The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 13 July. “Mr Speaker, I have just returned from the NATO
summit in Vilnius, where we strengthened the NATO alliance and
confirmed Britain’s place at its heart. Faced with a more volatile
and dangerous world, a mechanised war in Europe and increasing
aggression from authoritarian states, we must show those who would
challenge our security and prosperity that NATO is united, that it
is ready for this new...Request free
trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Thursday 13 July.
“Mr Speaker, I have just returned from the NATO summit in
Vilnius, where we strengthened the NATO alliance and confirmed
Britain’s place at its heart. Faced with a more volatile and
dangerous world, a mechanised war in Europe and increasing
aggression from authoritarian states, we must show those who
would challenge our security and prosperity that NATO is united,
that it is ready for this new era and that it will remain the
most successful alliance in history.
Together with our allies, that is exactly what we did, in three
specific ways. First, we acted decisively to strengthen the
alliance. We agreed the most fundamental transformation of NATO’s
readiness since the Cold War. That includes comprehensive
war-fighting plans to defend the UK and its allies, scaled-up
defence production to boost our stockpiles, which will benefit
British industry and jobs, and increased defence spending. All
allies made
‘an enduring commitment to invest at least 2%’
of GDP.
The Vilnius summit also saw NATO’s membership expand. We welcomed
Finland to the table as a NATO member and ensured that Sweden
will follow close behind. The historic decision of our Finnish
and Swedish friends to join NATO would have been almost
unthinkable just a year and a half ago, but Putin’s aggression
made it almost inevitable. Where he sought to make us weaker, he
has achieved the opposite. We are stronger than ever with these
new allies by our side.
Secondly, we acted to increase our support for Ukraine. Let us
never forget what Ukraine is going through. Over 500 days of war,
Ukrainians have experienced untold suffering, the likes of which
no NATO country has suffered since its inception. I know the
whole House will join me in paying tribute to the Ukrainian
people and their incredible spirit and fortitude. They are still
standing strong and defiant, and the counter- offensive is making
progress. In the last few weeks, they have taken back more ground
than Russia has taken in the last year. We are standing with
them, and allies are doubling down in their support.
This is not just about NATO. At the Munich Security Conference in
February, I called for long-term security arrangements to protect
Ukraine, re-establish deterrence in Europe and break the cycle of
Russian violence. And now allies have delivered. Yesterday, the
G7 leaders came together to sign the joint declaration of support
for Ukraine, agreeing to provide the long-term bilateral security
commitments that Ukraine needs and deserves. Those commitments
mark a new high point in international support for Ukraine, and
more allies will be signing up to add their support. But let me
be clear: that is not a substitute for NATO membership.
We took a big step in Vilnius towards bringing Ukraine into the
alliance. The summit communiqué echoed the UK’s long-held
position that
‘Ukraine’s future is in NATO’.
Of course, there is more work to be done, but we have shortened
Ukraine’s path to membership, removing the need for a membership
action plan, and holding the first meeting of the NATO-Ukraine
Council with President Zelensky sitting at the table, by our
side, as an equal. As President Zelensky said, the summit was
‘a very much needed and meaningful success for Ukraine’.
Thirdly, we showed in Vilnius that the UK remains a driving force
behind this alliance. As I have told the House before, those who
run down this country and its place on the world stage could not
be more wrong. In my bilateral meetings and the wider NATO
sessions, I was struck again and again by how valued our
contribution is. The British people should know that and they
should be proud. The United Kingdom is, and will remain, one of
the world’s leading defence powers. We are the leading European
contributor to NATO. We were one of the first to hit the 2%
target for defence spending, and we are going further. Earlier
this year, I announced a significant uplift of an extra £5
billion over the next two years, immediately increasing our
defence budget to around 2.25% of GDP, on our way to delivering
our new ambition of 2.5% and ensuring that our incredible Armed
Forces can continue to keep us safe.
Right now, RAF jets are patrolling NATO’s eastern flank, our
troops are on the ground in Estonia and Poland as part of NATO’s
enhanced forward presence, and the Royal Navy is patrolling the
seas, providing a quarter of the alliance’s maritime capability.
We are one of the only countries that contribute to every NATO
mission, and we will keep playing our part as a leading nation in
the Joint Expeditionary Force. We are building deep partnerships
such as AUKUS and the global combat air programme. We are using
our leadership in technology to keep NATO at the cutting edge,
hosting the European headquarters of the defence innovation
accelerator and holding the first global summit on artificial
intelligence safety in the UK later this year. We are also
leading the debate on tackling emerging security threats,
including the migration crisis. I have called on NATO to play a
stronger supporting role here, helping southern allies to build
their capabilities.
That leadership in defence and security is matched by our
diplomacy, strengthening our relationships around the world. In
just the last few months, we have concluded negotiations on the
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific
Partnership and have signed critical minerals partnerships with
Canada and Australia, a semiconductor partnership with Japan, and
the Atlantic declaration with the United States—a new kind of
economic partnership in a more contested world.
There is no better example of our ability to bring all those
elements together and lead on the world stage than our response
to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Our diplomats have led the
unprecedented effort to co-ordinate sanctions against Russia’s
economy. Last month, we hosted the Ukraine Recovery Conference,
raising over $60 billion to help rebuild Ukraine’s economy and
bringing in the private sector to help unlock its economic
potential.
As the House knows, we have backed Ukraine’s fight for its
freedom and sovereignty since the start. We were the first
country in the world to train Ukrainian troops, the first in
Europe to provide lethal weapons, the first to commit tanks and
the first to provide long-range missiles. Now, we are at the
forefront of the coalition to equip the Ukrainian air force, with
Ukrainian pilots starting their training here in just a few
weeks’ time.
We do all of this because it is right, because it protects our
values and our interests, because it keeps our people and our
allies safe, and because, quite simply, it is who we are as a
country. We were there at the start of the NATO alliance, and
this week we have shown once again that we remain at its heart,
leading it into the future. I commend this Statement to the
House.”
20:04:00
The Lord Privy Seal () (Con)
My Lord, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement
made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the
other place.
(Lab)
Does the Minister need to read it?
(Con)
Well, I was asked to read it, but I am in the hands of the
House.
(Lab)
I do not think it is necessary.
(Con)
If the House does not wish me to repeat it, I will not.
(Lab)
I thank the noble Lord very much. It was taken a few days ago,
and we have all had the opportunity to read it. I do not wish to
show any disrespect, but I hope we can focus on the questions on
the Statement.
The summit in Vilnius was a display of NATO’s unity, and an
extension of the principles which Ernest Bevin, of course, signed
up to in 1949. He was one of the finest Foreign Secretaries the
UK has had and, of course, one of the greatest trade union
officials, which I know the Leader will be impressed by. Noble
Lords on these Benches, and indeed across the House, will always
remain committed to those unshakeable values of the North
Atlantic Treaty.
I welcome the progress made in strengthening the alliance. The
country which President Biden referred to as the “light of
Lithuania” provided a symbolic backdrop for the meeting, and a
reminder that Europe’s freedom can never be taken as a given. As
the Prime Minister said, the world has been made a more dangerous
place by authoritarian aggression. It is only right that we
respond by building NATO’s readiness. I therefore very much
welcome the agreements made last week.
In particular, I draw attention to Finland’s accession, and the
hope that others will soon follow. These are historic decisions,
which will bring strong and valuable additions to the group. NATO
chief Jens Stoltenberg described President Erdoğan’s agreement to
Sweden’s accession as a “historic step”, but stressed that a
clear date could not be given for when it would join the military
alliance, as this relied on the Turkish Parliament. I hope the
Lord Privy Seal will be able to give us an update on Turkey’s
position, and what timeframes the Government anticipate for
accession to take place.
By welcoming allies into the NATO fold, we are strengthening the
collective defence of our European neighbourhood and sending a
signal that Russian aggression will be confronted. But the House
will know that membership of the alliance brings
responsibilities, and that includes a commitment to spending 2%
of GDP on defence. Seeing our NATO allies all commit to this was
heartening, but it shines a light on how our own contribution to
defence spending has fallen in the past years. The Prime
Minister’s Statement referred to the renewal of this commitment
in Vilnius, but the Lord Privy Seal will know that there is
unease on these Benches at the cuts to our Army, and our troops
lacking the equipment they need to fight and fulfil our NATO
obligations. Given that there are now 25,000 fewer full-time
troops since 2010—leaving our Army at the smallest size since the
time of Napoleon—I use this opportunity to ask the Lord Privy
Seal to encourage his Cabinet colleagues to halt these cuts and
keep Britain safe.
Today’s refreshed Defence Command Paper was an opportunity, but
as my right honourable friend said:
“Labour wanted this to be the nation’s defence plan, not the plan
of current Conservative Defence Ministers”.
He offered
“to work with the Government on a plan to make Britain secure at
home and strong abroad”.
This is no such plan.
Similarly, the Lord Privy Seal will know that our military is
only as strong as the stockpiles behind it. On the plans
announced to scale up defence production, I ask him to commit to
updating Parliament on progress towards stockpile targets, so
that the House can support the monitoring of this new
agreement.
As part of the world’s most powerful military alliance, we must
also ask questions about our collective readiness. The Statement
referred to regional war-fighting plans. Can he assure the House
that the plans will adapt to changing security threats in eastern
Europe?
I also welcome the commitment to pursue Putin for his crimes. In
addition to our membership of NATO, the Lord Privy Seal will be
aware that the United Kingdom is currently serving as president
of the UN Security Council. Given the Foreign Secretary’s
commitment to using this role to hold the Russian Government to
account, can the Lord Privy Seal provide an update on yesterday’s
high-level briefing?
For over 500 days, Ukraine has fought for its freedom, and for
ours. I want to finish by welcoming the declaration which backs
its accession to NATO. In the short period between this Statement
being made in the other place and its repeat today, the people of
Ukraine have suffered Russian drone attacks in many cities,
missile strikes in Kharkiv and shelling in Kherson and many other
places. Between the time that this House rises next week and when
it returns in September, we can all hope that the Ukrainian
counteroffensive will have progressed, but we all know that there
will be further civilian deaths at the hands of Putin’s regime.
Despite the lack of timetable for Ukraine’s accession, I hope the
Lord Privy Seal will agree that it should be a matter of when,
not if, and that we will welcome Ukraine as a full member to
NATO.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader for responding to the
Statement—and, indeed, for not repeating it.
The Vilnius summit took place at a potentially pivotal point in
the Ukrainian struggle against its Russian occupiers and clearly
demonstrated why NATO plays such a pivotal role in the security
of Europe. The Prime Minister in his Statement set out three ways
in which the alliance was being strengthened to deal with the
challenges of Ukraine and more broadly.
The first was an increased defence readiness. The Prime Minister
cited the fact that the UK was scaling up defence production to
boost our stockpiles. There have been newspaper reports in recent
days about how this is happening in respect of shells and other
ordnance, but could the noble Lord reassure the House that
stockpiles of other equipment are being replenished with equal
urgency? Strengthening of the alliance also includes its
expansion to admit Finland as a member, with Sweden closely to
follow. These are extremely welcome developments.
The second development which the Prime Minister highlighted was
the increase of support for Ukraine. We can understand why
Ukraine is so keen to join NATO at the earliest opportunity but
equally understand why that is not possible with the war still
under way. The establishment of the NATO-Ukraine Council in these
circumstances is a sensible interim structure under which
dialogue can be conducted, but as far as the UK is concerned,
could the noble Lord the Leader say whether the increase in
support which the Prime Minister mentions involves any specific
increase in military hardware support from the UK? Does he accept
that it is hardly surprising, and certainly not a reason for
censure, that the President of Ukraine is persistent in asking
for more military hardware, without which success—in what we all
accept is a must-win struggle —cannot be achieved?
The third issue stressed by the Prime Minister is that, in his
words,
“The UK remains a driving force behind this alliance”.
To support this argument, he points again to the proportion of
GDP which the UK devotes to defence. While this is clearly
greater than some of our allies, there is widespread and growing
concern about the effectiveness of this expenditure. For example,
the recent House of Commons Select Committee report on military
procurement, It is Broke—and it’s Time to Fix It, sets out a
catalogue of specific and generic failings within MoD
procurement. It says that the system suffers from “misplaced
optimism”, a shortage of legal and commercial expertise, a lack
of key skills, a habit of overspecifying, not
“sufficient emphasis on the value of time”
and
“a lack of a fixed long-term budget”.
Given that half of the defence budget is spent on the purchase of
equipment, these are fundamental problems. What are the
Government doing to reduce the waste and inefficiency in the MoD
procurement process, which could ensure that the very many calls
on the defence budget—not least the sensible calls to reverse the
manpower cuts to the Army—can be more effectively met?
The Prime Minister also boasts of our role in keeping NATO at the
cutting edge of technological developments. One way in which we
could do so is by working with European partners via the Horizon
programme. It was reported that the Prime Minister was to sign a
deal at the summit for the UK to rejoin Horizon. This did not
happen. Can the Leader say when it will happen, so that vital
scientific collaboration can resume? If, in the Government’s
view, there are arguments for not doing so, can he set out what
they are, given the unanimity of scientific support for the UK to
rejoin without further delay?
Finally, the summit communiqué discusses the partnership between
the EU and NATO. It says that this partnership also needs the
participation of non-EU allies—that is, the UK. It looks
forward
“to mutual steps, representing tangible progress”.
Do the Government agree that working with the EU on military
issues is of fundamental importance? If so, what kind of tangible
steps do they have in mind to bring this about?
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for those responses and again apologise
for volunteering to read the Statement. I had initially been told
that the usual channels had agreed to that. I obviously always
wish to be of service to the House, but we are proceeding in a
way that appears to please those present.
I was pleased by what those present said in response to the
Statement. I would not accept the characterisation of the Prime
Minister as “boastful”. He has many characteristics, but I do not
think that boastfulness is one of them.
I was asked a number of important questions. It is right that
this challenge should be here, and it is against the background
of the unswerving support that all parties in this House have
given to the Ukrainian people and the effort against Putin’s
aggression. I underline the gratitude of the Government and, I am
sure, of the whole British people, for the unanimity that has
been displayed in our Parliament and in our House, which was
displayed again today.
I was asked a number of specific questions. I agree with the
noble Lord, , that freedom can
never be taken for granted. Former President Reagan—not perhaps
one of the noble Lord’s great heroes—none the less famously said
that freedom is
“never more than one generation away from extinction”.
We must fight for it always. That is a great characteristic that
unites the three great parties represented here. The accession of
Finland was, I agree, a very important and historic event. What
an absurd effect Putin has created: by launching this unlawful
and vicious invasion, he has done something that few of us ever
thought would happen—Finland has joined NATO and Sweden possibly
will join.
On the date of the Swedish accession to NATO, as the noble Lord
knows, there have been detailed discussions with President
Erdoğan and the Turkish Government. The Prime Minister spoke to
him a number of times and there is a general agreement that NATO
will be stronger with Sweden in it. Sweden is a country with
great capabilities, technical and in defence terms.
The legal position is that President Erdoğan has said that he
will transmit accession protocols to the Grand National Assembly
of Turkey, which, following the recent election, his party
controls, as I understand it. The next step is for the protocols
to be voted through by the assembly. While I have some control
over business in your Lordships’ House through the usual
channels, it is clearly a matter for the Turkish Government and
Parliament to decide how swiftly they proceed. We obviously hope
that they will proceed swiftly. We are dependent on our allies,
and we are in no doubt that Sweden’s membership will strengthen
the NATO alliance and make us all safer, as Finland’s membership
has done.
On deterrence and defence, some scepticism was expressed about
Britain’s defence posture and our commitments on spending. The
defence Command Paper was published today, and there will be a
Statement in your Lordships’ House tomorrow, when noble Lords
will be able to probe that more deeply. I can reassure the House
that on defence our core business is to deter and defend against
all threats to our security in the modern world in the way we
regard as the most effective. That is set out in the latest
Statement.
(Con)
You only have three minutes left.
(Con)
These are questions on the Statement, rather than just the
Statement, so I thought I had more than three minutes .
(Con)
The Clock is wrong.
The Deputy Speaker () (CB)
Just to clarify, the Clock did not start correctly. I think that
it would be reasonable to say the Leader of the House has until
the clock says 15 minutes, and then we will open for 20 minutes
of Back-Bench questions.
(Con)
I thought I had more time and was therefore trying to answer the
House in some detail.
The defence White Paper sets out our posture; we can discuss that
tomorrow.
The capability and effect in numbers of the British Army has been
questioned. We are a huge contributor to NATO in its forward
presence. We will continue to do that, and £41 billion is being
invested in equipment and support projects.
On the Balkans and the eastern flank, we are already one of the
biggest contributors to NATO’s forward presence on our eastern
flank. We will work closely with Estonia and Poland to ensure
that we have the appropriate posture for the current climate.
Last year, we said that we would maintain a brigade in the UK at
high readiness. We are also watchful of the situation in the
Balkans.
I was asked about holding Russia to account for its crimes. We
have certainly been supporting efforts to ensure accountability
for the crimes committed in Ukraine. We led the state party
referral to the ICC and provided £1 million in funding to the
court. That sits alongside other efforts to find justice for
Ukraine, including the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group we
established alongside international partners in support of the
prosecution of domestic war crimes in Ukraine. We are a founding
member of the international register of damage caused by the
Russian aggression against Ukraine, and we have joined a core
group of countries to explore options to ensure criminal
accountability for the crime of aggression. We ourselves have now
sanctioned over 1,600 individuals and entities, including 130
oligarchs with a net worth estimated at over £145 billion.
Both noble Lords asked about the situation in Ukraine. We fully
support Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence, which is
enshrined in Article 51 of the UN charter. Ukraine is a sovereign
country and has a right to choose its security arrangements. Any
alliance decision on membership is solely for NATO allies and
Ukraine to make. NATO has committed to an expanded package of
practical and political support for Ukraine; the allies agreed
that Ukraine’s future is in NATO. We reaffirm the commitment that
allies made in 2008 and recognise that Ukraine’s path to full
Euro-Atlantic integration has moved beyond the need for the
membership action plan.
We have also, as the noble Lord, , referred to, established the
NATO-Ukraine Council, a new joint body inaugurated at the summit,
where allies and Ukraine sit as equals to advance political
dialogue, co-operation and Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO
membership.
The noble Lord asked about munitions: what we have and, with new
funding, whether we have the contracts in place to get new
weapons. We have enough weapons systems to defend our national
security while fulfilling our commitments to NATO and Ukraine. We
remain fully engaged with industry, allies and partners to ensure
both the continuation of supply to Ukraine and replenishment of
UK stock as quickly as possible. We have already placed a number
of substantial procurement contracts directly to replenish
munitions granted to Ukraine. The Treasury provided an extra £560
million in the Autumn Statement to increase stockpiles to above
pre-Ukraine levels. I assure the noble Lord that NATO support
will continue. We announced the gifting of 70 combat logistics
vehicles, a contract for spare parts, new training for Ukraine
Air Force fast jet pilots and so on, with many weapons
systems.
As for the EU, of course it is important that we have unfettered
collaboration between EU and non-EU partners in NATO: that is
vital for protecting long-term European security. The United
Kingdom Government agree with Secretary-General Stoltenberg’s
very sensible approach. EU defence initiatives should be coherent
with NATO requirements and should develop capabilities that are
available to NATO and open to the fullest participation of non-EU
NATO allies. On that basis, co-ordinating international efforts
through collective procurement will be very much part of our
strategy.
The Deputy Speaker () (CB)
My Lords, the Clock will now restart for the next 20 minutes.
20:26:00
(Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement. While he does not need my
congratulations, I congratulate the Prime Minister and the
Government on their work at the NATO summit, which is incredibly
important. However, where I part company with the Government and
my noble friend is that it is not enough, I am afraid. There is a
war raging in Europe; it is not enough.
When I was a boy, there were four divisions in the British Army,
with three armoured divisions sitting in Germany. We cannot find
a single full division now. Notwithstanding anything the Defence
Secretary has recently said—and, by the way, he has done very
well with Ukraine—we need more troops. We cannot cut the size of
the Armed Forces—Army, Navy and Air Force —at the same time as
this war is raging. In fact, we should never have cut them in the
first place. That is very important.
I pray in aid President Reagan, as did my noble friend. As we
recall, President Reagan spent a lot of money on a thing called
Star Wars. People said it was nonsense and that it would create
war, but, as a result of Star Wars, an arms race with the Soviet
Union took place that led to the end of the Cold War. We have to
be strong. Ask the Ukrainians and the Russians whether the number
of troops is important. Of course it is important: they are
desperate for more recruits on both sides. So I ask my noble
friend, for whom I have a great deal of time, to please mention
in Cabinet that we need more money, because this is a time of
crisis. We need more troops. I know that everybody says, “Oh, the
National Health Service is very important”, and it is, but
actually more important is that we can defend our country and our
interests abroad.
(Con)
I understand the passion with which my noble friend, with his
distinguished and courageous record of service to our country,
makes his points. The defence paper published today sets out the
rationale for the balance in forces in terms of numbers and
capabilities. Effective war fighting units must have the best
possible modern equipment. The Government announced a significant
uplift of an extra £5 billion over the next two years, which will
immediately increase our defence budget to around 2.25% of GDP,
and we are on the way to delivering our new ambition of 2.5%.
We contribute to every NATO mission and operation; we offer the
full spectrum of capabilities to the alliance; we will apportion
almost all of our Armed Forces to NATO as part of the new NATO
force model in 2024-25; we contribute more troops than any other
ally to NATO’s enhanced forward presence, with 900 troops
deployed in Estonia and a further 150 in Poland, all at high
readiness; and we will be the frame- work nation for the land
component of a new allied reaction force.
None the less, I hear what my noble friend says. The Government
are determined to have an effective and capable Army, and we will
continue to work for that end.
(LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as a member of the
British delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where, I
have no doubt, many of the issues that have been ventilated this
evening will be further discussed.
If I had to choose what I regarded as the two most significant
things as a result of Vilnius, I would be driven to accept that
these were the accession of Sweden and what looks like—I put it
no more strongly than that—an end to the intransigence of Turkey.
These are very good harbingers of the extent to which NATO
remains the bulwark of not only our defence but the defence of
the free world. For that reason, the addition of Finland and, in
due course, Sweden is more than welcome, not least because they
will make a positive contribution to the overall position of the
whole membership of the alliance.
The other point I am particularly pleased about is the joint
declaration of support for Ukraine. There was much speculation
before, during and after in relation to membership of NATO and
the extent to which that should be accelerated or, indeed, even
granted in the course of the Vilnius discussions. We should never
forget that Georgia was made the same undertaking. In all these
discussions, no one ever talks about the consequences of the
implementation of that undertaking given the fact of very
considerable Russian influence in Georgia.
I want to make a point that is not always made in relation to
membership of NATO: it is not just about military capability.
Membership of NATO involves an acceptance of democratic
principles, an acknowledgement of human rights and an absence of
corruption. Any country that seeks to join NATO and become part
of the arrangement, in particular under Article 5, is obliged to
demonstrate these principles. In the best possible analysis of
the current position, which we must make, it could hardly be said
that these matters were well and truly at the centre of
Ukraine.
The Leader of the House was sceptical about the use of language,
or criticism of the use of language. I make this point: the
Statement reads a bit like Dr Pangloss. I think the effectiveness
of the Statement on these issues would be much enhanced if it
were in much more down-to-earth language.
Finally, I am being advised that I must ask a question, and I am
about to do so: how can it be said—as the Statement says—that
there has been an increase in defence expenditure when, while
more money has been given to the budget of the Ministry of
Defence, there has been no increase in defence expenditure? What
money has been given does not to any extent deal with the issue
of inflation. Everyone knows that inflation when it comes to, for
example, the purchase of military equipment is always much
greater than elsewhere. Respectfully, returning to the point I
made a moment or two, it seems to me that a bit more realism
would carry more credibility.
(Con)
My Lords, I try not to use gung ho language. If I was guilty of
that, I apologise; it is not really my wont. I was simply trying
to give the House factual answers to some of the questions that
were asked. I appreciate what the noble Lord says about accession
and the role of both Sweden and Turkey, if Sweden becomes a
member. Both Sweden and Turkey are, in security terms,
extraordinarily important and proud nations, and we should look
on them warmly. It would be good to see that any difficulties
between those nations, such as they exist, do not continue, and
that is the augury of the NATO summit.
As for guarantees, I said in a previous answer that all agreed
that Ukraine’s future is in NATO and the proposal for a
membership action plan was dispensed with. However, the alliance
will continue its support for Ukraine in making progress on
interoperability in weapons terms, but also, as the noble Lord
implied, additional democratic and security sector reforms, on
its path towards future membership. We will be in a position to
extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the alliance when allies
agree and due conditions are met. I am confident that that will
happen.
On the security position, as I said in answer to an earlier
question, we fully support Ukraine’s inherent right to
self-defence—that is common in this House—as enshrined in Article
51 of the UN charter. There has been a broad international swathe
of support for the heroic battle of the Ukrainian people against
a grotesque breach of international law in this invasion. What
happened at the summit is that the United Kingdom, G7 allies and
Ukraine agreed a new framework for guaranteeing Ukraine’s
long-term security, delivering on an ambition that we set out
earlier this year. The joint declaration, signed by all members
of the G7, set out how the United Kingdom and its allies will
support Ukraine over the coming years to end the war and deter
and respond to any future attack. It is the first time that the
G7 has agreed to a comprehensive long-term security arrangement
of this kind with another country. That is a specific of the
commitment that is given—we are not talking about the wider ambit
that the noble Lord spoke of, but it is important none the
less.
As for support, I will not weary the House with the range of
support that is being given, but suffice to say that the
Ukrainian Government have made very clear their gratitude to the
British people—and indeed the British Government, if I may
mention that benighted authority in your Lordships’ House—for the
unswerving support we have given in matériel, diplomatic efforts
and support. That will continue and, as I said earlier, we are
beginning the next step forward: this summer we will commence an
elementary flying phase for cohorts of Ukrainian pilots in basic
training.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, NATO member states at Vilnius made an enduring
commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence spending per
annum, but that is a long-standing commitment. Although the UK
has been in the vanguard of meeting that kind of commitment—along
with the US, of course, which funds most of Europe’s
defence—sadly many European partners have fallen well short of
meeting that commitment, over many years. What pressure or
incentive is being brought to bear? I know that there are
increases in expenditure, but what can be done to ensure that our
partners meet that commitment to defence spending over the very
short-term future?
(Con)
My Lords, this is an alliance of volunteers and volunteer
nations. Of course, it is ideal that every nation should
contribute to the agreed target, and that has been reaffirmed at
the summit. I am not going to stand here and throw stones at
other nations. Putin has failed in his illegal invasion: he
thought it would divide NATO and that some of the less
enthusiastic nations might split away but, as we have discussed,
the reverse has happened.
I do not think we can talk about penalising nations that do not
reach 2%. We have made good progress in recent years, with more
countries hitting the 2% minimum. Last year, 2022, was the eighth
consecutive year of increased defence spending across Europe and
Canada. Since 2014, our European allies and Canada have spent an
additional £350,000 million—£350 billion in easy parlance—on
defence. The noble Lord is right: if we are to ensure that our
alliance is equipped to take on the challenges of the future, we
must go further. However, it is in all our interests for every
member to meet the 2% commitment; that is our plea to our allies
and partners. As far as a penalty is concerned, the penalty for
failing to fund NATO properly is our future collective security,
and I think that is recognised by all our allies.
(Con)
My Lords, some 34 years ago I was the first leader of the
European Parliament delegation to the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly. At that time, we were trying to be friends with the
Russians; indeed, a certain Mr Kelin, who is now the Russian
ambassador in London, was in Brussels representing the Russians.
We always found it difficult, but part of the difficulty was the
disunity among NATO members, which we must address. We also have
to address the fact that the Minsk process, which was supposed to
help get peace in Ukraine, failed comprehensively.
Will the Minister make it clear to the Americans that the
break-up of the Russian Federation, which is widely talked about
in some Washington circles, is not in the interests of European
security? Secondly, will he promote interoperability within NATO?
We discovered, for instance, that you could not drive one of the
British tanks in Germany through Denmark because the Danish
Parliament would not allow it and the bridges were not strong
enough. The biggest challenges facing NATO are interoperability
and the fact that, if we do not stop the guns firing, there are
far too many frozen conflicts in Europe for us to go to bed
happily. We need at some point to find a way of promoting a
ceasefire.
(Con)
My Lords, interoperability is obviously important—I agree with my
noble friend on that, at least. When I made reference to
Ukraine’s accession, I said that interoperability is important.
What we face here is the most brutal and disgraceful challenge to
the international order seen in modern times. More people have
perished in that country than in any NATO country in the post-war
era. I believe that we need to be absolutely solid in the face of
the Russian Government. They must understand that no advantage or
chink of gain will come from this aggression. I appeal to my
noble friend to play his part in that.
(Con)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, , I am a member
of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and I agree with him
completely about the importance of the accession of Finland and
Sweden to NATO. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that that
is very important, not least because one of Putin’s excuses for
invading Ukraine was that he did not want to see the expansion of
NATO, but NATO has expanded as a result of his invasion, which
will have caused him quite a bit of difficulty?
The noble Lord, , raised the issue of European
defence. It is worth making the point that NATO is an alliance;
it may well be defending Europe but it does not look mainly to EU
members to do so. It is always well worth bearing in mind that,
prior to the entry of Sweden and Finland, 80% of NATO’s
expenditure came from countries outside it. Does my noble friend
the Minister agree with Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General
of NATO, that the European initiatives to create a defence
identity will inevitably lead to duplication and unnecessary
expense?
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with everything my noble friend said. Indeed,
in an earlier answer I reported the specific comments that
Secretary-General Stoltenberg made in relation to this question
of the EU and NATO. It is fundamentally important that we are
allies, but it is equally fundamentally important that nothing
must be done that undermines or conflicts with NATO obligations
and the central role, as my noble friend said, of NATO, involving
the US and Canada, in this extraordinary commitment to the common
defence of our continent.
(Lab)
My Lords, can I say how much I and my noble friend Lord Collins
agree with the statement that the Lord Privy Seal made with
respect to our attitude to the illegal invasion of Ukraine and
Russian aggression? In his remarks, the Lord Privy Seal made a
point about how important the unity of this and the other Chamber
is in the face of that aggression. Would he congratulate the
Prime Minister on including in his Statement the comment
referencing the British public and the importance of their
continuing support for our efforts with respect to Ukraine
through NATO? Will he also ask the Prime Minister whether he can
continue to talk within NATO about the importance of
maintaining the morale and support the Ukrainian people
themselves have for the ongoing conflict they are having to
endure on our behalf?
(Con)
I am grateful for and strongly support and endorse the noble
Lord’s perceptive comments, as always. I assure him that the
Prime Minister will do both those things, internally and
externally, and will be fortified by the support of the other
great democratic parties.
(LD)
My Lords, like many people, I very much welcomed the photo of the
President of Turkey, the Prime Minister of Sweden and the
Secretary-General of NATO, but there is still another country
standing in the way of Swedish membership—Hungary—which has not
gone through the process of allowing it. One of the things that
Erdoğan did, which was quite surprising, was to tie EU membership
to the conditionality of saying yes to Sweden coming in. There
could be a real issue if Hungary did the same in terms of its own
disputes with the EU. Did the Prime Minister talk to Viktor
Orbán, and was he assured that Hungary would also allow the
accession of Sweden into NATO?
(Con)
My Lords, I do not have specifics on the Prime Minister’s
discussions. I understand what the noble Lord is saying.
Technically that is the position, but I think it is widely
understood that the expressed position of the Hungarian
Government is that they certainly would not be the last seeking
to frustrate the entry of Sweden. That is a public and clearly
established position.
|
