THE words of George Bell, Bishop of Chichester in the course of the Second World War, were invoked within the House of Lords on Friday. During the talk on the Strategic Defence Review, the Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Vivienne Faull, commented on “the ethics of diplomacy”.
She recalled how Dr Bell “thought deeply about and spoke, on occasions controversially, on this House about his conclusions”. With resonance for today “of the Church in wartime . . . he asserted that the duty of the Church, in its service and witness, was to be the Church, and, often, that might be in practical endeavour inside a whole-society response.”
She referred to the General Synod’s recent move to reassign military chaplains nationally and never locally. “That will allow chaplains, regular or reservists, to be licensed to maneuver way more rapidly into operation . . . because the Church seeks to support the aim of accelerating agility in deployment.” She also urged “investment in the availability of civil resilience”.
The need for “a conflict prevention and peacebuilding strategy, not least as overseas aid is depleted” was underlined by Bishop Faull: “capability through development and diplomacy. . . each an ethical and an economic argument”. She said that the UN was “working with Anglican leaders trained in dialogue skills to be peacemakers and social and civic builders in places where civil society has completely broken down”.
Bishop Faull concluded: “I also yearn for a companion strategic peacebuilding review, and the Church, being the Church, stands able to be a partner in that task.”
The debate had been introduced by Lord Robertson (Labour), a former Defence Secretary, who, from 1999 to 2033 was the tenth Secretary General of NATO. Last summer, he was commissioned by the Prime Minister to steer a national defence review. His began by giving his conclusion: “We are underinsured; we’re underprepared; we aren’t secure. This country and its people aren’t secure.”
He continued: “This review outlines graphically the threats that we face and describes our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, but it surely also . . . charts the way in which by which we are able to recreate the war readiness which alone will guarantee deterrence and safety for the long run.” He called the review “truly transformational” and said that the 62 time-specified recommendations were “the very minimum that we’d like to be certain that the country and our people can be properly secure in the long run”.
Lord Dannatt (crossbench), a former army chief, said that “in 1935 we were spending lower than three per cent on defence and failed either to discourage or appease Hitler. . . Deterrence have to be our strategic objective.”
Baroness Coussins (crossbench) wanted “soft power [to] be acknowledged as one essential element inside the broad sweep of defence, on the premise that prevention is best than cure. . . that the Government must take a strategic and generous view of the financial support that they offer to the World Service, the British Council, higher education, and the help budget.”
For Viscount Stansgate (Labour): “A serious attack can be geared toward destroying our energy capability, our financial capability to conduct transactions, and our communications, not to say inflicting damage of a form that might dwarf anything we’ve seen before. Social cohesion and social order is likely to be at serious risk of collapse, which we didn’t see in World War II.”
Lord Bethell (Conservative) raised the difficulty of health as “a key component of national resilience and competence”, together with its importance for “fitness to serve. The health of the recruitable population has declined to crisis levels.”
Responding for the Government, Lord Coaker said that it was essential that a defence-readiness Bill was being prepared. He said: “Increasingly, this Parliament and our leaders have said clearly that we’re at a crossroads. Every every so often, history brings crossroads, and we’re at one among them now. The international rules-based order is facing a challenge from various countries, and sometimes you might have to get up.”
In conclusion, Lord Robertson said that, while the Bishop of Bristol “didn’t classify it as a valedictory, it actually was the last speech. On behalf of all Members of the House, I thank her for her service to the House and want her well in her retirement.”
After a four-hour debate, the take-note motion was agreed.
