The Earl of Minto (Con)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. I first pay tribute to the British service member who tragically died in a road traffic accident in Ukraine on Saturday. It is a truly saddening affair when we lose a member of our Armed Forces, and my thoughts and those of the entire House are with the family. It is welcome that the new Secretary of State has reaffirmed so convincingly the Government’s commitment to support Ukraine in its battle for the survival of its homeland. It was also welcome to see our new Prime Minister, as one of his very first acts in office, visit Ukraine and meet with President Zelensky and hand the President something of real value to his nation. I put on record my deep concern at the Russian strikes on the railway in western Ukraine over the weekend. Fortunately, the train carrying the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the current National Security Adviser, among other key diplomats, was not hit. But for Russia to potentially attempt to target serving and former senior British government officials, if indeed this was its intention, is extremely concerning. My party stands resolutely behind the Government in their continued support for Ukraine. In many ways, the Statement somehow manages to simultaneously tell us quite a lot and very little at all. It tells us a lot because we now know that the new Defence Secretary wishes to approach the job much like the last two—that is to say, he likes to talk about the nature of the threats we face as a nation but fails to realise the scale of the investment that will be required and, crucially, the pace at which that investment needs to be delivered. Indeed, the Secretary of State in his Statement said: “The threats we face are not only evolving; they are getting closer to home. Every day, the UK and our allies encounter espionage, cyber-attacks and military posturing by hostile states”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/9/26; col. 1234.] I completely agree. Threats to the United Kingdom are getting closer to home. It concerns me that, even after accurately recognising those threats, the Defence Secretary went on simply to repeat the Government’s line, emphasising how much was already being spent. That is where the Statement tells us very little. I happily concede that the Government have increased defence spending, but the scale of that increase pales in comparison to what is truly needed now; and as of yet, we are no closer to eliciting the vital detail on defence spending and the timing of the expenditure we have sought for the last two years. The Government tell us that spending will reach 2.7% next year, up from 2.3% when they entered office, but they conveniently neglect to mention that they have changed the definition of defence expenditure to include the single intelligence account. The defence investment plan was essentially unfunded, and we now know that the Chancellor is unlikely to establish the path to 3% by 2030 until the next spending review in 2027, rather than at the upcoming Autumn Budget. Now, we have a Prime Minister who has stated openly that national security “cannot come at the expense of social security”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/26; col. 1036.] This is a worryingly short-sighted statement to make at such a critical juncture. As my noble friend Lady Goldie said last week, these Benches are united in our view that national security comes above all other priorities. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s position has indeed changed or whether they do still regard national security and defence as the paramount duty of government—over and above welfare? More importantly, it is not necessarily a question of how much is spent, although that does matter, but what we are getting for that money. We have heard that the Army is being required to cut virtually all meaningful training exercises and that, in a bid to save money, the reserves are also suffering. We currently have no attack submarines available to go to sea, and it took us weeks to prepare HMS “Dragon” for operations to protect British bases in Cyprus. The decision on the number of Orca submarines to be procured has reportedly been delayed until 2028. When will the Government announce the locations and start building the six new energetics factories we were promised in the SDR? The Defence Secretary said in his Statement: “I have seen the capabilities that this country has, and they are considerable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/9/26; col. 1235.] Indeed, the Secretary of State is correct, but these capabilities are not considerable enough for the growing challenge and, I might add, they are diminishing in real terms. As an example, the renewed challenge from Argentina to British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands could, heaven forbid, mutate into an overt threat. We must ensure that we have the capabilities to respond appropriately should that situation occur. Bringing this back to Ukraine, what happens if we end up with a ceasefire, which we all hope and pray for, and British troops are committed to Ukraine? Will they be sufficiently resourced to ensure that they can fight to the best of their abilities? I know there is deep concern around the answer to that question. Finally, the new Secretary of State said that “there is an enormous amount of consensus and national unity when it comes to defence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/9/26; col. 1234.] May I gently say to the Minister here that that is not entirely correct? There is indeed absolute consensus between us on the issue of our continuing support for Ukraine, but there is no such consensus on whether this Government are doing all they should to prepare us for any major conflict in the near future. This Statement has bravado abound, but bravado is meaningless if it is not backed by hard power. We do not say this to embarrass the Government or to score political points; we say it because we are worried about our lack of defence readiness. I urge the Government: do not place social security above national security, as the Prime Minister suggested last week, for, when the bombs are falling and the drones are striking, as the Chancellor warned only a few weeks ago, there may be very little social security left to speak of.