Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I am conscious that I am about the halfway point in our debate and therefore I risk some repetition, although repetition lends emphasis. I add my welcome to the majority of the 62 recommendations in the strategic defence review but emphasise that without sufficient and timely funding, the review will not make the impact to which the authors aspire and which the nation needs.

I believe we universally agree that the current funding plans are woefully inadequate and threaten to deliver the dire security outcomes that the review sets out to avoid. Irrespective of the many other funding pressures the Chancellor is juggling, this review must be fully funded to 3.5% of GDP by 2034 at the latest and not deferred until sometime after 2035.

At risk of further repetition, I remind your Lordships of the key figures relating to the late 1930s, a period of history with worrying analogies to today. In 1935 we were spending less than 3% on defence and failed either to deter or appease Hitler. In 1939, when the war broke out, that figure jumped up to 19%. In 1940, when we were fighting for our very survival, the figure was a staggering 46%. That is the cost of having to fight a war. Surely the Minister would agree that it is much better to pay the correct premium for capable Armed Forces now and insure ourselves against future war. Deterrence must be our strategic objective.

Funding is the big issue, but so too is our agility to respond quickly to new circumstances. If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it is that war drives the pace of innovation in ever-accelerating cycles. Changes on or above the battlefield, change on or under the surface of the sea and change within the characteristics of new threats are highly dynamic, but they do not amount only to embracing new technologies as the means for the future. Mass matters, whether it is masses of drones, masses of firepower or masses of soldiers on the ground. As the bloody front lines of Ukraine testify, quantity has a quality of its own. This applies equally to the quantum and timing of change in the defence-industrial sector, as well as in the zones of conflict. We must produce more and do it quickly.

An aspect of the SDR that is particularly to be welcomed is its emphasis on national preparedness and resilience, as a response not just to direct confrontation but to the kaleidoscope of threats in the grey zone. But, as president and founding chairman of the National Emergencies Trust, I am alarmed to hear that the timetable for delivering a more resilient nation mirrors the timelines of spending on hard aspects of defence—not until the mid-2030s. I am told that resilience planning is focusing on the nation being prepared to face new threats domestically—but not before the mid-2030s. I fear that in this area too, the no-money/spending tail is wagging the threat-response dog. Can the Minister comment on the timetable for strengthening our national resilience?

Of course, plans, when made, can be accelerated either for deterrence from threats abroad or for resilience to threats at home. But what intellectual justification can there be for not increasing our capability at home and abroad until the mid-2030s? I am not alone in believing it more likely that, following some form of ceasefire in Ukraine in the coming months, Vladimir Putin, with his armed forces reconstructed through the clear focus on his war economy and defence industry, will be in a position to test NATO’s resolve in two or three years’ time—perhaps sooner but certainly before the mid-2030s. Putin may not want to occupy one or all of the Baltic states again, but a serious incursion into one or other would test the viability of NATO’s Article 5. Would we fight for Estonia, and with what consequences at home or abroad? More to the point, would the United States fight for Estonia? Vladimir Putin, that unreconstructed KGB colonel, would love nothing better than to drive a wedge into NATO and shatter the cohesion that defeated his beloved Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union in the late 1980s.

Our Prime Minister said earlier in the year that he was ready and willing to put British boots on the ground in Ukraine; he may have been willing, but can the Minister tell the House when we will be ready? I submit that not until the mid-2030s will be too late and that it represents a huge risk to our cherished way of life.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, not least because the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill are ones with which agree.

When my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate—which is worth having, without a doubt, and raises serious issues—can he reassure the House, first, that the commissioner will have the powers she or he needs to investigate, whether in individual or thematic investigations? Secondly, can he confirm that the amendment we are considering, however well-intentioned, which it clearly is, does not in fact add anything to the powers the commissioner already has under the Bill? Thirdly, can he say something about the role of anonymity in relation to these matters? I think there is a common concern around the House that people should feel able to raise matters in that way.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward to this point. I will speak in support of Amendments 3 and 5. I believe that there is a distinction between a complaint that an individual wants to see resolved and the challenging of something that is wrong in the system. It is the challenging of something someone perceives to be wrong in the system that is at the heart of whistleblowing.

In order not to risk engaging your Lordships’ House any longer, I would like to say that, as a former Chief of the General Staff, I support this. I believe it would strengthen the chain of command and strengthen the role of the commissioner, and I urge support for Amendments 3 and 5.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to support the amendments laid by my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Minto, and congratulate them on their principled work on matters defence and, in particular, on this Bill. I wholeheartedly wish to commend all noble Lords who have engaged with this legislation and the constructive contributions from across the House. I also declare an interest as a veteran.

I add my support for Amendments 3 and 5, as at the forefront of all our minds is supporting those men and women who serve, and their families who, in turn, support them. It is an honour and often a sacrifice to wear the uniform, and it is precisely because service personnel do serve for us and our freedoms that we enjoy these deeply cherished and fought-for freedoms. The very least we can do is strengthen protections around their welfare and well-being, formally safeguarding their voices and those of their nearest and dearest under whistleblowing regulations, so that they are always heard and their welfare is never taken for granted.

The whistleblowing provisions and clarifications sought by several contributors to this debate—those provisions inherent in these amendments—are vital to providing further support and protection to our service personnel and their families. As my noble friend mentioned, this Bill is stronger because of cross-party collaboration and the shared respect that we all have for those who serve. I put on record my support for these amendments. I hope they become part of this Bill and sincerely commend the work done by all involved in bringing the Bill before Parliament.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1935 we were spending less than 3% on defence? We failed to either deter or appease Hitler. Is he further aware that, in 1939, when the war had broken out, our defence spending rose to 19% and in 1940, when we were fighting for our lives, it was 46%? That is the disastrous cost of fighting a war. Does he agree that we must do all we can to prevent history repeating itself?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I completely agree. The noble Lord will know that at various conferences and in various decisions I have made I have talked about the importance of deterrence. That has to be at the forefront of our minds as well.

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for the work he did on this, and for his general welcome and question. If noble Lords will forgive me, because it is such an important question I am going to read an answer, which is unusual for me. It is important that this is accurate with respect to Pakistan and the question from the noble Baroness. I apologise for this, but it is important that we get this right.

We are in regular contact with the Government of Pakistan and we are very grateful for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans who have completed their security checks will not be deported. If an individual in scope of the review has their decision overturned, they should be offered the same level of protection from deportation from Pakistan. We are engaged in ongoing constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan over the ARAP scheme.

We have explored every avenue to try to extend protection from deportation enjoyed by Afghans in Pakistan. We have confirmed eligibility and completed security checks for those in scope of the review while it is under way. While we have not been able to find a mechanism for achieving this on the UK side, we are grateful to the Pakistan authorities for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans will not be deported. Indeed, to my knowledge, no Afghan with confirmed ARAP eligibility has been deported from Pakistan. We look forward to their ongoing support as we relocate Afghans to begin their new lives in the UK.

I apologise for reading that, but it is important to be completely accurate.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. If any of the groups or individuals who supported the British forces in Afghanistan deserve proper treatment, it is the Triples, who supported our special forces in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In welcoming the content of the lengthy Statement, I am pleased that there is no party-political issue.

Would the Minister agree with me on two things? First, Mr James Heappey and the former Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs Mr Johnny Mercer played a significant role in this, at some risk to their personal integrity. Secondly, would he agree that 25% is an interesting figure? Could the Government err on the side of generosity and allow more than 25% and, where the circumstances are that the decision is in the balance, act in favour of the individuals? As I said, they are extraordinarily deserving. We have to be very careful of our national and international reputation when we operate in faraway places.

Combat Air Capability

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As it stands, we are certainly sharing the costs with Italy and Japan, as the noble Baroness points out. Regarding other partners, we are considering that and discussions are taking place, without any firm commitment as it stands. Interoperability is key. She will know that Germany, France and Spain are also developing a sixth-generation fighter—SCAF—as is the United States. They are all part of NATO, so interoperability becomes essential.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, while we accept that future generations of fast jet aircraft should be able to fly off aircraft carriers and fixed land bases, will the noble Lord accept that we also have land forces that need major investment? Will he also consider that going to just 2.5% of GDP is wholly inadequate and that the conversation should be about 3% or 3.5%?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The review will, of course, look at the necessary profile with respect to air, land, sea and intelligence and technology sharing. The Government have made an absolute commitment to 2.5% and are determined to deliver on that as soon as they can.