instead of dividing us, we are more united than ever in our belief and our desire to see this through. We will do all we can to see it through.

Let it be seen that we will stand up against aggression, intimidation and those who undermine the rule of law not only here in Europe. As others have said, this has lessons for us in the rest of the world as well. Tyranny, oppression and dictatorship cannot win, and our fight in Ukraine sets out to prove that.

We must redouble our efforts, act even more urgently and respond quickly to new threats from Russia, supporting Ukraine in every way we can. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out some of the difficulties. I do not know how the Minister will respond, but there is clearly a need for urgency and for things to happen as quickly as possible. The Challenger 2 tanks must get there quickly, and training must happen and new demands must be responded to as quickly as possible. The Government will need to explain to us how they will meet these new demands as urgently as they can.

We also need to consider what the review of our independent review should say. We were going to cut the number of our battle tanks; that was in the review. Clearly we must now review that. We were going to undertake other changes to our equipment. We have said that technological improvement is more important than mass. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig, will know far better than me that the Typhoon is a brilliant aircraft, and the F35B is great, but what about the mass of aircraft? Is there more we can do to have more of this equipment in the short term? If we give aircraft or other equipment away, how do we replenish it quickly? Where will it come from? You cannot build a tank or an aircraft in a year. If we want to up our supply and capabilities, how are we going to do that?

Those are the questions that the Government need to answer. As the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lords, Lord Soames and Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, they are important considerations for us. What does that mean for a defence budget? There will have to be a debate about what it actually means and the difficulties of that. If we want more money, where will it come from? Are we going to have a sensible debate about how we achieve that? Again, those are matters for the future, but a debate and discussion will have to be had.

There are many other things that could be said. I join my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lords, Lord Soames, Lord Hannay and Lord Howell, and many others in hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, can say something about this issue in a few minutes: there is a real problem about explaining in other parts of the world what I have just been saying about what we are doing with respect to Ukraine. It is not just some dictatorships in Africa; we have problems with India, Israel, South Africa and other countries that may not be against what we are doing but are certainly not keen advocates of it and worry about it. How are we trying to deal with that, discuss it and win the narrative?

Although I cannot remember which noble Lord raised this, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that the idea that we should cut the BBC World Service is a very bad one. At a time when the dissemination of accurate information across the airwaves in different languages to different people is so important, the idea that that is not an absolute priority, at what is a minimal cost, beggars belief. I know the Minister will not be able to answer that now, but I ask him to take it back.

I finish where I started. Their battle is our battle. We are proud to stand with the people of Ukraine. The unity of this Parliament is something that should resound right across Europe and certainly in Moscow. There is no difference between us. We are prepared to see this through, and we will do so.

17:32

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for yet another great example of your Lordships’ House at its best. Undoubtedly, the issue of unanimity and being at one resonates.

I agree with the contributions from all Front Benches paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Goldie for opening the debate; her usual style, aplomb and detail set the tone for our debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis—contemporaries of mine, if I can put it that way, when it comes to issues of foreign affairs—for their strong support, and we have seen, from the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the strong alignment between us. It is important that, when the world looks at the UK on issues such as standing up for the rights of a sovereign nation, we speak with one voice.

I fully accept the point that that is not without challenge to the Government of the day. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that it is right that we will have people who challenge, whether outside these Chambers, through our press, our people, our opinion-formers, agencies and NGOs about our Government or our country doing more, or indeed within this Chamber. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. On this particular issue, if we look at the contributions made over the last year then we can perhaps see where the noble Lord is coming from, but it is right that in a free and open democracy all views are heard.

In thanking all noble Lords, I first and foremost wish to thank my noble friend Lord Soames. It is often said that the contributions in maiden speeches should be measured and informed, hopefully, delivered with expertise, a nice sprinkling of wit and a dose of wisdom. My noble friend’s contribution reflected exactly those qualities and he brings a remarkable insight and expertise. It is right, on the day after the President of Ukraine visited the United Kingdom, not only that we are having this debate but that it marks the occasion of my noble friend’s maiden speech. I look forward to working with him closely not just on Ukraine issues but across the foreign policy and defence agenda. I thank him for his continued support in this regard.

I also associate myself totally with my noble friend’s remarks about the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. While changes have happened, I have been one of those Ministers who have had the occasion to be around a while. I worked directly with the former Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary. Various issues come to mind, but one thing was very notable back in 2018—my noble friend Lord Hannan made this point: it should not be news that Russia targets countries. When we had the CHOGM in London in 2018, I remember that the Salisbury incident happened between the agreement of the communiqué and the meeting itself. Theresa May was Prime Minister and we were given quite straight directions that we needed to include language on Salisbury in the communiqué that came out of CHOGM. I saw Boris Johnson at his best then; I worked closely with him and directly with key Foreign Ministers from across countries to ensure that the language could be amended. Anyone who has worked over many years on different communiqués knows that is a task and a half. To get a number of countries to agree at that time when they were sitting on the fence, or perhaps not in agreement because of their association and relationships with Russia, was a tall order but we achieved it in 48 hours. I fully accept the points made about the principles and importance of diplomacy, which I will come on to.

In underlining my strong support, I also align myself with my noble friend Lord Soames’s remarks about our Secretary of State for Defence. Given the challenges that were put down, he has also been at the forefront of ensuring that we responded with the necessary agility. Across the different Foreign Secretaries I have worked with at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we have done that with the requirements of Ukraine at the forefront. Those who perhaps still question and challenge whether Ukraine recognises that need do nothing more than listen to President Zelensky’s incredible and memorable speech yesterday in Westminster Hall.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham asked, “Where does this go? What is the United Kingdom’s position?”. I am sure that all noble Lords who spoke from the Front Benches would be able to align themselves with it. We have reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity within its recognised borders, as well as its right to pursue its own security arrangements. Our military support to Ukraine is enduring and we will continue to support it across all three domains, be that land, sea or air.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, had to leave—I thank him for advance notice of that —but he mentioned, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, did, that ultimately agreements and political settlements will be reached in this respect. We are not in that position at this time but we saw how, right from the start, President Zelensky put down his 10 principles for peace. We have been working with key partners and directly with Ukraine, and we in the United Kingdom align ourselves with it totally. Whatever agreement is ultimately reached must be reached with our strong support, but led and agreed by Ukraine.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, talked about the start of the conflict nine years ago. It is sometimes reflected that had the international community reacted differently in 2014 to first the invasion and then the annexation of Crimea, things would be different. But as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out, Russia’s intentions were clear prior to that, as we have seen through its continued attacks on the sovereignty of other nations, including what we saw in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia prior to the attack on Ukraine. Therefore, we must remain resolute and absolutely committed to ensuring that Ukraine prevails.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford talked of the need to ensure that our war is not with the Russian people. It is not, but we have seen from Mr Putin a suppression of his own communities and people right from the start. The continued arrests and detention of people such as Mr Navalny underline what he thinks of his own people. When we saw early protests in cities across Russia, simple things such as young girls and women appearing with flowers in city squares were shut down. This is a man who does that to his own people. Our fight is not with the Russian people. Our argument is not with the Russian people. We stand for the very freedoms and democracy that I am sure all Russians desire.

My noble friend Lord Hannan and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in his very insightful contribution, said that Ukraine must win and cannot be destroyed. My noble friend Lord Hannan said that Russian aggression cannot be rewarded. I think we all stand by that.

In paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer for her early engagement with the Ukrainians, I recall on a personal note—which also speaks to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made—that we have worked with Ukraine over a number of years. It may surprise noble Lords that my first visit to Kyiv was as Local Government Minister. I was asked to visit Ukraine to ask about how local government structures could work within the emerging government. It seems like a long time ago. I returned in 2019 to represent Her Majesty’s Government, as it was then, during the inauguration of a certain President Zelensky. Only about three or four countries were represented at ministerial level. In a few short years, things have changed.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about changes in systems and issues of corruption. It could be argued that President Zelensky’s election reflected the fact that people within Ukraine wanted change. It is important that we stand by Ukraine at its time of need on defence, humanitarian and reconstruction requirements, but we are also in there for the long term in ensuring that Ukraine can rebuild itself and its governance structures.

Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, asked, “How long is long term?”. The enduring reflection I can make is that our participation in alliances such as NATO indicate our strong long-term commitment, irrespective of which Government of what colour is in control of the United Kingdom. It is important that we stand by our obligations.

We have stood by Ukraine, and President Zelensky indicated that with his strong words yesterday. We pay tribute to all Ukrainians for their courage, determination and ingenuity and to the unbreakable friendship and ties between our two countries. As we all heard, President Zelensky thanked the United Kingdom for standing with Ukraine from day one. He also thanked us for our grit and international leadership in this respect. It is important that we are unrelenting in our continued support for Ukraine.

I welcome the wise words and the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who spoke with great insight and expertise. He reminded us that the world has changed from the time of the Second World War and the international institutions that were created. We live in a very different world. War is not just, as we see unfolding in Ukraine, traditional and conventional battlefield wars of tanks and air. We also see a growing area of cyber challenge. We need to be firmly aligned and work with our partners to ensure that responding to the cyber challenges posed by Russia and other state actors is part and parcel of ensuring our defence.

As we heard from my noble friend Lady Goldie earlier, Ukraine’s heroic armed forces have already recaptured thousands of square miles from the Russians, driving them out from more than half the territory they grabbed last year. As many noble Lords pointed out, Russia did not expect that that would continue. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on occasion over a number of years, rightly highlighted that Mr Putin got it wrong. He felt that this was a short intervention and that the world, perhaps based on history, would not stand by Ukraine, but he was proved wrong. Our continued resilience and support for Ukraine at this crucial juncture is extremely important. I share totally the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins: that those responsible for war crimes and atrocities should also be held accountable, a point made by several other noble Lords.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Risby highlighted the appalling and abhorrent activities of the Russian forces. Ukrainian children in their thousands are being taken from their families and sent to orphanages in Russia. That is pure abduction of young children, and an attempt to terrify a whole population and the next generation of Ukrainians. Therefore, we condemn Russian atrocities, including the alleged abductions and deportations of innocent Ukrainians, and will hold Russia to account. On 16 June, the UK announced a new wave of sanctions, including against the Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner on that issue. I look forward to engaging directly with noble Lords on the important issue of accountability, which I will discuss in a moment, particularly in the areas for which I am responsible in government, such as crimes of sexual violence in conflict. Tragically, that abhorrent crime is again surfacing very clearly in Ukraine.

I turn now to military support. I assure my noble friend Lord Soames, with whom I have been delighted to work over a number of years, that the strong co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is very clear. He rightly pointed out that Russia’s threat does not end in Ukraine. Our commitments through NATO, as I have seen myself during visits to places such as Estonia, demonstrate the strong capabilities of our military. They need to continue, and we are committed to that.

My noble friend Lady Goldie and I visited the Balkans, where we saw the rising tide of nationalism, fuelled by Russian support and the likes Mr Dodik, who has also been sanctioned by the United Kingdom Government. It was very clear to both of us, as we saw in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in the Republika Srpska entity, that that nationalist element was surfacing again in a way that no one wants to see, and which ripped that country apart previously. So, as was pointed out very ably by my noble friend Lord Hannan and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, we must be very mindful that this is not just about Ukraine but other countries as well.

I turn now to how we will ensure we are providing enough military support. Last month, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary announced our most significant military support package to date. Ukraine urgently needs heavier, more modern equipment to expedite success. As many noble Lords alluded to, this package includes fourteen Challenger 2 tanks, a training package and artillery, which will further strengthen Ukraine’s capabilities. It means that, importantly, our Ukrainian friends can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. Our friends in NATO—the United States, France, Canada, Poland and Germany, among others—are following our lead and sending main battle tanks to Ukraine, which is a very important development. We hope that this combined effort will encourage further military support from other partners.

Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced plans to expand training for the armed forces of Ukraine, from land to sea and air, including fighter jet pilots and marines, as part of a long-term investment in their military. The United Kingdom’s surge of military equipment to Ukraine aims to give Ukrainian forces the upper hand on the battlefield and to limit Russia’s ability to target civilian infrastructure.

I turn now to the issue of fighter jets. Your Lordships’ House is at its best when we hear two noble and gallant Lords—the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Stirrup—commenting specifically on capabilities and capacities. This Chamber is like no other because of our insights and experiences. Our commitment on fighter jets is that, with our partners, we want to ensure as best we can that Ukraine is equipped to defend its sovereign territory, and that the capabilities we provide meet the tactical demands of the conflict as they evolve, hence our recent decision on battle tanks.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, raised specific questions on aircraft. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie will write to him on specific numbers, et cetera. On the point that he raised on the initial F35s, I think 30 of the 48 have already been delivered and a further 18, which amounts to the 48 he mentioned, will also arrive in tranches.

On the more specific and higher-level number—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—my noble friend Lady Goldie intends to write to noble Lords on some of the specific questions also raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

On the issue of defence capability and replenishment, which was raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, my noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Soames, and others, the Defence Secretary has announced his intention to publish an update on the defence Command Paper in the spring. I believe it will be after the Spring Statement. It will address the issue of the Armed Forces and set defence on a path to remodernisation by 2030.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on this issue of replenishing military aid, asked about contracts. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised this. The MoD has engaged fully with industry allies and partners to ensure the continuation of supply to Ukraine and that all stocks are replaced as quickly as possible. We have rapidly and effectively adopted our procurement process to reflect the urgency of the situation. A replenishment team has now been established at the newly formed operations directorate and a number of substantial contracts—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins—have already been placed to directly replenish UK stockpiles. These include Starstreak missiles and lightweight multi-role missiles as well.

My noble friend Lord Bellingham and other noble Lords asked about replenishment. It is right, of course, that we are supplying Ukraine, and replenishment is important. I believe his question was about our ability to continue to fight. The ability to conduct high-end war-fighting remains at the core of the British Army, including remaining in and leading the contribution to NATO and the ability to field a war-fighting division. The Army has two deployable divisions: first, the UK division, which provides a wide range of capabilities, at home and overseas; and, secondly, the Army’s primary armoured war-fighting force. The British Army holds forces at various levels of readiness to ensure that we can defeat a variety of threats at home and abroad. I am sure we will continue to be asked questions on this and my noble friend Lady Goldie looks forward to engaging with noble Lords on this.

My noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Shinkwin asked whether British capability can deploy an armoured force. The short answer is yes. The flexibility remains very much for an agile force. I know that noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, in particular, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—have expressed specific concerns. I assure noble Lords that we stand very ready. Of course, I share the view that has been expressed by several noble Lords that the first duty of the Government is the security of our own country and citizens.

On the specific question on eastern European planes, which my noble friend Lord Bellingham asked, and decisions to provide support through individual agreements with other countries, the United Kingdom remains supportive of nations providing fighter jets to Ukraine and will continue to work with international partners in this respect.

On the issue raised by several noble Lords about the training of pilots, as the noble and gallant Lord said, training takes time. He is right: these are complex pieces of military equipment, and the pilots will need to spend a certain amount of time before they are trained up on how to deploy these NATO jets. It speaks to the point that we are in it for the long term. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said, the expansion is not just about providing the immediate capability and requirements to Ukrainian forces. It is also about taking a multi-year approach to ensure that Ukraine has the military means and skills for generations to come—the threat will not cease.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

Will the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, respond, perhaps later, on the delays in the training of our own pilots, which is a point I raised?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I believe that is something we are very up to date with: there is no challenge in the area of training, but my noble friend will write on the specific point that the noble Lord raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, also raised the issue of drones and Iran’s role. This has been a really worrying development. We were all very aware of the threat of Iran towards destabilisation, the tragic consequence of which has now extended not just to the region in which Iran is, but to Europe as well. We of course strongly condemn what has happened in this regard and we have also, as the noble Lord will be aware, sanctioned several individuals and businesses responsible for supplying drones.

My noble friend Lord Attlee asked about support for Ukraine, and I thank him for his kind remarks. We have already committed more than £6.1 billion of economic, humanitarian and military support to Ukraine and the Prime Minister has pledged—something that was appreciated and welcomed—that the UK will deliver 14 Challenger 2 tanks to the Ukrainian army. My noble friend pressed me on a meeting he had with Treasury colleagues on the issue of money laundering and raised a specific question. I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury will follow up on that with him but, while I recognise my noble friend’s desire to do whatever it takes to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs, it is also imperative, as other noble Lords referred to, that we do not weaken the country’s defences against issues of illicit finance, money laundering and corruption that can end up financing Ukraine’s enemies. We need to be very focused on that.

Moving to the issue of diplomacy, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, among many others, raised the importance of this role. In particular, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, on this. The Prime Minister and President Zelensky discussed a two-pronged approach to the UK for Ukraine. In this regard, we remain very resolute in ensuring that military equipment and support is provided.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones and Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Risby also talked about the importance of our continued support on global mine action. I put on record my deep thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, in this respect. We have had discussions about the important role that particular agencies play, whether in Afghanistan, as we have seen, or indeed in Ukraine. The focus on de-mining is a key priority for the FCDO and will remain so. The FCDO has a £2 million agreement with the Halo Trust—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, works very closely with that trust. We are also providing de-mining equipment and training to these state emergency services as part of a £14.5 million contribution to the multi-donor partnership fund for building a resilient Ukraine, and providing a further £0.6 million to UNDP to support co-ordination in this.

On the issue of diplomacy at an international level, the Prime Minister has offered the UK’s backing to President Zelensky’s plans to work closely towards a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, James Cleverley, as well as myself and others, are regularly in touch with Foreign Minister Kuleba in co-ordinating activities. The Foreign Secretary was in the United States and Canada only last month, meeting counterparts to discuss going further and faster in Ukraine, and the Defence Secretary has been in Poland and Germany recently, making progress with further donations and international co-ordination. Almost a year on from the invasion, there is a strong alliance internationally and a resolve to continue on this path.

My noble friend Lord Soames raised the important issue of India, as did other key contributors. We continue to have very open and candid exchanges with India. Of course, from a historical perspective, India has relied on a defence partnership with Russia. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will testify, it is important as we look at a broader and stronger alliance with India that we also look to see how trust —and co-operation—from both sides can be further strengthened, particularly when we see yet wider threats in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. India will be a key strategic partner here, and we need to see how we can further strengthen that relationship. On the issue of India’s abstention within the United Nations, for example, India has given its reasons for that.

On the issues raised about South Africa, we know that Mr Lavrov is on a charm offensive across Africa—he has been into the Sahel recently as well—offering Russian support. There is a clear diplomatic effort to win further support. It was extremely worrying, as I said from the Dispatch Box, seeing what happened in South Africa, as a Commonwealth partner.

This comes back to a point that I raised at CHOGM 2018, and in CHOGM 2022 we had the same challenge again. I sat in the Foreign Ministers meeting when we needed to agree a communiqué with language on Ukraine, which a number of countries objected to and it was a hard challenge. However, through our diplomatic channels we achieve success in that regard, but we need to remain very vigilant and focused, so I accept the points that were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as well as those made by noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. My noble friend Lord Howell talked importantly about the Commonwealth partnerships in this respect also.

My noble friend also mentioned the need to build relationships, and we are doing this within the context of the UN and not just the Commonwealth. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, pointed out, there were three votes at the United Nations General Assembly. In the first, on 2 March last year, 141 states condemned Russia’s invasion—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked how we can increase the isolation of Russia diplomatically. In the second vote, on 24 March last year, 140 countries joined the humanitarian resolution. On 12 October, 143 countries condemned Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory.

I can share with the noble Lords that we are currently working with international partners ahead of a UN General Assembly resolution and UN Security Council meeting to mark one year of the war on 24 February. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will attend that Security Council meeting. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, reminded us—and, having been involved with these matters, he speaks from great insight and experience—it is no easy task getting these numbers within the context of the General Assembly, and it is a hard diplomatic lift. I pay tribute to our diplomats around the world who have acted admirably, notwithstanding the challenges they face in ensuring we continue to build and have these strong alliances.

I accept the point that there were about 40-odd abstentions, but we have seen certain countries shift. I can share with noble Lords that, for example, the UAE has shifted its position in the UN Security Council. I was recently engaging with Kuwait, and we have also seen Kuwait now providing humanitarian support.

On disinformation—I am conscious of time; I could continue for another half an hour but will not do so—these issues are very much high up on our agenda. I accept the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and have shared her experiences, which show what can happen through social media and other actions when people speak out and the disinformation campaign continues. I hear the points made about the BBC World Service, but we have allocated additional funding. I saw the strength of contributions in that regard in the earlier Question today.

We have stood by Ukraine very strongly when it comes to humanitarian support. For the longer term—a point made by several noble Lords—we have included £1.35 billion in lending guarantees through the World Bank and the EBRD, £100 million in direct budgetary assistance and £220 million of humanitarian support.

A number of other questions were raised. In the interests of time, I must beg the noble Lord’s indulgence on the issue of the use of frozen assets, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

On the support we have given for the winter challenges, we have allocated a further £12 million to the World Food Programme. On sanctions, I know noble Lords are very seized of this; I have been providing regular briefings and will continue to do so.

On the Black Sea grain initiative, we have seen good progress; the next renewal date is March 2023, so we are right up against it—it is normally on a running cycle of 120 days. But we need to ensure that we remain focused and build further support for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked rightly about ensuring effective monitoring and closing down loopholes. Of course, we have the OFSI here in the UK, but we need to work with international partners to ensure that we cut down those who are seeking to circumvent sanctions. I cannot speculate on the issue of proscription, but the issues raised on the Wagner Group have been well received. Noble Lords will be aware of various sanctions we have used in this regard.

I said I would mention the issue of war crimes, and I think it is important to do so. I totally accept the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Browne and Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the importance of this. We are involved at all levels, and we are working very closely with Karim Khan at the ICC. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I have met with him on a number of occasions and will continue to do so. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also leading a cross-government group in this respect. We will host a major international meeting in March to support the ICC in this endeavour.

The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, raised the issue of the hybrid mechanism. We are also involved with the working group on that. Recently—only last month—the Attorney-General and I briefed the APPG on Ukraine about steps we are taking, and we are working very closely on this.

Finally, we announced at the PSVI conference the new international alliance on preventing sexual violence in conflict. That will be formally launched at the CSW at the UN in March.

Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There is always more to say, but as my noble friend Lord Cormack quite rightly said, what more can be done? Given the time I have taken, I have perhaps indicated that a lot is being done. Mr Putin has a clear message being sent to him that the world stands united, and we will continue to do so. His disregard for international norms and laws is unacceptable. He will continue, I am sure, in his unprovoked, reckless and destabilising activity, but the ultimate objective must be to remove Russian forces from Ukraine, relinquish his illegal control of Ukrainian territory, and end his barbaric attacks against civilians. Until then, the Government are resolute—I know I speak for all noble Lords on this—and we will continue to support the brave people of Ukraine by ramping up diplomatic, economic and, yes, military pressure on Mr Putin and Russia. We will do all we can to bring about the end of Mr Putin’s invasion and ensure that in 2023 and beyond, Ukraine maintains its momentum, supported by the international community.

In closing, I again recognise the contribution and lineage of my noble friend Lord Soames, so it is perhaps apt to end this debate with a quote from Winston Churchill about a conflict of the past which is very much etched on our minds:

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts”—


and Ukraine has that in abundance. As President Zelensky himself said yesterday, freedom will win. Slava Ukraini!

Motion agreed.

China: Governor of Xinjiang’s Visit

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

18:08

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe to an Urgent Question in another place on the planned visit of the governor of Xinjiang. The Answer is as follows:

“We understand from the Chinese embassy that the governor of Xinjiang may visit the UK next week. To be clear, he has not been invited by the Government or to the FCDO, and we have no confirmation that he will, in fact, travel. He will travel on a diplomatic passport and has not been granted a visa. If he does visit, I assure this House that under no circumstances will he be dignified with a ministerial meeting.

China’s actions in Xinjiang are abhorrent and we will not legitimise them in any way. However, robust engagement to challenge human rights violations and to stand up for the rights of the oppressed is at the core of the UK’s diplomatic work around the world. We must be prepared to use diplomatic channels to achieve that end, hence officials would be prepared to offer him a meeting. In line with that principle, there is only one reason why such a meeting would take place—to make absolutely clear the UK’s abhorrence of the treatment of the Uighur people and to say that we will not relent from exposing the horrors to which they are subject. That point needs to be set out clearly to China. It is only right that people responsible for human rights violations are confronted on these issues.

The UK has played a leading role in international efforts to hold China to account on Xinjiang. In 2019, we became the first country to step up to lead a joint statement on China’s actions in Xinjiang at the UN. Since that first statement, which was supported by 23 countries, we have worked tirelessly through our global diplomatic network to broaden the caucus of countries speaking out. Our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour and consistently increase the number of countries speaking out. Most recently, our diplomatic effort helped to secure the support of a record 50 countries for a statement on Xinjiang at the UN third committee in October.

We have imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity in Xinjiang, and have introduced robust measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains. We have consistently raised our concerns at the highest level in Beijing. Let me be absolutely clear that we will continue to emphasise at all levels that the world is watching what China’s authorities say and do in Xinjiang. They cannot hide their abuses. The UK and our allies will not turn away.”

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question from Sir Iain Duncan Smith. When I read the exchanges that took place, I was particularly concerned about the one between the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Leo Docherty, where the Minister confirmed from the Dispatch Box that Ministers had approved this visit. As Alicia Kearns said, he is one of the masterminds of the genocide in Xinjiang. Therefore, will the Minister tell us at what level political approval was given? What ministerial level was it—was it Leo Docherty, or did it go higher? Was the Foreign Secretary involved in giving this political okay for a meeting to take place? It is really important that we hear a response to that.

May I also ask about the assessment that the department may have made on Erkin Tuniyaz? Why is he so different from Chen, the former governor, who was sanctioned? Again, we need a specific response on that, so that we understand what sort of consistency the Government have on their policy of challenging these huge abuses of human rights in that province.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In truth, I was not able to hear the full exchange that happened earlier in the other place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I read it.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Lord is ahead of the game. I have not yet had a chance to go through it in detail. However, I can say that the governor was not invited to the UK by the Government, nor do we have confirmation that he will indeed be travelling. We understand that he intends to engage in discussions with a range of interlocuters about the situation in that region, but we do not know that.

On the issue of approval, I think that what the noble Lord has said is wrong. I am not suggesting that he is wrong: he may be quoting someone else who is wrong. The visa has not been granted for the visit. If he travels, he will be travelling on a diplomatic passport, for which he obviously does not need a visa. The reality is that we do not know, and the visit might not happen at all.

The noble Lord asked another question. There is consistency in our approach. I cannot go into the specifics about sanctions for individuals—we never do—but, in March 2021, we imposed sanctions on senior Chinese officials and on an organisation responsible for the appalling human rights violations taking place in that region. By acting with 29 other countries on an agreed set of designations, we increased the reach and impact of those measures and sent the clearest possible signal of our concern and willingness to act. The Foreign Office keeps all evidence and potential listings under close review but, as I said, I cannot speculate on who may or may not be designated in future, as doing so would probably reduce the impacts of those designations.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I politely point out to the Minister that that exchange is in Hansard. I am pretty certain that the Minister’s office should have briefed him on the proceedings in House of Commons Hansard so that he was aware of what the Minister there said in reply to the chair of the committee.

Indeed, Mr Docherty said it was the “judgment of Ministers” that this would be an extremely useful opportunity to meet this individual—yes, to pass on strong messages but, nevertheless, I think that senior officials meeting this individual would legitimise his visit if he came. It beggars belief. I will deeply condemn officials from our Government and the European Union if he does come; as I understand it, the visit is planned to be in London then Brussels. This individual is sanctioned by the United States under the Magnitsky system. He was sanctioned in December 2021 because he is linked to the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau. As we have heard, this individual has played a part in the construction of a system of repression in the region, which, as we have debated time and again, has made its people subject to gross human rights abuses.

So far, the Government’s language has been interesting; they say that he will potentially come here on a diplomatic passport. My understanding of the immigration regime is that there is still conditional access for such people even if they arrive on a diplomatic passport. He is not a member of the mission; therefore, it is not an automatic entry. He is a member of the Chinese Government; therefore, his entry is conditional with regard to the Immigration Rules. Can the Minister confirm that? If he cannot do so now, could he do so urgently in writing? I have a suspicion—here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins—that Ministers have the opportunity to block this visit but have decided that they will not take it up. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether Ministers have the ability to state that this person is not conducive to the public good and, therefore, to block his entry.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, before I come on to the specifics, I will take umbrage with the noble Lord. I think that he was a little churlish in his reference to the written record. As he knows, in this place, Ministers stand in for other Ministers at very late notice; if he would like to see my diary for today, I would be happy to share it with him, but there was not a minute wasted dealing with issues that are not absolutely top priorities for the United Kingdom. He would appreciate that were he to take a good old look.

There is no doubt that, if this character comes to the United Kingdom, he will not be doing so to be feted or treated in any way by the United Kingdom Government. The only possible reason for there to be any meeting between him and officials would be so that the UK can again put on the record our views in relation to what has happened on his watch. The UK’s abhorrence at the treatment of the Uighur people is very much on the record. The idea that this measure will in any way legitimise, or amplify the importance of, this governor is absurd. If anything, if there is a meeting of any sort with UK Government officials, it will be for us to be able to issue a public reprimand.

It is worth reiterating that the United Kingdom Government have led international efforts to hold China to account for its violations in Xinjiang. We were the first country to step up and lead a joint statement on China’s human rights record in Xinjiang. We have engaged in a huge diplomatic effort to encourage other countries to join us. Since that first statement in 2019, we—Ministers and officials—have worked tirelessly through our global diplomatic network to broaden that international caucus of disapproval.

We have succeeded, and of course we want more countries to join us in publicly condemning these atrocities in China. However, I do not think that anyone can reasonably doubt the commitment of the UK or the leadership that we have taken in challenging China on these issues.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.

The planned meeting with FCDO officials from this head of a regime which presides over what an independent panel has determined is genocide has caused great concern, not just to the Uighur community and its supporters but to the Hong Kong and Tibetan exile communities. In light of that, Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong made a formal submission to the Foreign Office in November about sanctions against serious violations of human rights in Hong Kong. Can the Minister assure me that there will be a rapid consideration of that report and a rapid response to it?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that there will be a rapid appraisal of, and I hope also a rapid response to, that assessment.

To correct one thing, there is no planned meeting with officials. I am not suggesting that there will or will not be meetings. I do not know. There are no plans for meetings to happen between officials and the governor. If there were meetings with the officials, it would be for the reasons that I articulated in my previous answer. However, based on everything I know—and I will correct the record if I am wrong on this—there are no planned meetings between UK government officials and the governor. I think that is what the noble Baroness said.

House adjourned at 6.21 pm.