Integrated Review Refresh Statement The following Statement was
made in the House of Commons on Monday 13 March. “With permission,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on the 2023
integrated review refresh. 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...Request free trial
Integrated Review
Refresh
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Monday 13 March.
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement
on the 2023 integrated review refresh.
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 honourable 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, counterterrorism,
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 outcompete 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.”
19:27:00
(Lab)
My Lords, it has been a year since Labour urged the Government to
revisit the integrated review, so yesterday’s announcement was
overdue but is welcome. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had a
huge impact on European security. Of course, I add at this point
that the Government have our fullest support in providing the
military, economic and diplomatic support that Ukraine needs to
defend itself.
The original integrated review did not really match the 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, but aid has not just
been cut from 0.7% to 0.5% but is now being used to prop up the
broken asylum system.
Britain is always a stronger and more effective force for good
when we work with others. I am therefore pleased that the refresh
recognises the need for changes to the multilateral system,
specifically with reference to the UN Security Council and
additional members. Do the Government also support wider reform
for the Security Council, such as offering non-permanent members
roles as deputy penholders?
It is also good to see the Government finally acknowledging the
importance of our post-Brexit relationship with the EU on page
22. Labour would go further and seek a security pact to
co-operate on global challenges and keep us safe.
The initiative to improve understanding of China in the
Government is vital. We need a strong and consistent approach to
China, working with partners and allies and engaging where it is
in our interest.
I welcome the new economic deterrence unit to help enforce
sanctions. I have raised this repeatedly in this Chamber, because
sanctions without enforcement are useless. Yesterday, the Foreign
Secretary was unable to tell the chair of the Foreign Affairs
Committee why the Government have not been using frozen assets to
assist Ukraine. Now that the EU has set out a plan to repurpose
frozen assets, and Canada has passed laws to do so too, I urge
the Minister to follow their example and repurpose Russian assets
as part of the long-term recovery for Ukraine.
On Iran, the Government are also right to recognise the
increasing threats, so it was disappointing that they opposed
urging the creation of a new mechanism to proscribe hostile state
actors such as the IRGC. In Beijing on Friday, we saw the
announcement of the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In a
joint statement, the three countries said the deal was part of a
move by President Xi to secure good neighbourly relations between
Iran and Saudi Arabia. What assessment have the Government made
of this recent development?
In an era of disinformation, the BBC World Service is unique and
an unparalleled platform, so additional funding is very welcome.
However, on defence, yesterday’s announcement provides only funds
for AUKUS and Ukraine replenishment. While that is welcome, it
does not really answer the growing questions concerning
capability gaps that weaken our national defence and undermine
the UK’s NATO contribution. We have, of course, in the refresh,
the long-term goal to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. Can the
Minister give a timetable for this?
Given that the paper refers to the importance of global food
security and nutrition in international development, I hope the
Government recognise the importance of support in Africa, where
millions are suffering from terrible malnutrition and
life-threatening hunger. I was in Kenya only a week ago and that
was pretty evident. The current situation is driven by the
region’s worst drought in 40 years, but worsened by the multitude
of other factors, as the refresh highlights. Will there be any
further announcements on funding to address this crisis?
The refresh makes no mention of the role of civil society. I hope
the Government still recognise its importance in defending human
rights.
In conclusion, as said, now is the time for the
Government fully to address the gaps between strategy and
implementation; between rhetoric and reality.
(LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the publication of the refresh of the
integrated review. Since the initial publication we have seen the
withdrawal from Afghanistan, which we believed warranted an
immediate review of the integrated review, given the significance
of the position of Afghanistan in the previous review, and
because the thread throughout the review shows the domestic
implications of the Russian aggression and the geopolitical
considerations. It is a significant piece of work and I commend
those who have put it together.
However, I have concerns about some of the rhetoric, which is not
necessarily matched by some of the concrete actions the
Government will be taking. The document is in some respects in
stark contrast to the rhetoric of the Statement. It says that
this is now the most comprehensive review since the end of the
Cold War, combining the might of every part of government with an
ambition that is “on track”. It states:
“On every continent of the world, the United Kingdom walks taller
today than it has done for many years”.
If that is the case, I am not sure what the previous government
integrated reviews were doing.
The Statement also says:
“We have maintained our position as a global leader on
international development”.
That is jarring. The Minister knows, because I have asked him
many Questions about this, that our reputation around the world
has been significantly damaged by the Government’s catastrophic
cutting of development partnership assistance. It has damaged our
soft power reputation and reduced our capacity to respond to some
of the significant implications of the Russian aggression. Some
of those implications, which directly impact on the UK’s national
security, have involved hunger and the weaponising of food and
grain, which we know impacts us. We also know that there have
been record amounts of internally displaced people in conflict
areas around the world.
It is welcome that the Statement says that there will be a new £1
billion integrated security fund, but this will be only 75% the
size of its predecessor, CSSF, which in 2020-21 was £1.26
billion, of which peacekeeping activity accounted for £376
million. This figure has now been reduced to £1 billion. I hope
the Minister will be able to give more detail on what the
integrated security fund will do and what role peacekeeping and
peacebuilding will play. I declare an interest, in that I am
involved with a number of peacebuilding charities. The previous
CSSF scored over 50% on overseas development assistance. Is the
same true of the new integrated security fund, or is it
vulnerable to the 0.5% cap?
However, the Government are right—and here I agree with the noble
Lord, Lord Collins—to take a wider view of Russian aggression and
the increasingly apparent positioning of the Communist Party of
China. I have raised on a number of occasions our unprecedented
dependency on imported goods from China. There is not much detail
on imports from China and trade in certain key sectors. I agree
with the Government that having more resilience in key economic
sectors, while maintaining diplomatic partnership with China, is
important.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us more detail on
technological competition, which I think is an issue worth
pursuing. The integrated review refresh cites the multi-billion
dollar US CHIPS and Science Act and the European Chips Act. In
the future we are likely to see a technology and semiconductor
strategy, but we have yet to see what legislative action will
result from that. One element was the calling in of the ownership
of Newport Wafer Fab. When the Government made that decision, I
asked the noble Lord, , then in BEIS, what
implications that would have for other parts of the UK’s
technology sector and key industries that could be vulnerable to
Chinese intellectual property or strategic competition. He said
that there were no wider consequences. I disagree. I understand
that the semiconductor strategy will no longer be dealt with by
the business department but will be a Cabinet Office
responsibility. Will the Minister clarify who will own this
strategy? Will it be co-ordinated through a national security
committee or the Cabinet Office?
There are other areas where we will be moving away from
dependency on imported goods from China. It is worth reminding
the House that we have a trade deficit with China of just short
of £40 billion. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, indicated, there
is also now the situation with Iran. The announcement of a £20
million uplift for the BBC World Service is welcome. Will that
include a direct commitment to maintain the BBC Persian radio
service? I have had correspondence with the BBC since the
government announcement, and I am not clear whether BBC Persian
will be sustained as part of the £20 million uplift. If the
Minister could clarify that point, it would be very helpful.
I welcome that the FCDO will now have a government information
cell, as the Statement says,
“to increase our capacity to assess and counter hostile
information manipulation by … Russia and China”.
What will that be doing that is different from what was in place
beforehand? The Government are now saying they will double
funding for China expertise and capabilities. As I am a former
member of the International Relations and Defence Select
Committee of this House, I know the Government stated that they
had already provided extra support and capability on China’s
language and expertise, so what extra will we now have that we
did not have before?
I welcome the economic deterrence initiative for strengthening
the sanctions enforcement impact. What is the Government’s
position with regard to seizing Russian assets that had
previously simply been frozen? It may be part of the economic
crime Bill and we will be looking at that, but over £18 billion
of Russian assets are now frozen. What is the Government’s
assessment of the total scale of how much we would be able to
actively seize that would be able to be diverted towards support
for the Ukrainian people?
My final point is that the Government have put insufficient focus
on where the geopolitical consequences of Russian aggression have
moved. It is not simply a European war; a second front has opened
in the global south and the east. We know the Russian Government
are using both the UK’s cuts for international development
assistance—as well as, regrettably, the messaging over the
Government’s new migration Bill—to act against UK interests. I
hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me and others that,
with regard to those who are seeking the UK as a place of asylum
from conflict areas from which there are currently no safe and
legal routes, we could use the basis of this integrated review
refresh to increase the number of areas from where there are safe
and legal routes, especially Iran. It makes no sense to me to
have Iran singled out in an integrated review refresh—a refresh
that is welcome—while at the same time denying a safe and legal
route for those women, and young women in particular, who will
see the UK as a refuge for asylum but for whom there is no safe
and legal route, and for anyone coming from those
conflict-afflicted areas, or those who are vulnerable to
persecution within Iran, to be deported to a third country. I
hope the Minister will be able to respond to these points.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office ( of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to respond to questions
following the Foreign Secretary’s Statement on the integrated
review refresh yesterday. As noble Lords will be aware, the IR
refresh is the culmination of work across government over recent
months. The Government have engaged with Parliament, the devolved
Governments, external experts and wider stakeholders with an
interest in our nation’s security and prosperity. At a moment of
evolving global challenges, this refresh demonstrates that the UK
is agile and ready to respond to the geopolitical issues that we
face. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, for
having made broadly the same point.
In 2021, the IR established a strong foundation for the UK’s
overarching national security and international strategy. It took
the right judgments to drive investment in collective defence and
security; to increase emphasis on domestic resilience; to
advocate a more activist problem- solving global posture; and to
prioritise strength in science and technology. However, the
review also identified that the world is becoming more contested
and volatile, and those trends have clearly intensified over the
last two years, with far-reaching consequences for the security
and prosperity of the British people. From Russia’s unprovoked
invasion of Ukraine to China’s growing economic coercion, the
reality is that the world has become a more dangerous place. This
update, IR 2023, sets out how the UK will meet that reality head
on.
IR 2023 confirms that the UK’s most pressing national security
and foreign policy priority in the short to medium term is to
address the threat posed by Russia to European security, although
I very much note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis,
about the wider implications of Russia’s activities. Our new
Russian strategy began evolving the moment that Russian troops
crossed the border into Ukraine, waging an illegal assault on a
sovereign nation and raising the spectre of war in Europe. The UK
has provided huge quantities of military support for Ukraine’s
defence, co-ordinating diplomatic activity and working with
allies to impose the toughest ever sanctions on Putin’s
Government. As we update our Russia strategy, our objective is to
continue to contain and challenge Russia’s ability and intent to
disrupt the security of the UK, the Euro-Atlantic and the wider
international order.
China too, under the Chinese Communist Party, presents an
epoch-defining challenge for the UK. It is a permanent member of
the UN Security Council and the second largest economy in the
world, so it has an impact on almost every global issue of
importance to the UK. Our approach must therefore be rooted in
our national interest, co-ordinated with like-minded partners
that are working with us to maintain an open and stable
international order. We have already taken robust action to
protect UK interests since the last review, such as new powers to
protect our critical industries under the National Security and
Investment Act, bolstering the security of our 5G network through
the telecommunications Act and training more than 170 civil
servants in Mandarin.
The refresh confirms that we will go further. We will double
funding for a Government-wide China capabilities programme,
including investing in Mandarin language training—in addition to
the numbers that I just mentioned —as well as diplomatic networks
and intelligence analysis. We will roll out a new college for
national security curriculum to boost our capability across
government. Yesterday it was announced that as part of the IR
refresh we will take action to bolster the nation’s defences as
well, with an immediate uplift in funding and a new ambition to
increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the longer term.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked for a timescale. I cannot
give him a precise timescale, but I can say that we are committed
to investing £5 billion over the next two years, which will help
to replenish our ammunition stocks, modernise our nuclear
enterprise and fund the next phase of the AUKUS partnership. As
we face the most significant conflict in Europe since the end of
World War II in an increasingly volatile world, we must ensure
that our Armed Forces are ready for anything. We will maintain
our leading position in the NATO alliance, with the new ambition,
as has already been noted, to invest 2.5% of GDP in defence.
IR 2023 also sets out how we will step up work to protect the
sectors, supply chains and technologies of strategic importance
to the UK and our allies, with the new National Protective
Security Authority providing a source of expertise and an
interface between the Government and business. We will publish a
new strategy on supply chains and imports, and we will refresh
our delivery of the UK critical minerals strategy.
Our new semiconductor strategy, which the noble Lord, Lord
Purvis, asked about, will set out plans to grow the UK
semiconductor sector and improve the resilience of our supply
chains at home and overseas. As has been noted, semiconductors
are critical to the UK’s economic and national security and
fundamental to many technologies—everything from fighter jets to
ventilators. We need to build on the UK’s strategic advantage to
secure supply and our future as a technical leader in areas like
artificial intelligence, quantum and cyber. The strategy will
focus on our existing strengths in R&D, intellectual property
and design and compound semiconductors to grow the domestic
sector. It will also increase the resilience of supply chains
against disruption.
The new economic deterrence initiative will build upon our
diplomatic and economic toolkit to respond to hostile acts by
current and future aggressors. With initial funding of up to £50
million over the next two years, the initiative will improve our
sanctions implementation and enforcement. This will maximise the
impact of our trade, transport and financial sanctions by
cracking down on sanctions evasion.
After the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions we are looking
at our wider neighbourhood, those regions where developments have
direct consequences for this country, from migration flows to
transnational security threats. Our approach in Africa, for
instance, will continue to be defined by a greater appreciation
of the perspectives of partners across the continent, focusing on
mutually beneficial development on security and defence but also
on clean infrastructure and, increasingly importantly, on climate
adaptation. We will host the next UK-Africa Investment Summit in
April 2024, bringing countries together to strengthen those
economic and trade links.
In Latin America, we are working with partners on a wide range of
issues but with a particular focus on implementation of the GBF
agreed in Montreal in December—on biodiversity, nature and
tackling climate change. Alongside that, we are continuing to up
our work on tackling organised crime. We would be supportive of
Brazil joining the UN Security Council as a permanent member, as
well as India, Japan and Germany. Development remains at the
heart of our foreign policy.
The UK is a leading global aid donor, notwithstanding the cuts we
have debated many times. The noble Lord knows I wish to see a
return to 0.7% as soon as possible. Notwithstanding that, we have
a reputation for being effective and generous; we have spent more
than £11 billion on international development assistance since
2021, including on tackling climate change and a whole range of
other issues, not least girls’ education and global health. We
remain committed to saving lives, to protecting the world’s
poorest. We continue to prioritise development in our thinking.
That was recently exemplified by the Minister for Development
becoming a permanent member of the National Security Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of other issues,
which I am going to tackle now before I move on. One of them was
in relation to the BBC World Service. We will provide £20 million
of additional funding to the service over the next two years. I
think I am answering his question in saying that that will
protect all 42 World Service language services, as well as
supporting English language broadcasting and the ongoing
counter-disinformation programme.
As in the original IR, climate is at the heart of our thematic
priorities. It is essential that the UK transitions away from
fossil fuels here if we are to meet our net-zero targets. At COP
27, we set out our intention to make the UK a clean energy
superpower. The UK has already cut emissions faster than any G20
country, with renewable sources such as wind and solar now making
up more than 40% of our supply—a fourfold increase in just 10
years. The UK was also the first major economy to sign net-zero
emissions by 2050 into law. Just last month, we created a new
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We tasked it with
securing that long-term energy security and supply, bringing down
bills and halving inflation.
IR 2023 reinforces the argument for even more investment in the
UK science and tech ecosystem while we continue to manage the
risks from rapid technological change. We will increase our
resilience for the long term by surging investment into these
areas. That is why we are committing to spending £20 billion a
year on R&D by 2024-25 and why we have reorganised government
to enable better focus and dynamism in an area that is critical
for our future prosperity and security. Two years ago, we sent a
clear message about what the UK stands for as an independent
actor on the global stage. We committed to work with our allies
and partners to shape an open, stable international order. Today,
in a more geopolitically contested and less safe world, the IR
refresh ensures that we continue that success as we continue to
prioritise the British people’s way of life.
19:52:00
(CB)
My Lords, an effective strategy requires a sensible balance
between ends, ways and means. The integrated review refresh is
certainly better than its predecessor on ends and ways. I welcome
the sharper focus on Europe and the Russian threat and the more
coherent and robust approach to China. Unfortunately, the refresh
fails signally when it comes to means. Does the Minister recall
that as recently as 2010, we were spending 2.6% of GDP on
defence? Given the accounting changes that have occurred since
then, that probably equates to something like 2.8% in our present
terms. The integrated review refresh is saying, in essence, that
we face a more dangerous world than we have seen for many a year,
and the Government’s response is a vague aspiration to increase
our defence expenditure at some indeterminate point in the future
to a level still well below that which we had in 2010. Could he
have a go at explaining the logic behind that?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is not true that these are vague aspirations. I
think I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we
are committed to investing £5 billion over the next two years to
replenish our ammunition stocks, modernise our nuclear enterprise
and fund the next phase of the AUKUS partnership. We are
committed to spending at least 2.5% of GDP in the longer term. As
I said, I cannot provide a precise timeline on that, but there is
pretty clear evidence of our intent in the commitments that have
been quantified and given a timeline.
(Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but like others, I am slightly
concerned about the gap between the rhetoric and the reality.
Successive Governments have had a habit of defining success by
financial input. Of the extra £5 billion, which I welcome, £3
billion is for nuclear—it is probably already held in the
Treasury contingency and simply being drawn forward—and £2
billion is simply replacing munitions we have given to Ukraine.
It is widely accepted that defence needs £11 billion just to
stand still. That is a £6 billion deficit, meaning that there
will have to be cuts. The reason why it is so important to know
when we will meet 2.5% is that, without knowing that date, we do
not know what needs to be cut and when. That is why we need an
answer on that.
I declare my interest as a serving member of the Army. In pillar
2—“Deter, defend and compete across all domains” —paragraph 24
has the aspiration that with our military presence in the
Baltics, we may be able to surge to a brigade; that is some 5,000
people. Ten years ago, we had 10,000 soldiers in Afghanistan.
Twenty years ago, we had a division of 20,000 in Iraq. Yet now,
we may be able to surge to a brigade in the Baltic states. If
that does not underline to my noble friend the Minister the
perilous state of our Armed Forces right now without adequate
financial investment, I do not know what does.
of Richmond Park (Con)
On the financial commitment, I will just clarify that the extra
£5 billion for defence is in addition to the overall spending
powers set out in the Autumn Statement and was agreed with the
Chancellor as part of the wider Spring Budget plans. It is not
recycled finance. In 2020, the Ministry of Defence received what
I believe was the largest sustained spending increase since the
end of the Cold War: a £24 billion uplift in cash terms. I think
the noble Lord asked whether or not some of the money being spent
in Ukraine was part of that. The extra funding that was provided
at the Budget—and I will correct the record if I am wrong—will be
in addition to the £2.3 billion of military support we have
already committed to provide to Ukraine in 2023, matching what we
spent last year.
(Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the integrated review and note that
paragraph 28 on page 28 confirms the Government’s commitment to
the fourth overarching priority of the 2022 international
development strategy, which includes supporting global health.
The Minister will be aware, as I know his department is, that
drug resistance poses an increasingly significant and global
threat to tackling global health risks of all kinds, including
TB, malaria and HIV. So, while we await the global health
framework refresh for the detail of the Government’s support for
global health, can the Minister confirm that it will include
commitments both to restore the cut in funding to Unitaid of
nearly £250 million and to follow our G7 allies—the US, Japan and
Germany—and pay in full the 29% increase in funding that the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria called for,
which will mean, in our case, making up a shortfall of £800
million?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, first, I simply reiterate that the IDS—the
international development strategy—remains our overall strategy,
and that does not change. But the changing global context means
we need to go further and faster on certain elements of it, not
least international development, and we are supercharging that
IDS. I cannot answer the question in relation to the spending
commitments. I am afraid I am going to have to put that to
colleagues in the FCDO, in whose portfolio that sits. But I
strongly agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the threat of
drug resistance. This is probably the greatest health threat we
face today. We take our eye off that very immediate, very grave
threat at our peril. I will make sure that his remarks are heard
by colleagues in the department. I also believe that on a
domestic scale we should be investing in protecting
ourselves—insulating ourselves as much as possible against the
threat of drug resistance here in the UK as we reach the end of
the pipeline of existing antibiotics, partly as a consequence of
our abuse of them.
(Lab)
My Lords, this paper is a great improvement on its predecessor. I
agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Collins and the
remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. What I fear is that,
although it recognises that Russia is the main immediate threat
we face, as the noble and gallant Lord, , says, it does not do
sufficient to make sure that we can actually face that
threat.
Is it not the case that what we need within the NATO alliance
today is a massive programme of European rearmament to deter
Russian aggression? Is it not also the case that, of the £5
billion that has been awarded in this defence review, £3 billion
will be spent, as it says in the document, on nuclear
capabilities and the AUKUS submarines—not on conventional
defence? Are we really satisfied that we are doing enough? Does
the Minister accept that deterring Russia for us, as a
medium-sized European power, must be the top priority?
of Richmond Park (Con)
Not only do I agree that it is a short and medium-term top
priority but I think that is reflected squarely in this document.
How the additional money is spent is, as noble Lords know, for
the MoD to prioritise. Whereas we are a medium-power European
economy, we invest more in our Armed Forces than almost any other
country in the world. We are a top investor.
Notwithstanding that, we are only as good as our partnerships
with allies and friends around the world. The UK has been at the
forefront of rallying a consensus against Russia’s illegal attack
on Ukraine, with some considerable success, in addition to the
direct support we have provided to Ukraine’s defence. The UK has
stepped up. I do not think we could be accused of underestimating
or underplaying the threat posed by Russia. The UK will continue
to prioritise this issue.
(GP)
My Lords, the Statement says that we
“enjoy thriving relationships with countries in the middle east
and the Gulf.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 539.]
This Statement came out just after the Times reported that there
had been 11 executions in eight days in Saudi Arabia, among them
that of Hussein Abo al-Kheir, the 57 year-old Jordanian father of
eight. A UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had called for
his release and said his case lacked “a legal basis”. It is
reported that a UK Minister met the Saudi Government the day
before the execution to call for it not to take place. I also
note that in Bahrain it was reported yesterday that four people
have been arrested over tweets, including tweets backing reform
to its parliamentary system. This is in the context of an
Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting that is going to be in Bahrain.
It has also revoked entry visas for two Human Rights Watch staff.
Does the Minister really think that this would describe a
“thriving relationship” that meets the Government’s stated
intentions of supporting human rights around the world?
I have a second question that is perhaps more to the Minister’s
taste. I am sure he has noticed that the word “climate” does not
appear anywhere in this Statement. Does he agree that, if we are
looking at the refresh of the integrated review, the extreme
events of the climate emergency over the last two years surely
should have seen a focus on the even more pressing nature of that
issue?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that a Foreign Office
Minister made representations before the execution took place. I
think it would be wrong to exaggerate the power we have as a
country; we cannot command countries not to take decisions of the
sort that Saudi Arabia took, but it is right that Foreign Office
Ministers made representations. We will always continue to do so.
It is a long-standing policy that we oppose the death
penalty.
We use every opportunity we can to promote the values we hold
dear: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and democracy. I do
not think anyone questions our commitment to those values.
Equally, we work with countries all around the world that do not
share all those values. If we were to work only with countries
whose values aligned entirely with ours, we would be pretty
isolated on the world stage. It is right that we should have a
constructive relationship. We are working closely, for instance,
with the UAE as it makes preparations for COP 28. We will be a
very strong partner to ensure that all the commitments secured at
previous COPs are followed through and strengthened at COP 28,
which is being hosted by the UAE.
On climate change, the noble Baroness is right, but this is a
refresh. It is an additional document, almost an appendix to the
IR, and does not replace it. Although there are many ways in
which the threat of our abusive relationship with the natural
world can be seen to have increased over the last two years—or at
least our understanding of the threat has—the emphasis in the IR
on the need to prioritise global environmental protection,
restoration and tackling climate change was pretty much front and
centre. Therefore, by definition, it remains front and centre.
The refresh does nothing to diminish that commitment.
(CB)
My Lords, can the Minister make a clarification? In his answer to
my question, he said that the Government had a firm commitment to
increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. The integrated
review refresh says it is an aspiration. I would be very pleased
indeed if the Minister were able to say that his remarks were the
accurate statement of the Government’s position.
of Richmond Park (Con)
I think what I said was that the firm commitment related to the
£5 billion over the next two years. Did I use the term commitment
in regard to the 2.5%?
(CB)
Yes.
of Richmond Park (Con)
In that case, it is a goal. The language that has been used is
that it is a goal to get to 2.5%, but the commitment I was
referring to is the £5 billion over the next two years.
(Lab)
My Lords, there are a number of questions that the Minister did
not answer. I hope he can get his department to write to us and
give the answers to the questions we had, particularly from the
Front Bench.
of Richmond Park (Con)
I feel I have been hurling answers across the Chamber, but
clearly I have not answered all the questions. I will go through
Hansard, and ask officials to do so as well, to make sure that
any unanswered questions are answered.
|
