Defence Investment Plan

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is an additional £1.5 billion, and there are also some changes with respect to the way in which there is a greater emphasis in this document on autonomy, AI and the transformation of the Armed Forces to have more new types of aircraft, vessels and capabilities. For me, that is as important as the amount of money, compared with not spending on new capabilities. But I would just say to the noble Lord that it requires difficult decisions to do that. On replacing the Type 45, we have scrapped the plans that we had in the document in favour of replacing them with new, uncrewed vessels. That requires us to make really big decisions, and there are a number of those sorts of decisions all through the document. Of course there is a debate about the amount of money, which is why I have talked about the 2027 spending review, but it is also about the type of capabilities that we need. The document shows that we are not afraid to make big decisions around that to give us the capabilities that we need in the future as well.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not clear that this is a welcome step forward, but that it cannot be the end of the story? We have to reaffirm our commitment to 3% by the end of this decade, and 3.5% by the middle of the next decade, as firm commitments of this Labour Government, and that in the period ahead we will carry out the kind of national conversation that was referred to earlier, and find a means of getting there. With due respect to noble Lords opposite, you cannot achieve this just by welfare cuts.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In terms of the spending, I have made the point about the 2027 spending review, and that the document lays out that we will come back to the 3% commitment at the 2027 spending review, and, of course, the 3.5% commitment is laid out in the document as well. That lays out what the Government’s plans are.

Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I think it is an appropriate thing to do in a week when the House has been debating the hereditary Peers Bill. He is the inheritor of one of the longest-standing peerages that there that there are, I think, but in his time here—and I have now been here for 15 years—he has made a major contribution to the House. I would just like to put that on record.

The report is right that we need a wake-up call, and I think that there are already signs in the way that Keir Starmer is responding to the crisis that that wake-up call is being heeded. I know a little bit about Ukraine. From the late 1990s to 2004, Tony Blair appointed me to head a No. 10 delegation to meet regularly, which we did every three or four months, with the Ukraine presidential Administration. I was lucky, of course, to be given lots of nice trips around that wonderful country to the Crimea, where I sat in Joe Stalin’s chair at Yalta, and to wonderful cities such as Odessa, Lviv and Kyiv itself.

It was always clear to me in those conversations that there was a great division in Ukraine between those who saw themselves as totally dependent on Russia for their security and their energy and those who wanted to become what I would call a normal European country. Of course, Blair was a very strong advocate of European enlargement, so I could readily say to them that the Labour Government of the time respected their European vocation. Indeed, when I went to Brussels with my noble friend Lord Mandelson and the trade talks started with Ukraine, one of the great things that caused the revolution on the streets in Ukraine, both in 2007 and in 2013, was the feeling that they wanted to be part of Europe, not a Soviet satellite.

I think our Prime Minister has done really well, and I am glad to see that so many people on the Opposition agree on that. There is nothing wrong in principle with President Trump’s wish for peace, and he is right, of course, that there is the most awful killing going on. Not least is the brutality of what Russia has done in Ukraine—and we should not forget this in all these discussions—particularly in taking children from Ukraine to be Russianised. That is absolutely shocking, and it should not be forgotten in any peace discussions.

The basic condition of a peace has to be that Ukraine remains a free and independent country able to pursue its European vocation and membership of the EU. Clearly, security guarantees such as NATO membership have not been ruled out, but the European arm of NATO really has to step up to the plate. That is absolutely crucial. There is, of course, no certainty that the guarantees from the US that we are seeking will actually come. Keir Starmer is doing his best. The Ukrainian President seems to think that the minerals deal, with Americans on the ground in Ukraine, will itself provide a security guarantee; I have to say that I do not agree.

We are on course for a very big need for European rearmament. I welcome the step towards 2.5%, but in my personal view that is nowhere near enough. I think that, with the Robertson review, we need to be thinking much more in terms of something like 3.5%. There is encouraging news on this today from Germany, where the likely new German coalition under Friedrich Merz has decided that all defence spending over 1% should come outside the fiscal brake that they have. I think we need to do something similar in Britain.

Britain has to be full part of this European rearmament. This is not anti-NATO; in fact, it is the only way of saving NATO, by convincing the Americans and President Trump that we are ready to stand up to the plate. But this must be done in a co-ordinated way if it is to secure efficiency and rationalisation of the way that Europe works. I am a little sceptical of talk of buying British in this context, because we have to be co-ordinated. One of the reasons that Europe is so weak is because of that lack of planning and co-ordination.

Fundamentally, what the Russians want is a defeated and demoralised Ukraine, where they can convince the people that they should elect leaders who accept Russian satellite status. That is not what we want. There has to be no Munich in Europe as a result of the present crisis.

Relations with Europe

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a huge privilege to congratulate my new colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her wonderful maiden speech. I first became aware of her when she had what I thought the most difficult job in Labour politics: leader of Islington Council in the turbulent 1980s. She next really attracted my attention in the late 2000s when, as Member of Parliament for Barking, she led a most noble and ferocious fight against the British National Party, for which she deserves great credit. Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s new chief of staff, played a helpful role, but it was the noble Baroness’s courage and defiance that won back the white working-class vote in Barking. At the same time, it is worthy of note that she was Minister for the Arts.

I also greatly admired the noble Baroness’s role on the Public Accounts Committee—even when she took on BBC pay and attacked my wife’s pay, but she was right to raise these issues. That role, of course led to her passion for tackling fraud and all the terrible things that she described so ably in her maiden speech.

Most of all, I note that, having seen off the right, the noble Baroness then saw off the far left. She once made the remark—I may be misquoting her—that whereas the rabbis had failed for years to make her a proper, proud Jew, it was Jeremy Corbyn and his acolytes on the anti-Semitic hard left who succeeded. By God, she fought hard. We would never be in this position, in government on this side of the House, if not for the courage of people like her.

I have left myself very little time to say something about Europe, but Margaret Hodge joins the House of Lords only once in her life, and I dare say we shall have many further debates on the European Union. I will make two quick points. Unless this Government build a closer relationship with the EU, Brexit will be a drag anchor on most of our ambitions: for economic growth, given that investment has flatlined since Brexit; for tackling climate change; for migration, where we need European co-operation to tackle the gangs; for defence and European rearmament given the new threats we face, with which my noble friend Lord Coaker is concerned; and for educational and cultural opportunities. A drag anchor—that is what Brexit is.

To overcome that damage, we have to do two things. First, we must start talking frankly about the damage Brexit has done. Secondly, we have to convince our European friends that we are not seeking special arrangements just for ourselves, but that there are huge benefits on both sides to much stronger mutual co-operation. If we do that, we can begin to change attitudes in this country towards wanting a close relationship with Europe.

Armed Forces

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, for his excellent starting point for this debate, which many of us on this side of the House would wholly agree with in every way. I do not have the experience of military service and defence questions that many Members of this House have, but I share the admiration that he expressed for the people in our armed services. When I was a humble adviser in No. 10, working on the defence review, Charles Guthrie, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, took me to Banja Luka in Bosnia to look at the conditions in which our people had to work. I had tremendous admiration for that. He then insisted that I go and get on board one of Admiral West’s frigates. Somehow or other, I managed to climb up a rope ladder to get on and take a look.

It was always a struggle then, in 1997 under the Blair Government, to argue for an increased defence budget. I believed then that we had to have a strong defence budget, and I believe it even more now. But there are always arguments and many other worthy claims—that we have to spend more on overseas aid, or that we have lots of child poverty and pensioner poverty to deal with. At the present conjuncture, our problem with public spending is that we face a huge demographic challenge with increased costs from pensions, health and social care, and the existential, longer-term challenge of climate change, which we have to address and will be expensive.

I must say that, in the present situation, I find all the chatter about tax cuts rather unrealistic—let us put it like that. I believe that we must have a stronger defence budget, but it will be difficult. If there is a change of Government, it will be as difficult on our side as it has been. I remember the sessions we had in No. 10 at every public spending round on what department budgets should be, and I was the only one of the political advisers in No. 10 who fought for a higher defence budget. Fortunately, I had a single ally—the Prime Minister. I hope we can get a bigger defence budget in the years ahead, but defence has to make the case for that. It has to reform where there are obvious weaknesses. We must shake up the procurement system and get on top of those problems.

Secondly, I agree totally with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, that we must have realism about what we can achieve in the world. We have to balance realism and resources in a sensible way. I am a bit sceptical about the return east of Suez: is that really where Britain should be putting its efforts? Reading the recent defence White Paper, I could not understand why we were increasing the size of our nuclear arsenal. We need a minimum deterrent—I have fought unilateralism all my life in politics—but our deterrent should be as minimal in cost as it possibly can be, yet the Government were proposing an increase in expenditure.

Here is the thing I worry about the most—I know that people have a long and noble history of Anglo-American co-operation and do not like this. I look at the opinion polls in the United States, and Biden might be 1% ahead of Trump. The prospect of another Trump presidency is very real. The prospect of a party that believes that America should become isolationist and withdraw from Europe is very real. We have to get our act together with our European partners. I know that this is difficult because of Brexit but, for me, this is an absolutely key priority in the defence field, given the situation we now face. So, yes, defence has to be a priority. It will be extremely difficult to make it one, but our future in Europe depends on it.

Estonia: UK Troop Levels

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

That is a indeed a very important component of the threat that we face. My noble friend will be aware that assisting countries to deal with cyberattacks is, again, part of our contribution to our UK and NATO commitments.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Britain has won a lot of credit in northern Europe by the commitment that we have made to Estonia? This is a very important part of our NATO commitment and in the modern Baltic states, in Poland and in the Nordic countries, this has been noted. Does she agree that it is not good optics for the UK to so drastically cut the level of its force commitment to Estonia? It is very positive that Sweden and Finland are joining NATO, but does she not agree that there is a risk that they may, in time, take over the lead in this area of commitment to defence?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The intention of Sweden and Finland to join NATO is very welcome. Anything that cements the co-ordination and collaboration of countries with like-minded principles and values in the Baltic area is to be welcomed. Our future force posture in Estonia currently comprises 994 UK personnel, but it will rise to 1,020 when the battle group rotates in March. That is in addition to the enhanced details of capability that I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

Ukraine

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I have the greatest admiration for the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I am afraid he was not here for the start of the debate. On this occasion, I have to ask him to hold his question for another time.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, on this of all days it is a very good thing that we are able to express our national unity behind the Government’s stance on Ukraine. I thank the Minister for the very detailed way in which she tried to answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Coaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

I have two questions. One relates to the inevitable problem of money and the Treasury. Has the MoD concluded its discussions and negotiations with the Treasury on how the armaments that we have sent to Ukraine will be replaced and on what timescale? Do we know that our defences will not be weakened as a result of what we have done? Is there a commitment on the part of the Treasury—especially given the Statement coming up in 10 days’ time or so—to replace all the kit and armaments that have been sent there? When is that happening?

My second point is not an MoD issue. Is the noble Baroness aware of what steps have been taken across Europe with our European friends and allies, and by us, to assist the Ukrainians practically with keeping their critical infrastructure, particularly their power infrastructure, going throughout the winter? I happen to have been in Ukraine in winter and it is a pretty horrific prospect if they are unable to heat people’s homes. What practical steps have been taken to help them counter the threat from Iranian drones?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In relation to what has been supplied and how we pay when we come to replenish it, the MoD has proceeded on the basis that it will be paid for by the Treasury. That has been a negotiated position and it is one I would expect to be obtempered and to continue.

On Ukraine’s infrastructure, I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, some of what the UK was trying to do. As I observed earlier this week, the EU has shown commendable willingness to group together to support the endeavour, discussing with friends and allies how we best make an impact on supporting Ukraine. I reassure the noble Lord that the UK is working closely with the EU on providing Ukraine with military equipment, cyber resilience and humanitarian and economic support—not least with sanctions, energy resilience and countering Russian disinformation. There is work going on. It is perhaps a broader issue than for the MoD, and I am sure it is one that my noble friend Lord Ahmad would be very pleased to take up with the noble Lord.

France: AUKUS

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for affirming the strategic importance of AUKUS, echoing what the noble Lord, Lord West, said. The tripartite collaboration has been formed for a specific purpose and change in that respect is not envisaged. But my noble friend is absolutely right to recognise that AUKUS complements and enhances other relationships in the region, such as the Quad, Five Eyes or the FPDA, and that reflects both NATO’s approach and the EU Indo-Pacific strategy.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, do the Government recognise that France is not only a close neighbour but also one of the few countries in the world that shares our fundamental values and interests? I support AUKUS, but was it not a great shame that no effort was made to bring France into the AUKUS conversation? Should not the Prime Minister have immediately reacted to the hurt feelings of the French by having a conversation with President Macron to see how the relationship can be put on a sound footing again?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I simply respond to the noble Lord by observing that the instigator of this new arrangement was actually Australia: it was Australia that decided that it wished to change its model of submarine. That is why it approached both the United Kingdom and the United States. As the noble Lord will understand, there are clearly issues of profound commercial sensitivity inherent within that, and that inhibited our ability to be more public or widespread in our consultations.

Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The last point the noble Lord alluded to is very important. Yes, I agree, and we hope that that indeed will be the consequence of the application of this strategy in practice.

On the other issues to which the noble Lord referred, again, early, close engagement between MoD and industry will go a long way to achieving the clarification he seeks. Certainly, introducing intellectual property strategies into the MoD’s acquisition processes for defence programmes to better incentivise and manage risk will also go a long way towards addressing some of the points he raises.

[Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the integrated review and the defence papers that have come from it; that shows a willingness to engage in long-term thinking. My concern is that the emphasis on sovereign capability comes up against our long history of overspending on defence procurement and the difficulty of controlling programmes. What is the Government’s attitude towards common European defence procurement as a means of securing greater cost-efficiency? Why is it that in Europe we are ending up with two separate attempts to produce a next-generation future combat air system? Would it not make more sense to go for a single common approach? In the past, the financial viability of UK defence business has often been secured by arms sales. Do the Government recognise that in future, this is likely to come up against lots of ethical foreign policy and human rights concerns?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The strategy lays out a clear basis for how we will engage not just with our companies at home but with potential suppliers abroad. At the end of the day, we want a quality product providing what our Armed Forces need at a price fair to the taxpayer. Internally, we will be very clear about the pricing structures for these products. Equally, we are very clear that, if we are going abroad or dealing with an international provider, we will monitor and scrutinise that closely. We will be guided on a case-by-case basis as to what we need, who best can provide it and whether it needs to be regarded as a strategic imperative or to have operational independence, in which case it will almost certainly be with a UK provider.

British Armed Forces: Global Britain

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we have a disgracefully short time in which to debate a vital topic. I agree with virtually everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said in his introduction. My fear is that the promotion of global Britain gives us back the idea that we are somehow a global great power. We have to recognise that we are not. We should not go back to the decision to withdraw east of Suez that we took in 1968. We have plenty of interests in Europe and its neighbourhood, where we have to play a vital role, given the Balkan tinderbox, the dangers of Russian revanchism, tensions in the Mediterranean and the north African problems to which other noble Lords have referred. We must avoid overreach. I support a stronger defence budget, but we must not imagine that we are what we were.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I put on record my appreciation of the wonderful valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Liddle]

I am so sorry—of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. Hers has been a wonderful life of public service. I also express my appreciation of the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Jowell, which I thought was inspirational.

This debate is about Britain’s role in the world. There is a real question mark about what that would be in the event of a Brexit vote. It is a question that the Brexiteers are extremely reluctant to address, for a very good reason. Since the 1960s there has been a remarkable consensus among the political leadership in Britain that our national strategy—not any party strategy but our national strategy—is based on our membership of the European Union. Every Prime Minister since Harold Macmillan has thought that. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought that while they held the office, as has every Foreign Secretary. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Owen, used to think that when he was Foreign Secretary—although he is entitled now to what I regard as his very idiosyncratic opinions.

There has been this remarkable consensus, which has rested on two pillars: first, the economic judgment that it was right to put Europe at the centre of our trading and economic relationships, and, secondly, that Europe is an essential foundation of our security and political influence. On the economy, we have benefited enormously in the past half century from our membership of the EU. The City has become the financial centre of the European single market. That is a huge achievement. Also, the inward investment that we have obtained as a result of being in the single market has done so much to revive Britain’s moribund and badly managed industrial sector—as it was 40 or 50 years ago. I know from my part of the world how important foreign inward-investing firms are to decent jobs and wages in our country.

On political influence, while it is true that NATO won the Cold War, it is equally true that the process of European union secured peace and reconciliation in Europe—reconciliation first between France and Germany and now between Germany and Poland, uniting the once-fascist dictatorships and the once-communist autocracies in a union of democracies. It is a wonderful achievement. It must also be the case that Churchill’s vision in the 1940s at the end of the war of Britain at the centre of three circles—the empire and the Commonwealth, the Atlantic alliance, and Europe—has effectively collapsed into one central role in the European Union. It is significant that no Commonwealth Prime Minister, as far as I know, supports our exit—and, as for the Americans, it is only Donald Trump. So Europe is at the centre of our national strategy and we should not allow the Brexiteers to destroy that.

I worry that the Brexiteers’ real ambition is not just to take Britain out of the EU but to see the break-up of the EU. I thought that that theme was very strong in Michael Gove’s speech. He seemed to think that Brexit would be a signal for a kind of disintegration of the EU—a return to the 19th century Concert of Europe of independent nations. Of course, what underpinned that was vicious nationalism within countries, which led directly to the Battle of the Somme, the anniversary of which we will celebrate the weekend after our referendum vote. So let us have the confidence to reject the pessimists. Europe is at the centre of our economic and political security—and, I believe, of a decent quality of life in this country. I very much hope that we will vote to remain.