1-20 of 1,276 results for askedby:"Lord Howell of Guildford"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.331 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- askedby:"Lord Howell of Guildford"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:301297 OR askingMember_ses:301297
Type
House
Session
More
Year
More
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, commitment is not enough. There is a mood going around the capitals of the world that Ukraine would be in much better shape today if it had kept its nuclear weapons. This has led a number of other countries to say that they want to be in on the NPT existing nuclear power list as well. This is a very dangerous situation, particularly as it is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce these things—at any moment they could be produced by non-state actors and end up in irresponsible hands. Will the Minister put a little more strength into
the commitment of this Government—indeed, all Governments—to see that we make sure that the whole NPT system does not crumble under very loose and general pressures now going on?
My Lords, commitment is not enough. There is a mood going around the capitals of the world that Ukraine would be in much better shape today if it had kept its nuclear weapons. This has led a number of other countries to say that they want to be in on the NPT existing nuclear power list as well. This is a very dangerous situation, particularly as it is getting cheaper and cheaper to produce these things—at any moment they could be produced by non-state actors and end up in irresponsible hands. Will the Minister put a little more strength into
the commitment of this Government—indeed, all Governments—to see that we make sure that the whole NPT system does not crumble under very loose and general pressures now going on?
I am I happy to make that clear. The failure to reach consensus on this occasion, given the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves, is not a complete surprise. The President did not put the text for consideration in the end, because it was clear that the US was not going to back it. It was an omission of text, rather than a disagreement over the substance of what was said. That is why that did not happen. It is in no way an indication that the United Kingdom or any of our partners or allies are intending to turn away from this treaty. As the noble Lord said, it is the cornerstone that has prevented proliferation of nuclear weaponry for five decades now, and we are committed to it.
My Lords, I know that we have signed the global ocean treaty, but have we ratified it yet? Does the Minister think that the Commonwealth, which is increasingly involved in maritime affairs, with 33 island states, has an important role to play and could it make it work still better?
My Lords, I know that we have signed the global ocean treaty, but have we ratified it yet? Does the Minister think that the Commonwealth, which is increasingly involved in maritime affairs, with 33 island states, has an important role to play and could it make it work still better?
The Commonwealth is a vital international union of countries that can do much good around the world. As for ratification, the noble Lord is right—we have not ratified it yet, but I hope that we will be able to do so imminently.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real need in this area is for a far more effective maritime tracking system than we
have today, for legal and illegal shipping, and for underwater and surface shipping? Armed in this way, something such as the Commonwealth, with a fantastic network of 34 island states and 12 coastal states, would be an excellent ally and supporter in developing a modern network for better control of the seas.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real need in this area is for a far more effective maritime tracking system than we
have today, for legal and illegal shipping, and for underwater and surface shipping? Armed in this way, something such as the Commonwealth, with a fantastic network of 34 island states and 12 coastal states, would be an excellent ally and supporter in developing a modern network for better control of the seas.
That is a really significant point. The noble Lord will know that the First Sea Lord has talked about the hybrid Navy, the importance of artificial intelligence, and the importance of intelligence in guiding the systems of the future, including drone capability. In providing that capability, instead of necessarily having minesweepers, the idea is that we should do the sort of thing that the noble Lord is talking about. An example would be RFA “Lyme Bay”, which is moving towards the region. The autonomous systems that it has to operate above, on the sea and underwater to protect our interests is a template which we will follow. That requires intelligence and the co-operation of various nations.
My Lords, is the idea behind this plan to meet vital public expenditure needs without upsetting the bond markets too much? Can the Minister just explain a little more how it will work?
My Lords, is the idea behind this plan to meet vital public expenditure needs without upsetting the bond markets too much? Can the Minister just explain a little more how it will work?
The scale and precise focus of the mechanism remain to be determined, but the scope of those activities would include lending to sovereigns and to the sector and providing loans to supply chains and loans for capacity expansion. We anticipate that it will make a material contribution to defence spending and investment across those involved. The intention is that this mechanism will be established as an independent international financial institution underpinned by an international agreement and with sovereign countries as members in the first instance. As with other international financial institutions, paid-in capital will be expected to leverage in private sector funding by a multiple of that initial contribution.
My Lords, the Minister probably knows that Zimbabwe is rather keen to rejoin the Commonwealth. Could it be explained to President Mnangagwa that the chances of doing so will be much improved if he stands down after two terms, since the Commonwealth on the whole—it does not always work—prefers presidents of two terms rather than indefinite terms?
My Lords, the Minister probably knows that Zimbabwe is rather keen to rejoin the Commonwealth. Could it be explained to President Mnangagwa that the chances of doing so will be much improved if he stands down after two terms, since the Commonwealth on the whole—it does not always work—prefers presidents of two terms rather than indefinite terms?
The noble Lord regularly raises the Commonwealth, and I appreciate its importance. There was a Commonwealth assessment mission in 2023, and we would welcome another assessment mission. In the end, it will be a matter for the Secretary-General to make a recommendation, and for all members of the Commonwealth to take a view.
My Lords, I am not sure that any of the figures we have heard in the last few minutes are correct or substantial. In fact, there is a huge amount around the world of spare oil capacity and oil production potential which can be and is being brought into play. There is the vast boost in American shale, obviously, from which we get a lot already. There are the reserves which have been released under the scheme which I chaired in 1979 at the IEA, and those reserves are only a small part of more reserves that can be developed at any time we wish. There are pipelines which bypass the Strait of Hormuz. All I am saying is that the situation can be overexcited by an ill-informed media. Does the Minister agree that we should be careful not to excite these dangers and realise that this is a manageable situation if we take a strong line on what can be done to reopen the Strait of Hormuz when we can and in the meantime do not get so worked up that everyone starts talking about rationing and other idiotic ideas?
My Lords, I am not sure that any of the figures we have heard in the last few minutes are correct or substantial. In fact, there is a huge amount around the world of spare oil capacity and oil production potential which can be and is being brought into play. There is the vast boost in American shale, obviously, from which we get a lot already. There are the reserves which have been released under the scheme which I chaired in 1979 at the IEA, and those reserves are only a small part of more reserves that can be developed at any time we wish. There are pipelines which bypass the Strait of Hormuz. All I am saying is that the situation can be overexcited by an ill-informed media. Does the Minister agree that we should be careful not to excite these dangers and realise that this is a manageable situation if we take a strong line on what can be done to reopen the Strait of Hormuz when we can and in the meantime do not get so worked up that everyone starts talking about rationing and other idiotic ideas?
I hope the noble Lord does not consider that the figures and other facts that I have presented this afternoon are all erroneous, because I assure him that they are not, but he is right to say that this is not a question just of whether stuff goes through the Strait of Hormuz or nothing. There are a great many other ways in which oil, petroleum products, gas and so on can be taken from their source to where they want to go without going through the Strait of Hormuz. For example, pipelines across Arabia are already beginning to take some of the oil that otherwise would go through the Strait of Hormuz out to port, and the same is true with gas supplies. It is not all about LNG coming in vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz. I totally agree with the noble Lord that we should not be too taken up by overexcitable, ill-informed press speculation but should concentrate on the real facts and the real opportunities that there are to gather ourselves a sustainable oil and gas supply, which also includes making sure that as much as possible of our energy supply comes from home sources in the medium and long term.
My Lords, as the defence production need for entirely new kinds of warfare steps up, as it is now doing, are the Government satisfied that the needs of our strategy, which are rapidly growing, are closely enough aligned with the plans of British industry?
My Lords, as the defence production need for entirely new kinds of warfare steps up, as it is now doing, are the Government satisfied that the needs of our strategy, which are rapidly growing, are closely enough aligned with the plans of British industry?
The noble Lord is right that we need to make sure that we are protecting British industry and working with key allies. Last year, cyber attacks cost the economy £15 billion, and it is a growing threat. We need to work with business, but also to be led by it because it knows what infrastructure is there. As some noble Lords will be aware, some of this is low tech as much as high technology, and people are seeking every vulnerability. We all need to be cognisant of that and make sure there is a genuinely whole-society approach.
Is the Minister aware that, according to official statistics, 99.18% of all British businesses are defined as “small”—those with 50 employees or fewer. It sometimes seems, in the answers we get, that the Government have not quite understood that.
Is the Minister aware that, according to official statistics, 99.18% of all British businesses are defined as “small”—those with 50 employees or fewer. It sometimes seems, in the answers we get, that the Government have not quite understood that.
I fully understand that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of it. Last year, the Government published their plan for small and medium-sized businesses, setting out support for smaller firms. We are partnering with industry to unlock productivity growth through the adoption of digital technologies. We are legislating to tackle late payments, which cost the UK economy £11 billion a year. We have launched a new Business Growth Service to make it easier to access advice and support. We are making SMEs a national priority in our new procurement policy system. We are expanding the UK Export Finance capacity by £20 billion and creating a small export builder insurance product. I assure the noble Lord that we are very aware of the points he raises.
My Lords, under the Washington declaration of 2023, we were promised by the then American Administration that all electric vehicles, military and civil, exported from this country, provided that they contained critical minerals or rare earths mined either in America or here, would be subject to the same subsidy as American vehicles were to be given anyway, under the American Government plans. What happened to that deal? Is it still outstanding?
My Lords, under the Washington declaration of 2023, we were promised by the then American Administration that all electric vehicles, military and civil, exported from this country, provided that they contained critical minerals or rare earths mined either in America or here, would be subject to the same subsidy as American vehicles were to be given anyway, under the American Government plans. What happened to that deal? Is it still outstanding?
I do not know the specific answer to that, but I will be very happy to come back to the noble Lord. I would stress that we are working very closely with the Americans on this whole question of critical minerals. The noble Lord often asks about the Commonwealth. I should say that we are working closely with our Commonwealth partners on resolving these issues and having a common approach.
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I am not fully familiar with the full remit of the Joint Interagency Task Force South, but is it working the Commonwealth maritime co-operation agencies in the Caribbean, whose arrangements are proving increasingly interesting and useful in tracking ghost ships, illegal Russian oil ships, illegal Chinese movements and other unflagged maritime traffic? This is something we want to develop and encourage, and I hope that we are.
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I am not fully familiar with the full remit of the Joint Interagency Task Force South, but is it working the Commonwealth maritime co-operation agencies in the Caribbean, whose arrangements are proving increasingly interesting and useful in tracking ghost ships, illegal Russian oil ships, illegal Chinese movements and other unflagged maritime traffic? This is something we want to develop and encourage, and I hope that we are.
The noble Lord is correct. The UK has a strong and historical defence relationship with the Caribbean Commonwealth, and this is underpinned by an annual UK-Caribbean chiefs of defence conference led by the UK chief of defence. Continued UK support was demonstrated last year in Jamaica in response to Hurricane Melissa. We entirely support the need for Commonwealth co-operation. I can certainly say more about the shadow fleets and unflagged vessels, if other noble Lords want to ask me.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that AI systems are proliferating rapidly and may compete rather than co-operate, and that this degree of self-correction is perhaps one of the areas that we should encourage to stand in the way of the undoubted spreading power of the AI system generally?
My Lords, does the Minister agree that AI systems are proliferating rapidly and may compete rather than co-operate, and that this degree of self-correction is perhaps one of the areas that we should encourage to stand in the way of the undoubted spreading power of the AI system generally?
My Lords, artificial intelligence is the primary driver of productivity across the economy, from life sciences to the creative industries. We are accelerating adoption by providing businesses of all sizes with access to essential skills, data and compute. I understand the noble Lord’s point about the power of AI. We are ensuring that the AI Security Institute does all the necessary tests to ensure safety before any products are rolled out.
Might it be helpful to pass to President Trump and the Washington team the useful advice of the late Professor Joe Nye of Harvard, who was a good friend of this country? His message was of course that, in modern conditions, you gain much more in terms of influence, security and getting things to move in the right way by being attractive, helpful and friendly to a country than you do by being plain nasty.
Might it be helpful to pass to President Trump and the Washington team the useful advice of the late Professor Joe Nye of Harvard, who was a good friend of this country? His message was of course that, in modern conditions, you gain much more in terms of influence, security and getting things to move in the right way by being attractive, helpful and friendly to a country than you do by being plain nasty.
I share the noble Lord’s admiration for Professor Nye. I never had the privilege of meeting him, but I think he was somebody whose words we should always bear in mind. You need to do both, and that is what we do. We have a much better co-ordinated approach to our use of what Joe would call soft power, but that needs to go hand in hand with our investment in defence. Given the precarious nature of many parts of the world right now, the idea that we need to do both is I think the correct one.
My Lords, does the Minister recall that, under both parties at the end of the last century, we attempted to beat this problem of productivity in the public sector by developing the private finance initiative idea? For a time, it was quite successful, although it did not end happily. Is he aware—perhaps he is not—that seven or eight of the most advanced countries in the world use developed and expanded versions of PFI that are much more sophisticated than ours? As they learned from us in the first place, perhaps we can learn a bit from them.
My Lords, does the Minister recall that, under both parties at the end of the last century, we attempted to beat this problem of productivity in the public sector by developing the private finance initiative idea? For a time, it was quite successful, although it did not end happily. Is he aware—perhaps he is not—that seven or eight of the most advanced countries in the world use developed and expanded versions of PFI that are much more sophisticated than ours? As they learned from us in the first place, perhaps we can learn a bit from them.
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Partnerships with the private sector have an important part to play in the public sector. Obviously, the public sector can learn a great deal from the private sector, and, I hope, vice versa. That is why we announced in the spending review that we will be carrying out more public/private partnerships. Clearly, there is a lot to learn from the previous experience of PFI; we must make sure that we learn those lessons, and we should also learn the lessons from other countries and their experiences in that regard.
The Minister takes this extremely seriously, and so he should. Does he agree that the NPT review now faces the worst challenge in the 50 years since its inception in 1968? Will he assure us that our team, when we go into the review, will press on all three of the pillars he described extremely hard and bring home to people the extreme danger of smaller countries wanting to get in on the act, already applying to see whether they can break the existing five’s monopoly, which, of course, is broken a bit anyway, and bring to the public a much stronger understanding of the intense danger of the proliferation everywhere of nuclear bombs?
The Minister takes this extremely seriously, and so he should. Does he agree that the NPT review now faces the worst challenge in the 50 years since its inception in 1968? Will he assure us that our team, when we go into the review, will press on all three of the pillars he described extremely hard and bring home to people the extreme danger of smaller countries wanting to get in on the act, already applying to see whether they can break the existing five’s monopoly, which, of course, is broken a bit anyway, and bring to the public a much stronger understanding of the intense danger of the proliferation everywhere of nuclear bombs?
I strongly agree with the noble Lord’s analysis. The NPT is an essential cornerstone of global security. I suggest that in many ways it has been particularly successful. I was looking at the figures earlier on. In 1986, there were an estimated 70,300 nuclear warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and the most recent figure I could find was 12,241. Although there are challenges, as the noble Lord points out, we have managed in many ways to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to ensure that, as far as possible, the architecture of the post-war world remains the same. However, the noble Lord is right to point out the
challenges, and this country, along with our allies and friends, will do all we can to ensure that the NPT remains successful and that all three pillars are pursued.
My Lords, is not the most immediate and serious threat to our national prosperity and security the safety of our entire subsea cable system, on which the nation depends daily and hourly? I do not think the Minister has mentioned subsea cables and how to cope with them, or the role
of submarines in dealing with this. Can he assure us that, even if we do not have the submarines now, we are planning to build the vehicles—submarines and new technologies—to deal with this rather promptly, because the threat is coming soon?
My Lords, is not the most immediate and serious threat to our national prosperity and security the safety of our entire subsea cable system, on which the nation depends daily and hourly? I do not think the Minister has mentioned subsea cables and how to cope with them, or the role
of submarines in dealing with this. Can he assure us that, even if we do not have the submarines now, we are planning to build the vehicles—submarines and new technologies—to deal with this rather promptly, because the threat is coming soon?
That is a really important question; I apologise if I have not mentioned undersea cables, because there is an important need and requirement for us as a country to protect them and the critical national infrastructure that flows under the sea. If the noble Lord has not had a chance yet, I suggest that he reads the First Sea Lord’s speech this morning at the International Sea Power Conference, where he talked about Atlantic Bastion, which seeks to deal with many of the points that the noble Lord has quite rightly just raised. These are new undersea technology vessels, for want of a better word, that can operate through the use of artificial intelligence and, as a result of that artificial intelligence, military personnel can make decisions about what they should do. They can stay under water for a considerable period of time and they liaise not only with ships but with aircraft and indeed submarines. That is the sort of thing that I was talking about in the earlier Question about the new warfare and new threats that we face, and the new equipment that we will need to deal with those threats. So, having these uncrewed vessels, alongside our submarines, our ships and our aircraft, as outlined in Atlantic Bastion earlier today, is certainly the way forward, and I hope that that reassures the noble Lord with respect to that threat that we face.
My Lords, when it comes to data adequacy, the Government are, of course, aware of a report from the UK Statistics Authority that said:
“Quality problems have manifested into published errors, delays, and de-accreditation of official statistics”.
That is pretty damning stuff. Can the Minister tell us what is going to be done now to improve the situation? Flying blind is surely really rather dangerous in the present world circumstances, particularly for this Government.
My Lords, when it comes to data adequacy, the Government are, of course, aware of a report from the UK Statistics Authority that said:
“Quality problems have manifested into published errors, delays, and de-accreditation of official statistics”.
That is pretty damning stuff. Can the Minister tell us what is going to be done now to improve the situation? Flying blind is surely really rather dangerous in the present world circumstances, particularly for this Government.
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think about the adequacy of the Office for National Statistics and some of the information that it provides, which we all rely on. In terms of the particular programme of enhancement, I shall need to come back to him on that point to set out what is being done in that area.
My Lords, is there not one more hydrogen potential that the Minister has not mentioned? In transporting electricity, or transporting
hydrogen, the prospect can be raised of avoiding having to cover the whole country with thousands more electricity pylons, as NESO is currently predicting. I agree that that means lower costs for hydrogen, but better lower costs and transport than paying huge sums of money to owners of wind farms not to produce electricity at night at all.
My Lords, is there not one more hydrogen potential that the Minister has not mentioned? In transporting electricity, or transporting
hydrogen, the prospect can be raised of avoiding having to cover the whole country with thousands more electricity pylons, as NESO is currently predicting. I agree that that means lower costs for hydrogen, but better lower costs and transport than paying huge sums of money to owners of wind farms not to produce electricity at night at all.
I thank the noble Lord for his question, which raises a very important issue. It is fair to say that hydrogen cannot provide all the answers to issues around energy provision, but it can reach those hard-to-reach businesses such as steel and chemicals, for example. We need to set up a system in which we can do that. The Government are investing in that; we are spending tens of millions of pounds on doing just that. It is something that we want to see grow into the future. As I have said, by 2050 it will be a $1 trillion industry, and the UK has to be part of it.
My Lords, the Question we have just heard did not get a very reassuring Answer. Is this not precisely the sort of resource that we, as an advanced country, should be developing to underpin both our security and our trade? Is this not the sort of glue that binds together the Commonwealth countries, which are, of course, an expanding resource as well? Will the Minister tell her colleagues in the Foreign Office that most other countries recognise that Commonwealth power and soft power generally are part of our future? Will she encourage them to give a lot more attention to it than appears to be given in some commentators’ columns in certain newspapers, who frankly do not understand what is going on?
My Lords, the Question we have just heard did not get a very reassuring Answer. Is this not precisely the sort of resource that we, as an advanced country, should be developing to underpin both our security and our trade? Is this not the sort of glue that binds together the Commonwealth countries, which are, of course, an expanding resource as well? Will the Minister tell her colleagues in the Foreign Office that most other countries recognise that Commonwealth power and soft power generally are part of our future? Will she encourage them to give a lot more attention to it than appears to be given in some commentators’ columns in certain newspapers, who frankly do not understand what is going on?
I am not going to make any comments about our newspapers today—I could, but I will not. We do a great deal of work with the British Council, which is an important part of soft power. We are, as I said, giving it £160 million each year and are working to help it restructure its loan. It needs to carry out modernisation work. It is getting on with that, which Scott McDonald is doing a very good job leading. However, our soft power in 2025 is not, if it ever was, just the British Council; it is the Premier League, our music, our cultural industries and the BBC—
My Lords, the period from 1970 to 1990 was a time of rapidly increasing productivity, of rapidly increasing Japanese investment in particular, and of great reduction in trade union restrictive practices, which the Japanese would not put up with. What lessons does he draw from that for today?
My Lords, the period from 1970 to 1990 was a time of rapidly increasing productivity, of rapidly increasing Japanese investment in particular, and of great reduction in trade union restrictive practices, which the Japanese would not put up with. What lessons does he draw from that for today?
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his insight from that period. He is absolutely right. It was a time of high productivity; it is a shame
that the second Conservative Government after that did not maintain it. We now have to deal with the inheritance from that Government. He is right to say that private sector investment is a key driver of productivity, so the lesson I draw from that period is that we have to encourage greater levels of private sector investment. Under the previous Government, private sector investment fell to the lowest in the whole G7. We have so far welcomed £120 billion in private investment and a further £150 billion during the US state visit last month alone.
Does the Minister know why we turned down the Moroccan offer of about 3.2 gigawatts of green electricity from a colossal solar development in Morocco, for which they were prepared to offer very attractive prices, since we are certainly going to need it in due course?
Does the Minister know why we turned down the Moroccan offer of about 3.2 gigawatts of green electricity from a colossal solar development in Morocco, for which they were prepared to offer very attractive prices, since we are certainly going to need it in due course?
I absolutely do not. I will resist the temptation to speculate from the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that I can get the noble Lord the information that he needs.