G7 Summit

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for being here to answer questions on this Statement. In these uncertain times, I wish her well for continuation in office—and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, who has run away but I hope will be back.

Oh!

The Statement was made by someone who did not attend the summit and in the absence of the Prime Minister—a decent man forced from office by self-interested colleagues who owed their place in Parliament to him. As someone else once said at that same podium in Downing Street, “them’s the breaks”. Many unkind things were said back then about my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, not least in this House. It was “a good day”, one allegedly impartial former official deplorably gloated. I will not follow the road of rejoicing in another’s downfall. I place on record my thanks to Sir Keir Starmer for his service to our country, even if the results were not always quite as perfect as this Statement claimed. Indeed, can the Minister tell us why on earth he is going if everything is as amazing as the Statement says? At the summit, Sir Keir maintained the unflinching support that he has given to Ukraine, so vigorously begun by the reviled Mr Johnson. We support that stand and will uphold the unity of this House on it. Conduct of foreign policy will now fall to the first Prime Minister since Lord Home to assume office without facing the electorate at the preceding general election. If we do not have a clue what he thinks, heaven help our allies. If he fails to make a dispassionate assessment of the poor choices that led to Sir Keir’s resignation, he risks repeating those mistakes and leaving us in a doom loop of lost opportunity. The same old Labour, with tax and spend policies that were out of date even in the 1970s, will deliver the same dismal outcomes. We are told in the Statement that the Prime Minister made Britain safer and rebuilt Britain’s reputation around the world. Really? Endless delays to the defence investment plan have not made us safer. With continued instability in the Middle East, war in Europe and an increasingly reckless Russia, any further delay in the defence investment plan is unacceptable. Can the noble Baroness tell us today when it will be published? The stunning resignations of the Defence Secretary and the Veterans Minister did not enhance our reputation in the world. Two principled men, actually the best of the Labour Party, laid bare a bitter truth—their view, not ours—that a Government overdosing on welfare spending were unable or unwilling to find money for defence. It is a shambles. What on earth will the Prime Minister tell NATO on 7 July? Mr Carns in his statement was also devastating about the injustice of the legal pursuit of our Northern Ireland Army veterans and the folly of the so-called remedial order. That was being rushed forward so the Prime Minister could offer up our compliance with the ECHR at the so-called EU reset summit. That has now been delayed, so can the noble Baroness tell the House that that vindictive order will also be shelved? We welcome good news in the Statement on foreign direct investment from France, India and Japan. We welcome the free trade agreement with India. This is the Britain we want, opening to the wider world. But foreign direct investment cannot offset the devastating impact of Labour’s domestic policies. If we want real growth, the next Prime Minister must change course. Change in terms of security is needed too to Mr Miliband’s obsessive pursuit of net zero. Did the House notice the outcome of the election in Aberdeen South? Working people want our North Sea open. Working people want to exploit our own energy resources and the jobs the oil and gas industry brings. We have heard it here from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and others. We have heard it from the secretary-general of Unite. For once, they and we are united in a common-sense cause: we must open the North Sea. Speaking of common sense, I think the noble Baroness knows how pleased we are that this House stopped the disastrous Chagos deal. Did the Prime Minister try to resurrect this in any way at the summit, or is this turkey now dead? We hope progress in the US-Iran talks will end barriers to free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. We all want peace in the Middle East, but we must not soften our stance on the murderous regime in Tehran. We have been far too slow to take action on the IRGC, although I welcome steps now being undertaken. Will the noble Baroness confirm that we will remain in lockstep with our US allies in ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon? Can she tell us when the Franco-British action in the Gulf and the strait will begin? We agree that more should be done to ensure civilian aid gets through in Gaza and indeed Lebanon; it must flow more smoothly. But we are also clear in our view that Israel had and has a right to defend itself. Was I alone in thinking it truly astonishing that, in 360 words on the Middle East in this Statement, there was not a single word of condemnation of terrorist Hezbollah and terrorist Hamas? Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Israel must tone down what he called “inflammatory language”. What are they supposed to say of the butchers of Jewish babies? On illegal immigration, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to build on our 2018 Sandhurst agreement with France, and we welcome that. In contrast, this Government’s so-called one-in, one-out policy had to be rewritten after illegal migrants once removed returned to the UK. Can the noble Baroness tell us how many criminal gangs have been smashed? Finally, the Statement referred with regret to the 10th anniversary of Brexit. Some people, it seems, will never accept the verdict of the British people or own that the fast first Covid vaccine, the free trade deal with India we have just heard about, the summer holidays VAT measure and so much else would never have been possible without that vote. I must test the tolerance of the House by declaring I voted for our freedom to choose our own destiny 10 years ago, and I would do so again. We need to look to the future, not plunge back to past battles. I wish the next Prime Minister well, but it is not a change of Prime Minister that this country needs, it is a change of Government.

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for allowing this Statement to be repeated in your Lordships’ House. Self-evidently, I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and it is a great—and unusual—pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. It is, in fact, somewhat appropriate that a stand-in should be making this speech, as the original speech was also made by a stand-in in the other place. As a result, this Statement is unusually suffused with praise for Sir Keir. With respect, I will avoid those sections and try to pick the bones out of the bits that actually refer to the G7 meeting. Starting with Ukraine, all of us join in the condemnation of the hit on the 11th-century Pechersk Lavra, but the greater cost is the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries sustained by the Ukrainian people since the full invasion started. What this hit on the church underlines, however, is the very poor guidance of many Russian ballistic missiles. Hundreds of missiles are being projected in the direction of Ukraine, with no sense of limiting civilian casualties. The Statement is, however, right to characterise the battlefield as one where the fortunes seem to be turning. The Ukrainian mastery of drone warfare has established a 25 kilometre-plus wide kill zone, through which the Russians are finding progress has been halted in a very deadly way. But when I met the Ukrainian parliamentarians last month, they were at pains to spell out the danger they face from ballistic missiles and the need for more anti-ballistic defence. Russia has thousands of missiles that have yet to be fired. Europe has responded to some extent to that plea for help, but following the Iran conflict, defence systems are at a premium. It was clear from my visit 10 days ago to the factory in the USA where Patriot missiles are manufactured that the global shortage of such defensive weapons will be only very slowly filled—too slow for the Ukrainian people. That is why anything we do in Europe to work together to design and manufacture alternative defence systems is really important. In the short term, it would help Ukraine; in the medium term, it would help the Baltic states and the rest of Europe. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell your Lordships’ House what progress has been made in sourcing European anti-ballistic weapons? She may need to write to me with that answer. Sanctions also remain important. Given the seeming changes to the Middle East, when will the Government hurry up and apply sanctions to Russian-refined jet fuel? Also, did the Government raise at the G7 the proposal of using frozen Russian assets around the world to support Ukraine? If not, why not? Turning to the Middle East, the Statement offers no new information. The key question is how any international coalition with the French can possibly operate safely when we are only a Truth Social posting away from a deadly flare-up. What is the government thinking on that? I am sure fellow Peers will have noted comments from the Iranians about tolls through the Strait of Hormuz. That was to be expected, but President Trump has been publicly musing on levying fees to protect tankers. Both options are equally unacceptable and have been reinforced overnight. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that the US ambassador has been made aware that we do not support any such protection racket as that proposed by President Trump? It is clear that the situations in Lebanon and Gaza remain unacceptable to the people living there, and destabilising to any possible settlement with Iran. The Statement says that bringing all partners together is the Government’s aim. Can the Minister please update your Lordships House on any actions that have been taken to bring people together in the last few months? It is disappointing but typical that the terrible conflict in Sudan seems to have been ignored again. On illegal migration, I would only note that, were we once again to have full access to all the policing and immigration data we used to have before Brexit, the number of boats would more likely fall to their low level before we left the European Union. That swiftly moves us on to the final part of the Statement, on growth and investment. Speaking nine months ago, before he was burdened with any realistic chance of leadership, Andy Burnham openly referred to Brexit as a disaster and blamed it for making aspirations harder to achieve in Britain. He revealed his wish to see the UK rejoin at some point, but it was reported that he remained pragmatic about how long this would take. Once Andy Burnham moves his bandwagon into No. 10 Downing Street and opens the books, he will see the full extent of the damage done to the life chances of ordinary people thanks to Brexit. At that point, I suggest his truly pragmatic action would be to accelerate things. I invite him to adopt the Liberal Democrats’ plan for the UK to join the customs union and re-enter the single market. We would be very willing to help him if he wishes to do that. Instead of urgency, however, everything is on hold. Yesterday’s events have caused the UK-EU summit planned for 22 July to be postponed. Does the Lord Privy Seal share my disappointment that even the partial progress expected from that summit is now delayed? Does she agree that the sooner we act to get closer to our real allies in the EU, the better the chances for growth and the more secure the United Kingdom will be?

My Lords, I looked with some wry amusement at my notes, which start: “Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the generous and constructive suggestions?” Perhaps I should not always believe the notes I am given. I want to start—which I am sorry the noble Lord did not do—by congratulating the Conservative Party on winning the seat of Aberdeen South. I had half expected him to congratulate the Labour Party on a fantastic victory in Makerfield, and the SNP, who held their seat in Arbroath. All of us who put ourselves forward for election know that it is never an easy time, and consequences follow from winning and losing. I think we should be generous in this House to those who put themselves forward. I also thank the noble Lord for his comments about me and the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms—the Chief Whip. I am grateful for such support. He has not always shown such strong support for us, so I certainly welcome it at this moment. Both noble Lords spoke passionately and rightly about Ukraine. I think all of us feel very strongly about this. You just have to think of how the Ukrainian people have for so long endured what Putin thought would be an easy fight and an easy defeat. Others may have seen President Zelensky’s statement on the Prime Minister’s resignation yesterday, in which he said: “Here in Ukraine, we deeply value Britain, and every meeting and every conversation we”— that is President Zelensky and the Prime Minister— “have had has always been filled with real substance. Thank you for always being in touch, always engaged, and always striving to do what is needed and what will truly help ... Keir, you are always a welcome guest in Ukraine”. I think all of us in this House want that to continue, whoever is in No. 10 and whoever has a majority of seats in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord True, made some rather derogatory and unhelpful comments about the Member for Makerfield, who is standing to be the leader of the Labour Party, and therefore Prime Minister. I point out to him that, over the years, he has gained a lot more experience than many holders of that office have had. He is an experienced Cabinet Minister and an experienced mayor. I think we should see who takes on that position and give them all the support that we should in what are difficult times. After praising the Prime Minister, the noble Lord then set about the reputation of the Prime Minister overseas. I have to say that, coming from the party opposite, I was not quite sure of the point he was trying to make. I am full of admiration for and very proud of the Prime Minister for the way he has engaged across the world in some of the most difficult issues there have been. Our international reputation was not high. I can think of previous Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries who did not enhance our reputation abroad. On Brexit, which was mentioned by both noble Lords, the Conservative Party campaigned for Brexit without really having a plan of what Brexit meant; and after having an agreement on Brexit, there was no plan for growth following that. We have to ensure that we have a much closer relationship with the EU; that work will continue and is extremely important. It is obviously a disappointment that the EU summit is being delayed. There are important issues to be discussed, particularly the SPS agreement, which was not dealt with satisfactorily when the Brexit deal was done. It has had a terrible impact in those areas, so we want to have that summit as soon as we possibly can to address those issues, and I can give the noble Lord that assurance. The noble Lord, Lord True, talked about instability in the Middle East. He is right to address these issues, as this House has done many times; the ongoing work on this is extremely important. Regarding the defence investment plan, the Government have committed to publishing this before the NATO summit, but we have not waited for the plan to be published before getting on and doing some of the work that is needed. Typhoons are currently being built in the West Midlands. Ships are being built in Scotland. A whole range of investment is going on that is needed. The noble Lord is right, however, that the plan has to be published and taken forward. It is not just about the amount of money. The amount of money has been of great interest, but let us look around the world, at how we work with our allies in other countries and at our interoperability—how we work together. There is no point in the UK spending x billion in one area if that does not work with money spent in France and Germany and by our other allies. That working together is a huge part of the important role that we take. The noble Lord is right to raise the Strait of Hormuz; it is essential that it is opened and that it is toll free. Wherever the tolls come from, they are wrong; it must be a toll-free passage through there. The noble Lord also asked about Iran. He will be aware of the state threats legislation that is coming before this House. I hope that we will co-operate to make sure that is on the statute book so that we can deal with state threats there as well. A lot of questions were raised. I have tried to answer as many as possible in the time that I have been given. I would like to say something more about the recent support for Ukraine, as both noble Lords asked about this. We are providing 150,000 drones and 350 air defence missiles. In answer to the question raised, they are funded from the frozen Russian assets; that is probably the best use for those assets. We have also announced £210 million of export finance support for enriched uranium. That supports power for Ukraine; as we get into the winter, we will need to ensure that Ukraine has the power that it needs. There is also a new package of sanctions. In total, we have committed over £21 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. I think the whole House would join me in saying that we need to ensure that this money is spent in the best way possible, both for Ukraine’s safety and security and for ours.

Before we move on to Back-Bench questions, let me respectfully say that they are Back-Bench questions, so we want questions and not statements. Bearing that in mind, I would ask the Conservatives to go first.

My Lords, this morning, a Russian ballistic missile struck a civilian target in President Zelensky’s hometown of Kryvyi Rih, killing three people and wounding many others. It was a quite appalling incident, at 11 am Ukrainian time. In the G7 communiqué, there was a statement committing to an increased delivery to Ukraine of “additional systems and … long-range capabilities”. Can the Minister elaborate on what is meant by “long-range capabilities”?

I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord further information beyond what I have already said—I will look at whether there is any more information I can send to him that can be in the public domain—but I think that shows our commitment to doing all that we can to help Ukraine because of the constant pressure that it is under. The example that the noble Lord cites is one of many that happen regularly. I repeat that I have such admiration for the resilience of the people of Ukraine in withstanding this.

My Lords, the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe is in Sudan. Can the noble Baroness say what more was said at the G7 summit about the atrocities in Sudan, given that it is a major root cause of displaced people, of whom there are now 120 million in the world? Will she look at the statements issued yesterday by the African Union and by the US State Department about the dangers now emerging in North Kordofan, and the danger that the genocidal attack that was made in El Fasher in Darfur quite recently will be replicated? Given our duties under the genocide convention to look for emerging signs of genocide, will she take this away as a matter of great urgency?

Of course. I think the noble Lord has raised these issues already with my noble friend Lady Chapman, who is well aware of them, and I will pass his comments on to her. Yes, it is a matter of urgency. It is something of a shock, when we think of what is going on in the world, that Sudan gets so few column inches and so little attention in our newspapers in this country. It seems sometimes that they move on to another issue and then another, but it is still happening and is still important. I will discuss this with my noble friend Lady Chapman and see what more we can say to the noble Lord.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the Government should act with our allies in the G7 to try to stop the illegal expansion, particularly in the areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, known as E1? Does she agree that it is important that we should create the momentum that is needed to tackle and create a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and I am proud that we have taken the historic step of recognising the Palestinian state. Settlements that are damaging and oppose the two-state solution just make that harder to reach and undermine it. They are illegal under international law, and we urge Israel to take action against such settlements. My noble friend is right: the only way forward for a safe and secure Israel and a safe and viable Palestine is through a two-state solution.

My Lords, can the Minister update us on the coalition of the willing in terms of the final settlement that there will be on any peace agreement in Ukraine? Does she accept that the coalition of the willing will form the basis of European defence in the future if we have to defend ourselves against Russian aggression without help from the United States?

The noble Lord raises a useful point. The coalition of the willing that the Prime Minister brought together, and which he led, has shown itself to have real value. I mentioned that co-operation between countries in my first answer on the Statement; they came together largely because of Ukraine, but its resonance goes far beyond that. The coalition of the willing is something that we want to see continue, also beyond Ukraine. At the moment, though, we just want to do what we can to secure peace for Ukraine and give it confidence that we are with it. Whatever the Ukrainians need, we are here for them.

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has quite properly referred to the esteem in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is held by most foreign leaders—possibly with one major exception. I think we all share with her the desire that, whatever comes next, whoever is the next Prime Minister continues to build on that legacy. The Statement refers clearly to the increased number of sanctioned people under the sanctions against Russia in response to the situation in Ukraine, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. That response is of course extremely welcome, but there is a potential consequence. We are already suffering as a nation grey-zone attacks, cyberattacks and arson, including on the Prime Minister’s property, which is quite extraordinary. Surely, in those circumstances, we should make sure that the public at large are aware of these threats and of the consequences of disruption and are prepared for them—not only those sorts of threats but indeed all the other risks on the national risk register. Can my noble friend tell us what plans there are—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—in the next few months to ensure that the public are better informed and prepared for the sorts of disruption that might arise?

My noble friend is right to raise a number of issues around resilience. He said he hoped that whoever takes over from the Prime Minister will continue that work. The Prime Minister has pledged to ensure that there is a smooth transition, and he will give his support in that regard as well to ensure that the work he has been undertaking and has prioritised continues. We have seen an increase in sanctions, and that will continue. We have some plans in the making on how we increase public awareness, but I think that is incumbent not just on the Government but on all of us. We have talked in this House before about a national conversation, and I know my noble friend Lord Coaker is looking at this and doing some work on it. I do not think the public really understand the scale and type of threats the country faces today. Of course, weather resilience is another issue, but I do not think people are aware that a single cyber attack could have a major impact on all kinds of infrastructure, including banking or transport. So a lot of work is being undertaken to try to get the public to engage on that. But it is not just the responsibility of government: the whole House, civil society, local authorities and public agencies, and companies important to national security need to understand what they need to do to keep their companies safe and banking safe because of the impact that has on all of us as well.

As the Government have decommissioned the last minesweeper and the last frigate we had in the Gulf, what assistance can we practically offer in the very important task of clearing the mines and safeguarding shipping, assuming the ceasefire holds?

The noble Lord is probably aware that clearing mines is something we are working on as part of a broad coalition, particularly with the French. We are engaged in that and working with them at present.

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for her comments this afternoon and to the Prime Minister for his work on Britain’s interests abroad. I particularly appreciated my noble friend’s comments on settler violence in answer to a previous question. I want to raise a second question about the Israeli Government’s policy. They collect tax for the Palestinian Authority every month, and for a year that tax has not been paid over to the Palestinian Authority. The result is that the public sector workforce and the civil servants are on small fractions of their pay, often working just for commitment to their country rather than pay. This is creating massive problems and a potential crisis. I urge my noble friend to put it to the Government that we need to put urgent pressure on the Israeli Government to pay over the tax that they have collected from Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority so the authority can get it on with doing its job. I say this as the Government’s envoy to the Palestinian Authority on governance. Finally, I will say that I really liked the answer earlier on a Palestinian state being created and a two-state solution. A state with the rule of law, living in peace with its neighbours, has to be the outcome we all seek.

I am grateful to my noble friend. The House will know from his detailed question that he has considerable experience in this area. He is right that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. If you look at hotspots around the world where there is conflict, you see that, at the end of the day, negotiation is the way forward to end these problems. Meanwhile, millions are suffering and dying, and having their lives forever changed. On tax collection, my noble friend may not be surprised to know that I do not know the details. His experience, knowledge and engagement are clearly evident, so will he allow me to take that away and come back to him? We have regular and constructive engagement with the Israeli Government; I cannot tell him whether that has been raised in recent meetings, but I will look into it.

My Lords, now that we have recognised the Palestinian Authority, what discussions have the Government had with it, following worries expressed by the United States and the EU about the continued practice of paying a stipend to people convicted of killing Jews: “pay for slay” money? We have been promised that this would end. What discussions has she had with Palestinian authorities to ensure it finally does end?

My Lords, I have not personally had those discussions, but the Government have ongoing discussions. The noble Lord will know from his experience that you do not get everything that has to be done at first, but you have to start that engagement to make a difference. I cannot personally say what engagement or discussion there has been on that issue, but I will take it back. A point the noble Lord has made many times about a two-state solution as well is that you need to have trust and engagement on all sides and, as we move forward, we need to try to do what we can to engender that trust. That means change and understanding on both sides.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House on the presentation and content of the Statement. I also thank the Prime Minister for his work on deepening European co-operation, and his work with an Taoiseach in Dublin on deepening British-Irish relations. But, as we mark 10 years since the Brexit referendum, does my noble friend agree that the people of the UK do not want the old arguments reopened or renegotiated? They want practical leadership that deepens co-operation with the EU, where it is in the interests of the wider population, including in a forthcoming UK-EU summit, whenever that takes place, and with the needed work my noble friend referred to that is required on the SPS agreement, particularly in securing our agri-food industry.

My noble friend makes a very valid point. For many of us, the Brexit referendum is deep in our minds and we will struggle to forget it, but, for others, it is something that happened when they were very young. A lot of young people are not engaged in the same way. I say to her that there have to be new arguments; we have to deal with where we are now and act always in the interests of the UK. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the SPS agreement. When the original Brexit deal was done, this really should have been seriously understood and decisions should have been taken, but they were not. We are paying a price, or the agricultural industry is, for this not being addressed then. She is right that if we have the EU referendum—sorry, the EU summit, not referendum; I am not a great fan of referendums, as noble Lords might imagine—it should be as soon as possible, and this has to be addressed. I can give the assurance that every sinew will be addressed to ensure that we can get to that point as soon as possible.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement and her answers. Having listened to such important strategic questions in this debate, I would like to pose a more personal one. My partner is Lebanese-Ukrainian, with family in both countries impacted by the terrible conflicts that continue to rage there. While I welcome the Statement, can my noble friend please explain what more could perhaps be done by this Government to support the people of both countries in their hopes for peace and, when it comes, eventual reconstruction?

The noble Lord is right that sometimes, in looking at strategic and wider issues, we forget the personal. I have no doubt that his wife has found that having family in Lebanon and Ukraine is quite a harrowing experience at times, when you do not know where they are and what is happening. So I imagine there have been some difficult days in his household. In terms of more support, we just have to keep this at the front and foremost of people’s minds: we have to continue being the best friends that we can to Ukraine, as President Zelensky said. My noble friend Lady Chapman, whom I mentioned earlier, recently announced a further £13 million-worth of support for Lebanon, because, unless we actually engage with these countries, in both their fightback and their reconstruction, we will not be able to see them have a viable future. Everything we do should be geared to that aim: not just support now, but looking to the longer-term future of those who live there.

I welcome the words of the Lord Privy Seal about the need to engage all of civil society in the issue of what a dangerous world we live in. How does she reconcile that with the fact that, time after time, the heads of our armed services are saying that our Armed Forces have been cut to the bone and that they simply do not have the resources to deal with the threat against them? Is it not the case that we need to spend more on all types of defence—not just the defence of yesterday, but to fight the battles of today and tomorrow—and, thus far, have this Government not failed in that attempt?

I have to say to the noble Lord that I think he has a short memory. When we look at what happened on defence under the Government whom he supported, the record is very poor. When the last Labour Government left office, we were spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence; that was then cut during the time the Conservatives were in office. We have now got it back up to 2.5%; we said that we would do that by the end of this Parliament, but we have done it sooner. Under the noble Lord’s Government, the Army was cut from 100,000 troops to just 72,000. His Government missed their Army recruitment targets every year for 14 years. We lost a quarter of our frigates and destroyers, we cut the minehunters and we failed to decommission decades-old kit and equipment; nor did his Government do anything to address the conditions that our military families were living in. We have made huge progress on a lot of those issues, particularly on accommodation and on procurement—which, I have to say, was a real mess. So it is a bit rich for the noble Lord to give lectures. However, that does not mean that we do not have to do more. There are two things, as I said. One is how we provide the money, but the other is how we work with other countries to ensure that we can work together on our procurement and have interoperability between the systems that we use. We need to take this extremely seriously. When the noble Lord says, “You have failed”, he is not recognising the work that we have done to clear up the mess that was left, which we are proud to do. That is not to say that we do not want to do more. The world is a dangerous place, and there are a range of issues. I might suggest that the noble Lord writes a book about this—I feel a novel coming on. In the absence of that, I assure him that this is probably the most serious issue that is at the top of the current Prime Minister’s in-tray, and it will be at the top of the next one’s.

My Lords, my concern is about the relevance of the G7. It was held together by the economic might of various countries, but now India and China are challenging, and they are not part of the G7. It was held together by the advancement of the rules-based international order, which has been undermined by President Trump. G7 countries have been unable to find solutions to things such as poverty eradication, climate change, and even the taxation of corporations. Given that issues of common interest can be discussed at the UN and with the G20, the BRICS countries and the EU, and in many other bilateral and multilateral settings, what proposal do the Government have for making the G7 relevant?

My Lords, when I look at the communiqués and outcomes, and particularly at the engagement of the US on Ukraine at this G7, the message I have received from people who were there is that this was one of the most constructive G7s for many years. I say to the noble Lord that any opportunity for countries to come together, discuss issues and engage is beneficial. Sometimes they will make progress, sometimes they will not, but the fact that they are there together and willing to have these discussions is beneficial. I suggest that the noble Lord reads the communiqués and sees how productive this particular G7 was.