Royal Navy: Caribbean

Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Howell of Guildford

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that our persistent presence in the Caribbean in the Atlantic patrol task force is very important and does a lot of work in supporting the overseas territories and combating the illicit drugs trade. HMS “Trent” has seized £223.4 million-worth of cocaine since 2024, making this country much safer. On American plans, the American Government will speak for themselves. As for UK involvement in those operations, as I have said, we partner in JIATF activities. We have one officer based with it for liaison purposes, but we take responsibility for our own actions.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I am not fully familiar with the full remit of the Joint Interagency Task Force South, but is it working the Commonwealth maritime co-operation agencies in the Caribbean, whose arrangements are proving increasingly interesting and useful in tracking ghost ships, illegal Russian oil ships, illegal Chinese movements and other unflagged maritime traffic? This is something we want to develop and encourage, and I hope that we are.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct. The UK has a strong and historical defence relationship with the Caribbean Commonwealth, and this is underpinned by an annual UK-Caribbean chiefs of defence conference led by the UK chief of defence. Continued UK support was demonstrated last year in Jamaica in response to Hurricane Melissa. We entirely support the need for Commonwealth co-operation. I can certainly say more about the shadow fleets and unflagged vessels, if other noble Lords want to ask me.

Economic and Taxation Policies: Jobs, Growth and Prosperity

Debate between Lord Lemos and Lord Howell of Guildford

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Saatchi, who has considerable wisdom in these affairs. The Government’s multiple dilemmas over their economic and budgetary policies are well known; they have been widely aired in the press, and many media experts and economists have declared them to be completely insoluble. One way, they say, is blocked politically, and other ways are blocked by the simple facts of arithmetic and life. There are limits to the amount of tax you can squeeze out of an economy, especially one that is not growing much, and if you borrow more, bondholders will want to be paid more interest. Incidentally, that never happened in the distant past. More recently, monetary policy and fiscal policy have become inextricably intertwined, so there appears no way out.

However, looking at Germany, for example, which has been in roughly the same situation as us, I wonder whether this whole messy scene may not be based on some false assumptions. Germany faces the same sorts of dilemmas as we do, having inevitably planned too much spending at the Covid time and when the price of gas suddenly erupted four years ago, as well as on welfare, meeting the immigration wave and now defence. So what did Germany do? It arranged to borrow another €1 trillion—that is about £900 billion—to pay for the endless and extra spending demands upon the country. Germany is doing this without blowing up its fiscal rules, which are just as tight as ours—in fact, unlike ours, in Germany they are constitutionally embedded. How on earth is Germany doing what is causing us so much difficulty?

The answer is: by building on a reputation of past iron fiscal prudence and the lessons of the 20th century, which, of course, destroyed Germany; by having a reasonably clear forward strategy and national direction on how it is going to use the extra money, which is mostly for defence and infrastructure, although there is an argument going on in Berlin about exactly how it is to be allocated; by having a political system of machinery capable of driving Germany’s plans through, all with the right mix of private enterprise resources within a government framework of determination and initiatives to meet public needs and purposes with both public and private resources; and by methods that do not swell what we used to call the PSBR, which is now called the public sector net cash requirement.

Here at home, we know that considerably greater funds could be raised through smart new ways of public and private co-operation in building and financing capital projects in areas such as health and the NHS, military projects, new development aid through World Bank bonds, and building new nuclear power stations, which can be done without a huge burden on government finances. All these would deliver what is needed in a modern society. I have heard of NHS chiefs who are seeking permission to raise billions from combining with private finance but who are being blocked by Treasury rules. It is the old story.

All in all, a picture builds up of a potentially greatly reduced burden on the public purse, borrowing, interest rates and taxpayers. That is not ideology; it is a matter of proven experience all over the world, even in the giant autocracies. Here, the intention of fiscal balance is okay, but the root trouble is the absence of smart thinking about how to combine public needs with private co-operation and resources.

Indeed, the Government have relied on their own propaganda by blaming the consequences of everything—Covid, Russia’s illegal assault on Ukraine, the lot—on their predecessors. That is political fun, but it is based on a completely false proposition and the assumption that everything would come right when Labour was elected, which, of course, has not happened. When Labour swept in, we were promised stability, but since then we have had endless instability.

Now the Prime Minister has spoken to the Health Secretary, so I am sure that everything is going to be all right, and the bond market will no doubt be very pleased to hear the news. All we can do is wish for a more honest stance before a hurricane of wishful thinking and wrong-headed policy brings our non-growth economy to a complete halt.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I remind noble Lords of the advisory speaking limit of four minutes.