---

Debate on the Address

My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. I think we overlapped a little in the House of Commons and I certainly remember sharing an ““Any Questions”” platform with her in the distant past. I confess that I share her slight surprise that she is here and that the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, is not. In future, I must always remember to believe rumours. I gather he has gone motor racing, which presumably is a rather less risky pastime than being a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. The task that he performed in Government was not an enviable one. The Ministry of Defence is fighting two wars and many other engagements under great strain. Perhaps I can say in his absence that the noble Lord faced those problems with acumen. In my view, the MoD was lucky to have his professional skills at a very dire time—but now he has gone. It is very good that we open this five-day debate on the humble Address by focusing on the full range of our international concerns, our foreign policy and our place in the world. No doubt the debate will broaden out into all those areas during the afternoon. The experts and polling gurus often tell us that foreign policy has low voter priority, with domestic issues such as crime, education, health and so on, coming way up the list. That view misleads. Our overseas relations, our activities and policies define our identity at home. They tell us who we are, what kind of society we want to be, what brings the nation together and what common purposes we serve. Of course, they determine our security and how far we can prevent global terrorism undermining our counterterrorist measures here at home and our free and balanced society. Our outside role in the world and our home safety cannot be separated by categories or distinguished: they are all one. We currently hear a good deal about ““Britishness””. If there is to be greater cohesion in the so-called ““broken society””, then it starts not with sermons about Britishness, but with a clear articulation of Britain’s position, viewpoint and standing in the world. If there is to be loyalty to national values and institutions, for which our leaders are always calling, that starts with a well defined expression of what Britain really is and who speaks for it. If there is to be cultural and social unity, as opposed to the multi-cultural pockets of isolation, fear and mutual antagonism that we tend to have now, then those with the power to give words to feelings and hopes must define the national core around which real national unity can form and hold. Our foreign policy is the beginning, the shaping and the envelope of all that. The criticism of the last Prime Minster’s foreign policy that we heard again and again—the noble Baroness touched on it—was that we seem to be too much of a poodle on Washington’s leash. To agree with that criticism is not necessarily to be anti-American. The Americans are our friends and have been most of the time—except perhaps at the beginning—and will be in the future, but the Blair experience is a warning against following Washington policy too slavishly and getting precious little in return, as many Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, have forcefully and rightly pointed out. We must ask ourselves a big question: should we put all our faith in the theory of the European Union as a rival counter-force in world affairs, pulling its weight with a single voice on the centre of the world stage, as the enthusiasts for European integration and the new treaty to come before us keep urging? My answer to that is: ““No, no, no””. Of course, we in Britain are good Europeans. We in my party have always been very good Europeans.