David Lammy responds in Parliament to the Government's statement on the Integrated Review

David Lammy MP, Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary, speaking in the House of Commons in response to the Government’s statement on the Integrated Review, said:

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

Just over a year ago, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine marked a watershed moment for European security.

In the time since, 25 NATO countries have revisited their security strategies.

Germany announced a fundamental shift in security policy.

Finland and Sweden have taken the historic decision to join NATO.

For a year, Labour have urged the government to revisit the Integrated Review.

So, this announcement today is overdue, but it is welcome.

We are living in an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, and in a multipolar world.

The interdependence of the global economy is increasingly being weaponised.

And there has been a blurring of the distinction between foreign and domestic policy.

This is a challenging moment for our security and that of our allies, and for our place in the world.

Mr Speaker, the refreshed Integrated Review, and the decisions it will inform, is therefore important to all of us.

We all have an interest in the government making the right long-term choices for our country.

And a future Labour government will inherit the consequences of those decisions.

Since the invasion, the government has had our fullest support in providing the military, economic and diplomatic support that Ukraine needs to defend itself.

But we have pressed the government where they have fallen short.

And it is in that spirit that we approach the review today.

The original Integrated Review contained plenty of analysis that was sound, and which could enjoy wide support in this House.

But it did have some serious shortcomings.

It made no mention of the risks of the Taliban taking over Kabul, just months before it happened.

Nor did it foresee the risks of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine or mention risks related to Taiwan.

It had little to say about Europe beyond NATO, and said almost nothing about the EU, which was given one substantive reference in the entire document.

In too many areas – from the fight against kleptocracy to the importance of international law - rhetoric and ambition contrasted poorly with government inaction or hypocrisy.

Significant - and regretful decisions - like the decision to cut ODA spending to 0.5% of GNI and the merger of DFID and the FCDO, were taken before the review had even concluded.

And in security and defence there was a clear mismatch between ends, ways and means.  With threats increasing and a promise of “persistent global engagement”, the government announced plans to cut another 10,000 troops, scrap Hercules planes, and drop to 148 Challenger tanks.

These are the troops now reinforcing NATO allies, the planes used in the Kabul airlift, and the tanks being sent to Ukraine.

In the two years since, in too many areas, the promises of the IR have not matched reality.

The so-called ‘Indo-Pacific tilt.’ has apparently been completed but the UK’s diplomatic presence in key countries in the region – including India and China – has been cut by up to 50 per cent over the past eight years.

The review promised to maintain the UK as one of the world’s leading development actors, but aid not just been cut from 0.7 to 0.5, it is now being used to prop up the broken asylum system.

By some estimates, less than half of bilateral development assistance ever leaves the UK.

Rather than standing up for international law, we have had Ministers coming to this chamber explaining how they plan to break it.

Successive crises – from the pandemic to war in Ukraine – have demonstrated the vulnerability of international supply chains.

But we have not seen a new diplomatic drive to reflect this shifting resourcing economy.  Britain is falling seriously behind.

US CHIPS legislation will provide $52bn in subsidies for US chip manufacturers.

The EU CHIPs Act will provide €43bn.

But the government has put aside just £700,000 to commission a research project.

And it still has not published its promised semiconductor strategy.

Today’s refresh is therefore an opportunity to address these flaws and reset the government’s approach.

The test of this integrated Review Refresh is how it contributes to making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

That is how we will judge it today.

The Government will continue to have Labour’s full support over Ukraine and to reinforce our NATO allies.

Labour’s commitment to NATO remains unshakeable and our commitment to Britain’s independent nuclear deterrence is total.

The Review’s emphasis on building partnerships and alliances is welcome after a period of drift away from multilateralism.

Britain is always a stronger and a more effective force for good when we work with others.

That’s why Labour’s foreign policy vision is for a Britain Reconnected. And I’m glad the government has been taking notes.

No where has the sense of disconnection been stronger than in our post-Brexit relationship with the EU. It is good from page 22 to see the government finally acknowledge its importance.

Labour would go further - and seek a security pact to cooperate on global challenges and keep us safe.

On China, we recognise the scale and complexity of the challenge that its rise represents and the breadth of our interests that are at stake.

The initiative to improve understanding of China in government is vital, particularly given the Foreign Office has only been training 14 people a year to speak fluent Mandarin.

We need a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach to China, working with partners and allies, and engaging with China where it is in our interests to do so.

It feels after years of inconsistent and shifting approaches this is at least something we can welcome.

It is good to see a new economic deterrence unit to help enforce sanctions, as mentioned on P48.

Because not a single individual or entity has been fined for breaching Russia sanctions since the invasion. Not one. Sanctions without enforcement are useless.

I note the plan for a new Russia strategy - but the government hasn’t yet implemented all the Russia Report’s recommendations.

On Iran, the government is right to recognise the increasing threat. So, it was disappointing that they opposed our amendment to create a new mechanism to proscribe hostile state actors, like the IRGC.

In an era of disinformation, the BBC World Service is a unique and unparalleled platform and so the additional funding is very welcome.

However, on defence spending, today’s announcement provides only funds for AUKUS and Ukraine replenishment.

While that is welcome, it does not answer growing questions concerning capability gaps that weaken our national defence and undermine the UK’s NATO contribution.  

The NAO recently said that the MOD “cannot afford to develop all the capabilities set out in the 2021 Integrated Review”. How does today’s announcement ensure the same doesn’t happen now with the new 2023 Integrated Review?

The reality is that the Government are still dragging their feet on the big decisions.

The “long term” goal to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence sounds I’m afraid like another hollow promise. There’s no plan. No timetable.

I can tell him the last time that 2.5% defence spending goal was met. It was in the last year of a Labour government. And it’s never been reached since then.

The reality is that too much of the Government’s effort is focused on undoing its own mistakes.

The Windsor Framework to fix the Protocol they negotiated.

A Franco-British summit to repair relations damaged by his predecessor’s clumsy diplomacy.

A £16.5 billion investment defence swallowed up by the blackhole in the budget they mismanaged and cut.  

Removing the Chinese state role in our nuclear power industry - after the Government invited them in, in the first place.

Trying to strengthen our leadership in international development, after the government squandered it.

Mr Speaker, the global security context is the most challenging in the post-Cold War era.

The first duty of any government is to defend the country and keep citizens safe.

That is a duty that I and the Labour Party take incredibly seriously.

It is now time for the government to fully address the gaps between strategy and implementation, between rhetoric and reality.

And make the most of our country’s enormous potential.

Britain deserves nothing less.