Lord Fox (LD)

My Lords, this has been an important and valuable debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for his considered response. I will not try to summarise the debate, but I will make a few comments and points on it—perhaps abusing my position here. Noble Lords not on the committee may have detected the varying tones of its members, which speak to the challenge not just of chairing the sessions but of writing the report. You get a sense of that balance from the committee report, which was highlighted by some of the comments today. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, rightly pointed out the gaps in the CRaG process. Were it not for this report and the Government extending the deadline for us to have this debate, there would have been absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny of this at all. Frankly, a treaty or agreement of this nature should have more, not less. Those noble Lords not on the committee will be interested to know that the CRaG process itself is the subject of its latest inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised some important questions about Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO and the EU, which also came up later. This is a big issue. We talked a lot about NATO, but Ukraine’s potential EU relationship may be even more important because it may be more tangible. It will be interesting to see how the United Kingdom contributes to that, given our position outwith the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, set out a number of concerns around how this will go forward, which points to what I raised earlier. Many of those concerns might have been dealt with had there been more detail. I understand the Minister’s dilemma in setting out detail for 100 years, but he could have started with the first two years, or perhaps three, of that 100, and set out some milestones. There is still time for the Government to look at that and come back to Parliament to explain how we are taking this forward piece by piece. If we dissect elements of the Minister’s speech, there were milestones in it. Frankly, if they had been made available in a more palatable way when we were considering the report, some of those reservations might have been less strident. The noble Lord, Lord Marland, raised the issue of a critical minerals deal. That was spectacular by its absence in the evidence, the debate and otherwise, given the high-profile nature of this, so it remains something of an enigma. Again, there is more work to be done on how that fits into the overall frame. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, gave a tremendous strategic overview. I suggested that the strategic review had a lot of ground to cover, and I think the noble and gallant Lord really gave a sense of the huge nature of the challenge that this country, the defence establishment and the Government have to cover at least some of his six pillars, if not all of them. We absolutely need the strategic defence review, and the military industrial strategy that follows it, because we have to understand how we are going to move forward. Time is not on our side. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, clearly paid attention in his geography lesson back in the day, when he was looking at the industrial capabilities of Ukraine. It was helpful to pull us back to look at the economic value that Ukraine can generate. If there is a strong partnership, those partners will benefit from the economic power. However, I think the noble Lord’s warnings about Putin’s ambitions were starker. We should all take that seriously, and I do not think any of us trust what is going on. We must be vigilant and not start pulling back. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I do not think we should start ticking off things that should not be in a peace agreement; everything has to be on the table at this point, rather than saying, “not Ukraine” or “not this or that”. We have to be firm now because—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out—in the mind of Putin, some territory will not be sufficient until it is all territory. I do not think we should pander to that. My noble friend Lord Purvis made one of his characteristic speeches, and the history lesson was important. However, I pull out of it his reminder that we need commercial guard-rails. The report is very clear, some of your Lordships were clear and I was clear that a commercial environment is needed where British companies can safely go and collaborate with Ukrainian ones and not be fearful of their IP, money or other commercial things being stolen. If this partnership does nothing else but drive that business culture into Ukraine, it will have been a resounding success, so I endorse that. My noble friend Lord Purvis also raised the exclusivity, or otherwise, of this agreement. I think we have to assume it is not exclusive so, in some sense, what we get back will be a function of what we put in and the way we do it. He suggested that other countries will be circling, and I add to his observation that Turkey has very strong hopes on the reconstruction contracts that will come out of Ukraine eventually. They are positioning themselves very meaningfully. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is clearly very supportive of the current policies and where we are going forward, as are the Liberal Democrats. The unanimity in the approach to this is an important part of your Lordships’ House. I observe somewhat wryly that it is easier to be a hawk on the defence budget when you are on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition Benches than when you are on the other side of the Chamber. As I said, the Minister gave a strong speech; if we pick out the bones, we have got quite a lot of detail of what we asked for. He did not speak to coming back to Parliament as matters change. I am sure, however, that the Minister meant to commit to that. I am also sure, without speaking for the committee, that in the event of things happening, we will be chivvying for the opportunity to come back to that. The Minister framed this as collective security and shared interests, and that is the strength of this. Putting aside the hubris of the 100 years in the treaty title, I can understand how it sends a signal. Sometimes I think that people have to look past that at the practical and look at the next two, three, four or five years on the way to 100. However, I think we all agree that keeping Ukraine strong has to be a priority, because it is only from a position of strength, or relative strength, that we can move in the right direction. In closing, I thank fellow members of the committee, the secretariat of the International Agreements Committee, our expert advisers and all those who gave evidence in the short time we had available. Once again, I thank all contributors to this debate, and I beg to move.