THE words of George Bell, Bishop of Chichester during the Second World War, were invoked in the House of Lords on Friday. During the debate on the Strategic Defence Review, the Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Revd Vivienne Faull, commented on “the ethics of international relations”.

She recalled how Dr Bell “thought deeply about and spoke, on occasions controversially, in this House about his conclusions”. With resonance for today “of the Church in wartime . . . he asserted that the task of the Church, in its service and witness, was to be the Church, and, often, that would be in practical endeavour within a whole-society response.”

She referred to the General Synod’s recent move to reassign military chaplains nationally and not locally. “That will allow chaplains, regular or reservists, to be licensed to move much more rapidly into operation . . . as the Church seeks to support the aim of increasing agility in deployment.” She also urged “investment in the provision 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. . . both a moral 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 ready 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 lead a national defence review. His began by giving his conclusion: “We are underinsured; we are underprepared; we are not safe. This country and its people are not safe.”

He continued: “This review outlines graphically the threats that we face and describes our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, but it also . . . charts the way in which we can recreate the war readiness which alone will guarantee deterrence and safety for the future.” He called the review “truly transformational” and said that the 62 time-specified recommendations were “the very minimum that we need to ensure that the country and our people will be properly safe in the future”.

Lord Dannatt (crossbench), a former army chief, said that “in 1935 we were spending less than three per cent on defence and failed either to deter or appease Hitler. . . Deterrence must be our strategic objective.”

Baroness Coussins (crossbench) wanted “soft power [to] be acknowledged as one important element within the broad sweep of defence, on the basis that prevention is better than cure. . . that the Government need to take a strategic and generous view of the financial support that they give to the World Service, the British Council, higher education, and the aid budget.”

For Viscount Stansgate (Labour): “A major attack would be aimed at destroying our energy capacity, our financial capacity to conduct transactions, and our communications, not to mention inflicting damage of a kind that would dwarf anything we have seen before. Social cohesion and social order might be at serious risk of collapse, which we did not see in World War II.”

Lord Bethell (Conservative) raised the issue of health as “a key component of national resilience and competence”, along 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 important that a defence-readiness Bill was being prepared. He said: “Increasingly, this Parliament and our leaders have said clearly that we are at a crossroads. Every now and again, history brings crossroads, and we are at one of them now. The international rules-based order is facing a challenge from various countries, and sometimes you have to stand up.”

In conclusion, Lord Robertson said that, while the Bishop of Bristol “did not 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 wish her well in her retirement.”

After a four-hour debate, the take-note motion was carried.