The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs (James Cleverly) With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
will make a statement on the 2023 integrated review refresh. I
smile because it is a genuine delight to see you back in this House
and back in your place. Two years ago, the Government’s integrated
review set out a clear strategy on how the UK would continue to
thrive in a far more competitive age. Our approach is the most
comprehensive...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs ()
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on
the 2023 integrated review refresh. I smile because it is a
genuine delight to see you back in this House and back in your
place.
Two years ago, the Government’s integrated review set out a clear
strategy on how the UK would continue to thrive in a far more
competitive age. Our approach is the most comprehensive since the
end of the cold war. It laid out how we would bring together the
combined might of every part of Government to ensure that our
country remains safe, prosperous and influential into the 2030s.
The conclusions of that review have run as a golden strategic
thread through all of our activities across defence and
deterrence, diplomacy, trade and investment, intelligence,
security, international development, and science and technology
over the past two years.
Our overall analysis was right, and our strategic ambition is on
track. On every continent of the world, the United Kingdom walks
taller today than it has done for many years. We are meeting our
obligations as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and
as a leading European ally within an expanding NATO. We have
strong relationships with our neighbours in Europe, and we will
build on the Windsor framework to invigorate those relationships
even further. We are deeply engaged in the Indo-Pacific and
active in Africa, and enjoy thriving relationships with countries
in the middle east and the Gulf.
As I am sure this House recalls, today is Commonwealth Day, and I
will be meeting my fellow Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in
London over the course of the week.
We have maintained our position as a global leader on
international development by pursuing patient, long-term
partnerships tailored to the needs of our partner countries, and
we succeed because those partnerships draw on the full range of
UK strengths and expertise, in addition to our official
development assistance. As this House will of course be aware,
the severe global turbulence forecast in the 2021 integrated
review has indeed come to pass, but events have moved at an even
quicker pace than anyone could have imagined just two years ago.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and attempts to annex
part of its sovereign territory challenge the entire
international order. Across the world, state threats have grown
and systematic competition has intensified. There is a growing
prospect of further deterioration in the coming years.
Due to the far-reaching consequences for the security and
prosperity of the British people that these changes have brought,
it is right that I update the House on what the Government are
doing to respond. In our “Integrated Review Refresh 2023”, we set
out how we respond to an even more contested and volatile world.
Rightly, our approach is an evolution, not a revolution. I know
that the House will agree that our most pressing foreign policy
priority is the threat that Russia’s full-scale invasion of
Ukraine poses for European security.
The UK has provided huge quantities of military support for
Ukraine’s defence. We led the G7 response on Ukraine,
co-ordinating diplomatic activity and working with our allies to
impose the toughest ever sanctions on Putin’s Government. Thanks
to the wisdom of this Government’s original integrated review, we
have intensified our training for thousands of brave Ukrainian
troops, who repelled Russia’s initial onslaught. That momentum
must be maintained until Ukraine prevails and the wider threat
that Russia and other states, such as Iran or North Korea, pose
to the international order with their aggression or potential
aggression is contained.
The 2023 integrated review refresh also sets out how the
Government will approach the challenges presented by China.
China’s size and significance connect it to almost every global
issue, but we cannot be blind to the increasingly aggressive
military and economic behaviour of the Chinese Communist party,
including stoking tensions across the Taiwan strait and attempts
to strong-arm partners, most recently Lithuania. We will increase
our national security protections and ensure alignment with our
core allies and a wider set of international partners. We must
build on our own and our allies’ resilience to cyber-threats,
manipulation of information, economic instability and energy
shocks so that we remain at the front of the race for
technologies such as fusion power, which will define not only the
next decade, but the rest of this century.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say
more on Government spending commitments in his Budget statement
on Wednesday, but today I can set out a number of immediate and
longer-term measures that will help us to deliver on our
priorities. We will increase defence spending by a further £5
billion over the next two years. That will bring us to around
2.25% of national income and represents significant progress in
meeting our long-term minimum defence spending target of 2.5% of
GDP. Today’s announcement of £5 billion comes on top of the
commitments made by the Chancellor in his autumn statement, on
top of the £560 million of new investments last year, and on top
of the record £20 billion uplift announced in 2020.
Later today, the Prime Minister will announce, alongside
President Biden and Prime Minister Albanese, the next steps for
AUKUS, including how we will deliver multibillion-pound
conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to
the Royal Australian Navy while setting the highest proliferation
standards.
We will provide an additional £20 million uplift to the BBC World
Service over the next two years, protecting all 42 World Service
language services.
We have established a new directorate in the Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office, incorporating the Government
information cell, to increase our capacity to assess and counter
hostile information manipulation by actors, including Russia and
China, where it affects UK interests overseas.
We will double funding for Chinese expertise and capacities in
government so that we have more Mandarin speakers and China
experts. We will create a new £1 billion integrated security fund
to deliver critical programmes at home and overseas on key
priorities such as economic and cyber-security,
counter-terrorism, and the battle to uphold and defend human
rights.
We will establish a new national protective services authority
located within MI5. It will provide UK businesses and other
organisations with immediate access to expert security advice. A
new £50 million economic deterrence initiative will strengthen
sanctions enforcement and impact, and will give us new tools to
respond to hostile acts. We will publish the UK’s first
semiconductor strategy, which will grow our domestic industry for
that vital technology, as well as an updated critical minerals
strategy.
The 2023 integrated review reconfirms that the UK will play a
leading role in upholding stability, security and the prosperity
of our continent and the Euro-Atlantic as a whole. It underlines
that this Government’s investment in our Indo-Pacific strategy is
yielding significant results across defence, diplomacy and trade.
Through those initiatives and many others that we have set out
over the past two years, the United Kingdom will out-compete
those who seek to destabilise the international order and
undermine global stability. Our approach is imbued with a spirit
of international co-operation and a pragmatic willingness to work
with any country that does not seek to undermine our way of
life.
We live in a competitive age, and the security challenges that
the British people face today are the most serious in at least a
generation. Time and again in our history, we have seen off the
competition from countries that wish to do us no good. We were
able to do so because the United Kingdom has always had more
allies, and better allies, than any of our rivals or competitors.
It will always be the policy of this Government to ensure that
that remains the case. I commend the statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
3.47pm
(Tottenham) (Lab)
It is very good to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. 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 its security
policy. Finland and Sweden have taken the historic decision to
join NATO. For a year, Labour has urged the Government to revisit
the integrated review, so this announcement is overdue but
welcome.
We are living in an era of intensifying geopolitical competition
in a multipolar world. The interdependence of the global economy
is increasingly being weaponised. 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. The refreshed integrated review, and
the decisions that it will inform, are therefore important to us
all in this House. We all have an interest in the Government
making the right long-term choices for our country.
Any future Labour Government will inherit the consequences of
those decisions. Since the invasion, the Government have had our
fullest support in providing military, economic and diplomatic
support for Ukraine 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 that could enjoy wide support in the House, but it
did have serious shortcomings. It made no mention of the risk 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 it said almost nothing about the European
Union, 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, such as that to cut official development
assistance spending to 0.5% of GNI and the merger of the
Department for International Development and the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, were taken before the review had even been
concluded.
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. Those 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 the integrated review, in too many areas
its promises 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% over the past eight years. The
review promised to maintain the UK as one of the world’s leading
development actors; however, not only has aid been cut from 0.7%
to 0.5%, but 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 United Kingdom.
Rather than standing up for international law, Ministers have
come to this Chamber to explain how they plan to break it.
Successive crises, from the pandemic to the war in Ukraine, have
demonstrated the vulnerability of international supply chains,
but we have not seen a new diplomatic drive to reflect the
shifting resourcing economy. Britain is falling seriously behind.
United States chips legislation will provide $52 billion in
subsidies for US chip manufacturers and the EU’s Chips Act will
provide €43 billion, but the Government have put aside just
£700,000 to commission a research project, and they still have
not published their promised semiconductor strategy.
Today’s refresh is an opportunity to address these flaws and
reset the Government’s approach. A test of the integrated review
is how it contributes to making Britain secure at home and strong
abroad, and that is how we will judge it.
The Government will continue to have Labour’s full support over
Ukraine and reinforcing our NATO allies. Labour’s commitment to
NATO remains unshakeable and our commitment to Britain’s
independent nuclear deterrent 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
more effective force for good when it works with others. That is
why Labour’s foreign policy vision is for a Britain reconnected.
I am glad that the Government have been taking notes.
Nowhere has the sense of disconnection been stronger than in our
post-Brexit relationship with the EU. It is good to see, on page
22, the Government finally acknowledge its importance. Labour
would go further, seeking a security pact to co-operate 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 that the Foreign Office
has been training only 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
our interests align to do so. It feels that 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 is mentioned on page 48, because not a single
individual or entity—not one—has been fined for breaching Russia
sanctions since the invasion. Sanctions without enforcement are
useless. I note the plan for a new Russia strategy, but the
Government have not yet implemented all the Russia report’s
recommendations.
On Iran, the Government are 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 such
as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
In an era of disinformation, the BBC World Service is a unique
and unparalleled platform, so the additional funding is very
welcome. However, on defence spending, today’s announcement
provides funds only for AUKUS and Ukraine replenishment. That is
why we welcome it, but it does not answer growing questions
concerning capability gaps that weaken our national defence and
undermine the UK’s NATO contribution. The National Audit Office
said recently that the Ministry of Defence
“cannot…afford to develop all the capabilities set out in the
2021 Integrated Review”.
How does today’s announcement ensure the same does not happen now
that the new 2023 integrated review has been published?
The reality is that the Government are dragging their feet on the
big decisions. The long-term goal to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence
sounds, I am afraid, a little bit like a hollow promise. There is
no plan and there is no timetable. I can tell the Secretary of
State that the last Labour Government left office with defence
spending of 2.5% intact. The reality is that too much of the
Government’s effort is focused on undoing their 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 in
defence swallowed up by a blackhole in the budget they
mismanaged; removing the Chinese state’s role in our nuclear
power industry, after the Government invited it in in the first
place; and trying to strengthen our leadership in international
development after the Government squandered it.
We welcome this refresh, but we will continue to provide robust
scrutiny where necessary to ensure that our country’s foreign
policy and defence systems are secure for the next
generation.
I am not a religious man, but I understand that there is a phrase
in the Bible about how there is more joy in heaven over a sinner
who repents, and it is really good to hear—[Interruption.] As I
say, I am not a religious man, but I am joyful that those on the
Labour Front Bench have finally, perhaps kicking and screaming,
come to such a realisation.
Let us take official development assistance. At its lowest point,
this Government are still spending a larger proportion of GDP on
ODA than at the highest point under the Labour party when it was
in government. I remember when the Russian state was instrumental
in poisoning British citizens and the leader of the Labour party
at the time was saying that we should share our intelligence with
the very state that was poisoning British people. I am now glad,
finally, to hear a commitment from the Labour Front Bench about
maintaining the nuclear deterrent and about support for NATO. It
is interesting that we are being criticised for getting defence
spending to 2.25% of GDP with a commitment to 2.5% of GDP,
because I hear no such commitment formally from the shadow
Defence team.
The simple truth of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman
made a number of points about what Labour would do differently,
and then said that, broadly, he agrees with this strategy. I am
glad that he agrees with the strategy, because we have been
working on this, we have been implementing the 2021 integrated
review and we have seen the positive impact it has had on our
relations in the Indo-Pacific. The signing of the FCAS—future
combat air systems—agreement between Italy, Japan and the United
Kingdom is testament to that, as is the fact that the carrier
strike group’s maiden voyage was to that region. The fact that we
are seen absolutely at the forefront of the international support
to Ukraine in its self-defence against Russia’s invasion is also
testament to that.
This Government will always be an internationally focused
Government. We will always make sure that we act in close concert
with our international partners and we will build greater
partnerships around the world. That is what this refresh is
about. It builds on the work of the original integrated review,
and I am very proud that we have put it in the public domain.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
It is a joy to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
I welcome much of this pragmatic refresh, and it is good to see
recommendations by the Foreign Affairs Committee embraced, such
as making resilience a key pillar, the Mandarin capability, the
criticality of critical minerals, deterrence diplomacy, and the
importance of science and technology. However, the threat of
China cannot be seen primarily as an economic one, because that
is to fail to recognise that it is trying to undermine our
security and sovereignty. The asks are: greater resolve when
dealing with transnational repression. That means shutting down
illegal Chinese police stations, and closing down the Iranian
regime’s cut-outs that are operating in London and across our
country.
I welcome the creation of the National Protective Security
Authority to tackle techno-authoritarianism, but that is support
for the private sector. I hope, therefore, that the Government
will accept my amendment on support for public sector procurement
when the Procurement Bill comes forward in a couple of weeks.
Finally, the Government rightly talk about the reconstruction of
Ukraine in the refresh. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to
using frozen central bank funds? The Government seem to claim
that we do not have the law in place to do that, or that it is
not legally tested. Tell us what law change is needed, we will
make it, and let us test it in the courts.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee highlighted a number
of important areas, and I commend her and the Committee for the
work they have done in putting forward ideas. We always take
those ideas seriously and, as she recognises, it is no accident
that some of the conversations and thinking that her Committee
has put forward are woven into this report. We always listen to
constructive feedback from colleagues, whatever side of the House
they come from.
We are conscious that the threat from Chinese activity is not
just in the economic sphere, and I assure my hon. Friend that on
our security—not just economic security —we are thinking across a
full range of threats and risks. We must also recognise that
there is the need and opportunity to engage with China in areas
where we can work more successfully. I assure her that protecting
ourselves against risks in that economic sphere will not be
limited just to the private sector—we will of course look to give
advice to the private sector, and more broadly, and I assure her
that we will continue to think across the whole range of threats
and risks.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch
and Strathspey) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, while the Deputy Speaker is still in the Chamber, may
I too welcome her back to her place? It is nice to see you here,
Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
There are clear things to welcome in the review, and I think
everyone can say that funding for the BBC World Service is a good
move. Measures to tackle and counter hostile information and
manipulation are things we should be doing, and it is good to see
them in the report. It is sensible to develop more expertise on
China, although there are gaps in the strategy. It is painfully
obvious that we need a reassessed Russia strategy, and it is
important to come forward with that in detail. Support for
Ukraine must be ongoing, and I repeat the call for frozen assets
to be used in the rebuilding process.
The Secretary of State also needs to reflect on where his golden
thread has frayed. The Government were flatfooted in the crisis
over Afghanistan, and there is still the issue of British Council
workers. What lessons have been learned for the future from that
debacle? What are his ambitions in rebuilding with the European
Union, and where is the detail on dealing with the global climate
crisis? It is barely mentioned in the documents. International
aid should not be used as a trade lever, yet that is still part
of the UK Government’s plans. Increased military spending needs
more detail. When will that come to the House? Security expert
Edward Lucas has warned:
“Britain’s military cannot sustain a global role”,
describing UK armed forces as a
“clapped-out army, serious problems with…our naval vessels, and
an air force short of planes and pilots.”
The presence of nuclear weapons in NATO countries did not deter
Putin from invading Ukraine. Why would spending more on new
nuclear be a good idea now? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that
spending in conventional areas would be better than wasting on
new nuclear, or has the £5.5 billion shambles of the Ajax tanks
procurement left the Government afraid of that kind of
investment?
On who will ultimately pay for the terrible damage across
Ukraine, it is absolutely right that the aggressor pays. We will
work closely with our international partners to make sure that
those who cause the damage repair the damage. The exact vehicle
for doing so will be discussed and decided internationally,
because it demands an international response.
On the nuclear deterrent, the hon. Gentleman has very much drawn
the wrong lessons. He says that NATO having nuclear weapons did
not prevent Russia attacking Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of
NATO and Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons arsenal. It was
Russia’s failure to abide by the commitments made in the Minsk
agreement—[Interruption.] He says it did not stop it invading
Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. I can draw him a map if
it helps. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Our nuclear deterrent
is absolutely the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence,
and the UK will always abide by its commitments to its friends
and neighbours in the region. We will ensure the standing we
currently enjoy as one of the most significant contributors to
the Euro-Atlantic defence relationship is maintained and
enhanced, in terms of both our nuclear deterrent and conventional
means.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
Defence posture matters. If we want to play a role on the
international stage, then our hard power counts. We have to be
honest. The last integrated review saw a swathe of cuts to our
land, sea and air assets, which I think many in the House hoped
would be reversed today. Page 8 of the review summarises the
threat:
“There is a growing prospect that the international security
environment will further deteriorate in the coming years, with
state threats increasing and diversifying in Europe and beyond.
The risk of escalation is greater than at any time in
decades”.
We are sliding towards a new cold war and threats are increasing,
yet here we are staying on a peacetime budget. My right hon.
Friend has two days before the Budget is announced. Please, can
we move to 2.5% of GDP now?
We committed to 2.5% of GDP as a sustainable baseline. We
announced the additional £5 billion to address the immediate
impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As I said, that is on top
of the £20 billion uplift announced in 2020 and the over half a
billion pounds of new investment announced last year. We will
continue to work with our international allies to ensure our
collective defence posture is one that genuinely deters
aggression against NATO and its member states. We have been
successful in doing that, but we will, as this document has done,
assess the likely and possible threats and make sure that our
defence posture aligns with them.
(North Durham) (Lab)
Having ambition and slogans such as “global Britain” are fine,
but without resources behind them they are pretty meaningless.
Between 2010 and 2021, the Government cut the defence budget by
16%. A £5 billion increase in the defence budget was announced
today—the Prime Minister is trumpeting it all over social
media—but the Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee, on
which I sit, that he needed 11% just to stand still. It is
interesting that he is not here to defend it. Can I ask about the
£5 billion? Is the £3 billion for the nuclear deterrent new money
or part of the existing £10 billion already put aside for the
deterrent? If that leaves £2 billion additional expenditure, that
is a long way from the Defence Secretary’s claim that we need 11%
just to stand still.
The Secretary of State for Defence was just at the Dispatch Box
welcoming the money.
Mr Jones
Where is he now?
He has gone to Japan, with which we have recently signed a
defence agreement for the next generation of fighter aircraft.
The slightly childish and raucous calls from the Opposition
Benches would have more impact if it were not for the fact that
on the Government Benches we are getting on with building those
international defence relationships that will keep us, our
neighbours and our friends right across the globe safe.
(Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on
defence, and the recommitment with our American and Australian
allies to AUKUS. Will the Secretary of State assure me that there
will be absolute alignment of our defence and foreign policy
positions, to ensure that global Britain delivers in the way that
it must for our own freedom and that of our allies?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why we have
moved to integrated reviews, recognising that defence, diplomacy,
international development and trade policy are all interwoven. To
have a truly effective international posture, all those functions
of government need to go hand in hand, in close co-ordination
with non-governmental organisations such as the BBC World
Service. That is why we had the integrated review in ’21 and the
integrated review refresh today. I assure him and the whole House
that we will continue to work in close co-ordination across
Government to deliver on it.
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
(Lab)
I welcome what I heard was the recognition that when it comes to
China we need to do far more to defend our values, while
recognising that there are global public goods that we need to
work on together, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation
in the Pacific and global development. Since the last integrated
review, the so-called “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific has entailed £3
million extra in FCDO staff, three extra British high
commissioners in the Pacific, two extra warships and less than 1%
of the MOD headcount. That it not a tilt but a glance in the
right direction. Could the Foreign Secretary tell us how big the
package will be to finance the tilt needed to an area of £4.3
billion people?
The right hon. Gentleman seems have embedded in his question the
idea that our posture to the Indo-Pacific is a one-off event. It
is not; it is a permanent recalibration of our foreign and
defence policy. My first set of bilateral visits as Foreign
Secretary was to Japan, South Korea and Singapore. The Defence
Secretary is flying to Japan at the moment to build upon the
agreement that we have made between the UK, Italian and Japanese
Governments. We have made a long-term commitment that is being
resourced. The carrier strike group’s main voyage to the region
is building towards what is a permanent recalibration of our
international focus, to recognise that the centre of gravity of
world affairs is moving eastwards and southwards. We are
responding to that.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s crystal-clear commitment that
from 2025 we will spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence. I will be
interested to know whether Labour will match that. Part of that
spending, referred to in the document, is the AUKUS programme,
which will be a world-class collaboration between the United
States, Australia and us. Does he agree that that not only will
help deter Chinese expansionism in the Pacific, but is a perfect
example of global Britain?
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. When I was
running through the list of things that underpin our Indo-Pacific
focus, I did not mention AUKUS, because I know that the Prime
Minister will do so extensively later on today. My right hon.
Friend asked whether I think the Labour party will match that
commitment of 2.5% on defence spending. I say no, for two
reasons: first, no shadow Defence Minister has made such a
commitment; and secondly, the Labour party will not be office in
2025—we will.
(Halton) (Lab)
We have faced our most perilous moments since the second world
war and the height of the cold war, and we have seen a clear
strategy from Russia, China and Iran to undermine democracy and
western values. What we have before us today is a strategy that
does not give any sort of signal or sign to Russia, China or Iran
that we are serious about taking them on. We need to do what it
takes. The Government, and this Parliament, need to decide that
and do what it takes. Instead, what we have today is a paltry £5
billion—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence has
made it clear that he wanted £8 billion to £11 billion. Back in
November, when he was asked about inflation by the Defence
Committee, he argued for an increase of £8 billion over two
years. Here we have got £5 billion, which does not even cover the
inflationary part of the cost. It is an absolute nonsense and the
Government should be ashamed of themselves. They are letting down
this country.
I struggle to find a question among that stream of consciousness,
but the simple truth is that the Secretary of State for Defence
was at this Dispatch Box only few minutes ago welcoming this
announcement. The hon. Gentleman says £5 billion is a “paltry”
sum. I was just reminded by the Minister for Defence Procurement,
my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (), that that sum is larger than
our budget for prisons. The hon. Gentleman’s attitude towards
public money demonstrates the classic problem with the
Opposition; suggesting that £5 billion is an insignificant sum
demonstrates a blasé attitude towards public expenditure, which
is sadly the hallmark of the Opposition.
(Meriden) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the refresh, which makes the
country stronger today. Many of my constituents are concerned
about the rise of China. Does the Secretary of State agree with
me that China is one of the greatest challenges we will face in
the 21st century? Will he confirm that we must build on our
relationships in the Indo-Pacific, not just with our existing
friends, such as Australia, India and Japan, and that we must
find new friends and allies to strengthen our hand?
My hon. Friend is right that it is important for us to build on
our existing friendships and develop new ones in the Indo-Pacific
region. Those friendships and partnerships are a good thing in
and of themselves, not just in response to China’s activity. He
is also right that China has demonstrated a range of behaviours
that we oppose. I have raised those directly with representatives
of the Chinese Government, so it is right that this review looks
carefully at our relationship with China, those areas where we
need to defend ourselves and our partners, and those areas where
we need to work more closely with them.
(Angus) (SNP)
It is a fine, glossy brochure, but we have waited an awfully long
time and there is not a lot in it. The harsh realities are that
at a time when inflation is denuding the defence budget in the
way that it is, and when the Euro-Atlantic posture of the United
Kingdom needs to redouble more than ever, the United Kingdom has
committed itself to the Indo-Pacific. We have a war in mainland
Europe and the response is £5 billion. It is not serious,
especially not when £2 billion of that is to replenish stocks,
which is non-discretionary so not a policy position, and the
other £3 billion is for nuclear. Why is there always money for
nuclear?
I will tell the hon. Gentleman why there is always money for the
foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence posture; it is
because it is the foundation stone of the Euro-Atlantic defence
posture. When he starts to talk about expenditure on the armed
forces, my heart goes out to those brave men and women in our
British armed forces stationed in Scotland, who pay more tax than
any other members of the armed forces in the country.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
I very much welcome the review that my right hon. Friend has
announced today. He spoke about the relevance of the critical
minerals strategy. May I highlight something for him to take back
to other Departments that work alongside his? We all recognise
the lessons to be learned from our reliance on Russian minerals,
and how we have had to change that, but 95% of the elements used
in renewable energy—solar panels or whatever—are processed in
China. We cannot escape the science, but we can ask other
Departments to diversify how we do renewables. Will my right hon.
Friend take back to other Departments the message that we need to
look at investing in and working on things like hydrogen
combustion, so that we are not entirely reliant on minerals
coming out of China?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Russia’s use of energy
supplies is a tool of coercion—that is something that we have
witnessed. We must ensure that we do two things. First, we must
wean ourselves off our global addiction to hydrocarbon energy,
for the reasons that we have seen. Secondly, we must ensure that,
in doing so, we do not inadvertently create a dependency on any
one other country, particularly China. Our critical minerals
strategy will bear that in mind. It is clear from conversations I
have had—for example with leaders of the countries in Africa from
which these minerals are mined and shipped to China for
processing—that it would be better for them, for us and for the
world if more of that processing were done on the continent of
extraction rather than on the other side of the world.
(Halifax) (Lab)
The integrated review refresh recognises the challenge from Iran,
which has been behind 15 kidnap and assassination attempts in the
UK since January last year. The Foreign Office is widely
understood to be blocking attempts to proscribe the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm
whether that is true? Given the seriousness of the threat, can he
explain why we have not yet proscribed the IRGC?
We respond to the threats posed by Iran in the region, against
people in the country and internationally. The hon. Lady is right
to highlight the numerous attempts that have been made on the UK
mainland; I pay tribute to our security services and our policing
services for preventing a number of attempted attacks here. The
decision whether to sanction or proscribe is always one that we
discuss across Government. Any decisions on future designations
or sanctions will be made across Government, and I am not going
to speculate on what future actions this Government may take.
(South Dorset) (Con)
The velvet glove of diplomacy must cover the iron fist. Does my
right hon. Friend share my concern that even 2.5% of GDP on
defence will simply not be enough to give the Foreign Office the
support it needs to do its job?
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the
close working relationship between defence, diplomacy and
international development. I can assure him that the Defence
Secretary and I, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in
close co-ordination to make sure that the money we spend
defending our nation and defending our interests overseas is used
most effectively. That will always underpin the decisions that we
make. I recognise my hon. Friend’s desire for greater spending on
defence, but ultimately we need to ensure that we protect the
public purse in a way that protects our interests and values.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
The 2015 strategic defence and security review estimated that the
Dreadnought acquisition programme was
“likely to cost a total of £31 billion…including inflation”.
We have learned in the past week that the programme remains
within budget. However, the SDSR set a contingency of £10
billion. How much of that £10 billion contingency is being used
on Dreadnought? Is the £3 billion announced today for nuclear
separate from that £10 billion?
Future expenditure will be set out in more detail by my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have said, and
the ways in which the Defence Secretary will spend the money
allocated to him will be set out by Defence Ministers. I have to
say that I am still completely lost as to what the Lib Dems’
defence posture is. When I look back on our time in government
together, I certainly cannot help thinking that if we had not had
the sea anchor of the Lib Dems in coalition, we would have
progressed much more quickly in securing the defence of this
country.
(Witney) (Con)
The extra money for stockpiles and for AUKUS is indeed welcome.
The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of a challenge to the entire
international order, and when we look at just two areas of
capability in isolation—the size of the Army and the capability
of the Air Mobility Force—we have to face the unpalatable fact
that neither people nor equipment can do two things at once. Will
he be working with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that our
investment matches, and provides, the capability to be set
against the challenges of which he rightly spoke?
My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about this subject, and the
points that he has made are points to which we listen carefully.
I can only repeat that we will continue to work together closely,
as we have done for a number of years, to align our foreign
affairs and diplomacy posture—and, indeed, our international
development posture—with our defence posture to ensure that we
use most efficiently and effectively the public funds, the
taxpayers’ money, given to us by the Chancellor to protect the
British people and our friends and interests overseas.
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary referred to a further £5 billion over the
next two years, and to the commitment to spend 2.5% of UK GDP on
defence. Let me ask him, very simply, when the 2.5% commitment
will come into effect, and where that leaves the British Army.
Will there be further cuts?
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his question. The
details of how the Secretary of State for Defence will spend his
budget I will have to leave to the Secretary of State for
Defence, but the Integrated Review Refresh sets out the broad
parameters. The £5 billion brings us up to about 2.25% of GDP,
which is well on track to that 2.5% commitment. As I have said, I
will leave it to the Defence Secretary to give further details of
the nature of that expenditure and the capabilities and equipment
that it will cover.
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
I welcome some of the report, but I want to return to the issue
of China, in which, as someone who has been sanctioned, I take a
particular interest.
I have to say that I am somewhat confused about what the
Government’s position actually is. It was the Prime Minister who,
when standing for election, said:
“China…poses a systemic threat”
—there was then a backdown to “systemic challenge”—
which we would meet with “robust pragmatism”. That “robust
pragmatism” means that we have sanctioned no one in Hong Kong
while America has sanctioned 10; that we have sanctioned three
low-level officials in Xinjiang while America has sanctioned 11,
including Chen Quanguo, the architect of that terrible atrocity;
and that we did not kick out the Chinese officials who beat
people up on the streets of the UK. Now, however, I understand
that “systemic challenge” has moved on to “epoch-defining
challenge”. The document that the Prime Minister has produced
today does refer to that “epoch-defining challenge”, but then
goes on to use the words
“in the face of that threat”.
Does that now mean that China is a threat, or an epoch-defining
challenge, or a challenging Government epoch, or even none of
that?
I reassure my right hon. Friend that in every meeting I have had
with representatives of the Chinese Government, I have raised
specifically their sanctioning of him and others in this House as
being completely unacceptable behaviour. I have challenged them
on every single occasion that I have had conversations with the
Chinese Government.
I understand the desire to have a simple, short phrase or a
single word to describe our posture towards China, but with a
country as big, influential and significant as China, it is
impossible to distil it down to a simple set of words or a
phrase. That is not something we do with any other country in the
world. We recognise that international relations are more
complicated, so in the IR refresh there is more of a narrative
than a single-word description. We want to describe the areas
where we can and should work more closely with China, the areas
where we need to defend ourselves and our interests against
China, and the areas where we want to steer China into a
different course of action. So there will always be descriptors,
plural. I understand my right hon. Friend’s desire for clarity on
this, and he will see through our actions that we will respond
robustly to China when it behaves in a way that we disagree with,
but we will also attempt to steer China in a better
direction.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
Given the close way in which we have been working with our
European allies to resist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is it not
now time to seek a formal foreign policy and security partnership
with the European Union alongside our leading role in NATO?
I have just come back, at the tail and of last week, from the
UK-France summit in Paris, and our closer defence co-operation
was one of the main topics we discussed, as was our broader
co-operation with the member states of the European Union on our
collective self-defence, but ultimately NATO has shown itself to
be the most effective mechanism for the defence of the
Euro-Atlantic region. The UK has demonstrated its full commitment
to NATO, and through the announcements we have made today and the
previous announcements we have made, we will continue to be one
of the leading contributory nations to NATO. That is the primary
vehicle for our collective self-defence.
(Harwich and North Essex)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the
presentation of this paper, which shows a far greater strategic
awareness of the vulnerability that the whole of the west faces
than we would have seen in any document just a few years ago. But
is not the ghost at the feast still the money? I very much
welcome his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence, but when are
we going to see our armed forces restored to the critical mass
that is capable of deterring the kind of aggression we are seeing
in Ukraine and the kind of aggressive policies we are seeing from
China? The £5 billion announced today will patch up what we
should have been spending already, but it is not going to make a
huge difference.
My hon. Friend is right to say that all defence postures need to
be paid for, and that is why I am proud that we have the
additional £5 billion that we have announced on top of the money
previously announced in 2020. Obviously, when we are talking
about expenditure as a percentage of GDP, one of the best things
we can do is to grow the economy, which is why I full support the
Prime Minister’s priority to grow the economy so that we can have
a larger defence budget in absolute terms, because it will be a
percentage of a growing economy. I highlight the fact that that
is in stark contrast to the lack of commitment to a proportion of
defence spending from those on the Opposition Front Bench, along
with no credible plan to grow the economy. I take the point my
hon. Friend makes to heart.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, following his Department’s
devastating international aid cuts, the UK Government cannot
claim to be fully safeguarding vulnerable communities around the
world?
In absolute terms and in percentage terms, the UK is still one of
the largest—[Interruption.] In absolute terms and in percentage
terms, the UK is still one of the largest official development
assistance donating countries in the world. I can assure the hon.
Lady that, from the conversations I have with partners around the
world, they hugely value the UK’s contribution, our expertise and
the co-operation we have with them.
(Basildon and Billericay)
(Con)
Many aspects of this statement are welcome, including the
increases in our hard power and soft power capabilities, but does
the Foreign Secretary accept that one-off increases are ad hoc,
sporadic and make long-term planning difficult? What is required
is a fundamental, threat-based review backed by long-term
funding. To properly defend ourselves requires long lead-in times
across many aspects of our defence.
My hon. Friend is right. We have published the integrated review
refresh to set the framework for the risks and opportunities in
the international sphere. Of course, we need discrete responses
to one-off events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but those
are within a wider framework of international posture. The Prime
Minister has made it clear that this is part of the journey
towards our baseline of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, which is
a commitment to which we will adhere.
(Aberavon) (Lab)
Building on the question asked by the right hon. Member for
Chingford and Woodford Green ( ), does the Foreign
Secretary agree that we need an in-depth strategic audit of every
aspect of our country’s relationship with China, from defence to
diplomacy, technology, education and cyber-security? Will he
assure the House that there will be no return to the utterly
failed “golden era” strategy?
I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and
Woodford Green ( ) and the hon. Member for
Aberavon () that we are looking at how
China interacts with the British state, both at a Government
level and in other areas, including the commercial world, the
public sector and education. That is not to say that we should
never, or must never, have Chinese investment in the UK, which
would be unrealistic and counterproductive, but it must mean that
we go into whatever relationship we have with China with our eyes
open. We have to properly assess the opportunities, risks and
threats, and that needs to be done across Government. I can
reassure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that this is
exactly how we will approach our relationship with China.
(North Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the document’s strength and robustness with regards to
Russia’s threat elsewhere than Ukraine but, following my quick
reading, I am a little disappointed by how little it says about
the Arctic. More than half of Russia’s navy and all its nuclear
defence is in the Arctic, on which it has a 25,000-mile
coastline, and most of Russia’s economic wealth also comes from
the Arctic, yet only one paragraph is devoted to it. Frankly, I
think the threat is quite substantial, so I am disappointed by
the oft-repeated hope
“for the Arctic to return to being a region of high cooperation
and low tension.”
Am I right in thinking that is more of a hope than a belief that
it will actually happen?
I have had conversations with my Scandinavian, Baltic and
Canadian counterparts on the risk to the Arctic and the high
north. Obviously, in a document that we are trying to make modest
in page number but wide in aspiration, we have to be disciplined
in how much we put across. I can assure my hon. Friend that we
are very conscious of that risk. The joint expeditionary force
and my conversations with my Nordic, Baltic and Canadian
counterparts are testament to that.
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
The extra funding being made available to the BBC World Service
is particularly welcome. The World Service does an admirable job
of supplying news in a world of disinformation, so why did the
Government decide to cut its funding in the first place?
When the impacts of covid were felt across the world, every
Government of every political persuasion had to make difficult
decisions, just as we did. I am pleased that we have been able to
work with the BBC World Service to ensure it delivers its
services in the most efficient manner and that we are able to
support it with this increase in funding.
(North West Hampshire) (Con)
Given that the biggest killer of our people, the most frequent
breaches of our border and, arguably, the most significant impact
to the integrity of our economy result from the work of overseas
organised criminal gangs, why is there hardly any mention of them
in this document? Where is the resource to allow the National
Crime Agency to deal with threats that are felt on the streets of
the Secretary of State’s constituency and mine every day?
My right hon. Friend is right to say that organised criminal
gangs have an international component. This document is
predominantly but not exclusively focused on state-level threats.
However, I assure him that the role of international organised
crime gangs is very much part of our interactions with our
interlocutors internationally. We did not have the opportunity to
put every single element of what we do internationally into this
review, and of course a large of part of what he refers to lies
within the home affairs area of responsibility. However, we
liaise closely to ensure that we discuss with international
interlocutors the threat posed within the UK by international
criminality.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests.
I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary referred to today being
Commonwealth Day, but a little disappointed that there was only a
passing reference to the Commonwealth, in that he is meeting
Foreign Ministers from member states in the coming week. He was
right to highlight the growing influence of China across the
globe, which includes economic, political and security interests
among many of the 56 members of the Commonwealth. How does he
envisage the integrated review refresh in terms of Britain
developing a modern, dynamic, refreshed friendship with many of
those Commonwealth countries?
I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue.
Although we have not made many references to the Commonwealth
discretely in this review, the Commonwealth is interwoven through
much of what we do. The geographical nature of the Commonwealth
means, inevitably, that our Indo-Pacific tilt will be delivered
in partnership with Commonwealth countries, as of course AUKUS
will be with Australia. This morning, I spoke to the Singaporean
and New Zealand Foreign Ministers, and I have had meetings with
the Malaysian Foreign Minister. I assure the hon. Gentleman that
the UK wants to see the Commonwealth being a meaningful, active
and useful vehicle for the member states, particularly the small
island states that disproportionately create the membership of
the Commonwealth. I reassure him that even if this is not written
down explicitly, it is absolutely interwoven throughout this
document.
Sir (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that soft power can often be as
effective as hard power, if not more so, and that it is usually a
lot cheaper? I therefore strongly welcome the additional funding
for the BBC World Service, but will he go on to look at
strengthening the support for other soft power projections, such
as the British Council and the Chevening scholarship and Trust fellowship programmes?
I suspect that my right hon. Friend, my near neighbour in Essex,
knows that he is pushing at the most open of open doors on that.
I do not particularly like the phrase “soft power”, because it
sometimes implies a subordinate relationship to hard power. He is
right to say that the UK’s projection of soft power—I have to use
the phrase as I have not thought of anything better yet—is
incredibly powerful and cost-effective. He made the point about
Chevening, Marshall and other scholarships. All those things,
along with football, arts, theatre and so on, are incredibly
powerful and absolutely at the heart of UK foreign policy.
(Glasgow South)
(SNP)
William Gladstone’s third Midlothian speech said that good
foreign policy started with “good government at home”. We can see
that in the US with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and
the CHIPS Act, and even in the European Union being jolted into
responding with similar initiatives. But the somewhat vague
promises in the document published today of a protective security
authority, an economic deterrence initiative, a critical minerals
strategy and a UK semiconductor strategy leave me somewhat
wanting more. Can the Foreign Secretary expand on those things?
If he does not and there is no meat on the bone, we will fail to
have met the moment that the White House and the Commission in
Brussels have given us.
There is a phrase, “Always leave them wanting more.” Is that not
what they say? [Interruption.] Politics is show business for ugly
people. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will remain, as I
said in my statement, absolutely at the heart of the UK’s foreign
policy to work in partnership and with partners. We need to make
sure that we maintain our tradition as an open, free-trading
nation, working closely with those countries that share our
values and protect our interests, as we do theirs. He referred to
further iterations which I have highlighted, including
semiconductors and our critical minerals strategy. More details
will be forthcoming, and he will see that those things are
interwoven, not just through the UK foreign policy structure, but
in close co-operation with our friends and allies
internationally.
(Congleton) (Con)
A commitment to promoting freedom of religion or belief was
included in the last integrated review, and it is good to hear
from the Foreign Secretary that the approach to working on this
refresh has been one of evolution. Does he agree that the UK
continuing to take a leading role in promoting and protecting
freedom of religion or belief across the world, and working with
like-minded countries to challenge abuses, are even more
important today than they were in the 2021 review, bearing in
mind the increased abuses that are happening across the world,
not least Russia’s misuse of religion in its attacks against
Ukraine and the growing use of increasingly sophisticated
technology to control, coerce and oppress people, and restrict
their freedom of religion or belief?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area. She is
right: freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test for good
behaviours by Government. Where those freedoms are impinged, that
is typically the canary in the mine for other human rights
abuses. She is right that we highlighted that in 2021, and we
have not lost our commitment to it. This is a refresh—we did not
attempt to cover off everything that we covered in the ’21
integrated review, otherwise the document would have been too
large.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is no longer
Government policy to view the aid budget as a giant cash machine
in the sky, and does he recognise that where cuts have been made,
they have had a tangible and negative impact? Why will he not
show the same ambition to return to 0.7% gross national income
for aid spending as he is showing to get to 2.5% GNI for defence
spending?
The hon. Gentleman should listen when we make statements at the
Dispatch Box, because we have made the commitment to get back up
to 0.7%. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Airdrie and
Shotts (Ms Qaisar), we remain, both in percentage and absolute
terms, one of the largest aid donors in the world.
(Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the integrated review refresh. On China’s capabilities,
as, I think, the only Mandarin and Cantonese speaker in the
House, I encourage the Foreign Secretary to increase the number
of Great Britain-China Centre courses, both for civil servants
and for parliamentarians. On the integrated review’s assessment
of middle-ground powers of growing importance, which include the
three south-east Asian nations and ASEAN, which I serve, as he
knows, does he agree that although our national interests are not
always the same, we all share a strong interest in an open,
international order, so we should, as my right hon. Friend the
Member for Maldon (Sir ) suggested, sharply
increase FCDO Chevening scholarships, British Council
scholarships, armed forces’ course scholarships, and Westminster
Foundation for Democracy programmes in the Indo-Pacific region to
make those closer partnerships for which the review calls?
It is incumbent on us to make sure that we understand China
better. I am not fatalistic about our future relationship with
China. The job of foreign affairs and diplomacy is to try to
influence and improve. We certainly seek to influence China’s
decisions. It is clear that we need to increase the number of
people who speak Chinese and intimately understand China, which
is why we have made a commitment to do so. With regard to the
schemes that my hon. Friend highlighted, he is absolutely right
that the more people understand us well, the better.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
Some analysts believe that a war over Taiwan’s sovereignty could
occur in the second half of this decade. Although the Prime
Minister has voiced his wish over the past 24 hours to continue
to engage with China, does the Foreign Secretary agree that
conflict in that region would have devastating impacts and that
we must protect Taiwan’s rights as an independent nation?
The hon. Lady is right that a conflict across the Taiwan strait
would be disastrous not just for the region but for the global
economy, because of the interconnected supply chains that would
be at stake. The UK’s position is long standing and well versed:
we do not agree with any unilateral change of posture across the
Taiwan strait and we will continue to work to de-escalate where
there are tensions and to try to ensure peace in that region.
(Filton and Bradley Stoke)
(Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s commitment
to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP will not only help to
keep us safe, but create much more certainty for the 390,000 UK
jobs, many of them high paying and high skilled, in places such
as Filton and Bradley Stoke, which rely on our defence
spending?
We have fantastic defence industries here in the UK. I think the
reason countries are keen to work with us on projects such as
AUKUS, the future combat air system and others is that
internationally they recognise the huge value added to defence
systems by the engagement of the UK, whether at governmental
level or in the commercial sector. We value the jobs based in the
UK’s defence sector, and of course this is about preserving those
jobs, which are more geographically dispersed than in other
sectors of the UK economy. Good value, high-paid, high-skilled
jobs across the whole of the UK is something we will continue to
focus on.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement and
welcome the Government announcement regarding the increase in
defence spending—something for which I, along with many others in
this House, have been asking for years. I note that the increase
is in response to Russia and other global concerns and that the
Secretary of State in his statement referred to the increase in
cyber and technology, but it is also important to have an
increase of soldiers on the ground. Is it not possible to have
both cyber and technology, and boots on the ground?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an important point: just
because new threats have emerged, as we have seen with Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine, the old threats do not go away. We are
seeing a full-spectrum attack by Russia, including cyber-attack,
missile attack, tank attack and, sadly, first world war-style
trench warfare around Bakhmut. We have to understand that it is
not a case of either/or; it has to be both. This integrated
review refresh recognises that, and I can assure him and the
House that we will make sure we cover all the areas where we need
to defend ourselves.
(Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
(Con)
As my right hon. Friend has already said, Britain’s soft power is
a strategic asset. Does he agree that it is important for two
reasons—first, it gives us a strategic advantage in the world,
and secondly, it gives us a platform to build relationships with
allies to contain and resist the trend towards anti-democratic
and authoritarian regimes around the world?
My hon. Friend is right that the UK is proudly one of the most
significant defence contributors to NATO and, as I have said, in
absolute and percentage terms it is one of the largest aid
spenders in the world. However, the one area where we are without
risk of being contradicted is in our soft power. We recognise
that, and we will continue to invest in that and to ensure that
it is at the heart of our foreign policy.
(Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The £5 billion investment in defence spending in the upcoming
AUKUS announcement offers substantial opportunities for those
engaged in the nuclear enterprise and submarine-building
programme, but it also makes clear the challenges we are going to
face in skilling up people for that multi-generation-long
programme and getting our supply chains ready to deliver on it.
Can my right hon. Friend outline what cross-Government
discussions are taking place now to make sure we are fit for that
challenge?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not just a
cross-Government endeavour but a cross-society, multi-decade-long
endeavour, meaning that we will need people who are perhaps
currently in primary school to be developing the technical skills
that will still be needed in 20 or 30 years’ time. I suggest to
careers advisers around the country that advising boys and girls
to gravitate towards that area of work is a very good investment,
because the jobs are going to be there—they are going to be
high-paid, high-skilled jobs scattered all around the UK that are
going to be there for a very long time. My hon. Friend is right
that this needs to be a whole-of-society approach, and that is
exactly the attitude we are taking.
|
