Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, if we were holding this debate in normal times, I suspect that it would be something of a lap of honour for its three authors, led so ably by that veteran of defence reviews, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who introduced this debate in such a masterly manner. It clearly marks a major shift from the excessive complacency of what was called the post-Cold War era and spells out convincingly why we need a new, hard-headed approach to defence and security—one that not only requires a major intellectual shift but that will change the resources we devote to these matters, not just in words but in deeds, if our own national security is not to be put at increasing risk.

However, the times are not normal. They are volatile in the extreme. Wars are being waged in Ukraine and across the Middle East—and could be waged in the Far East—which have brushed aside with apparent impunity much of the rules-based international order that was so laboriously and necessarily put together after the two world wars of the 20th century, not least the UN charter itself. The speed of change is being accelerated by the policies of Russia, the United States and China, and by a chaotic clash of long-term foes in the Middle East, whose hostilities are expanding rather than diminishing. So my remarks are in no sense a criticism of the adequacy of the review, merely a recognition that we are being swept along at speed by a tide of affairs that bears an uncanny resemblance to that which first engulfed the world in the period leading up to the outbreak of the First World War.

First, for a number of years after the Cold War ended in the 1980s, we fell into the trap of treating soft power as somehow a substitute for hard power. It is not. Now we risk swinging back in the reverse direction, shrinking the elements of our soft power in order to finance the resources for our hard power. In that category I place the decision to finance most of Britain’s necessarily reinforced hard power by shrinking an essential part of our soft power: our overseas aid budget.

It surely makes no sense to load the cost of the BBC World Service—a unique contribution to countering the tidal waves of misinformation and disinformation in today’s world—on to a regressive tax on the licence fee holder rather than onto the taxpayer. It is surely time to reverse that lamentable decision.

The world-leading role of our higher education institutions risks being hamstrung by misleading fears linking overseas students with illegal immigration. It is long past time that we stopped treating overseas students as immigrants and scaring ourselves stiff with the resultant net migration figures. We really do need to take another look at the balance of hard and soft power, recognising that we need them both.

My second point is that we risk failing to understand—and several noble Lords have mentioned this—how close we are to the collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to the consequences of such a disaster. I am not talking about our own decision to join other European members of NATO in returning to a tactical air role, which has no proliferation risks and could play a valuable role in strengthening deterrence against a resurgent imperialist Russia.

If Iran were to follow North Korea in obtaining nuclear weapons, the consequences of that disastrous development would very possibly be not only regional, but global—hence the need for the E3 to resume their efforts with perseverance to avoid that outcome by peaceful, negotiated means. I do agree with those who have mentioned the P5: at some point, the dialogue on strategic stability between the recognised nuclear powers—broken off quite correctly at the time of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine—will need to be resumed.

We do need to proceed with determination on the initiative to strengthen the European pillar of NATO on which the Government have so laudably embarked. This is not just a matter of responding to legitimate pressure from successive US Presidents, but a simple recognition of the need to react to Russian aggression via strengthened deterrence so that hostilities can be avoided as they were throughout the Cold War. That is why the review—quite rightly—chose “NATO first” as its motto.

All three of the points I have raised require that essential tool of soft-power diplomacy. We need to ensure that our diplomacy is properly resourced and does not fall short, as it is at some risk of doing.

Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report, which was so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and is the subject of today’s debate, was published last September. Given the volatility of the situation with respect to Ukraine since then, particularly since the re-elected President of the United States and his new Administration took office in January, one could be forgiven for querying whether it was still relevant. However, quite apart from the prescient title, this report contains nuggets of advice and warning that are as relevant today as the day that they were written. I will mention two in particular.

The first section of the report is entitled:

“The underlying importance of deterrence”.


That deterrence has ensured that we have not had what President Trump referred to last week as World War III throughout the past 80 years. Deterrence is a fragile concept, depending as much on the perception of your potential adversary as on your own allies’ political will. In recent weeks, the Trump Administration have hacked some considerable chunks off our deterrence, to the extent that the probable future Chancellor of Germany—a lifelong Atlanticist—on the night of his election victory questioned whether they could still be relied upon. That really was a wake-up call, and will need to be effectively addressed in the run-up to the next NATO summit.

It needs also to be remembered, as was mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Alton in particular, that if NATO’s deterrence is weakened, it will have negative consequences too for the allies of the United States in the Far East and the South China Sea. It is little short of astonishing that President Trump, who appears to give greater importance to that region of that world, has not worked out that linkage.

The second key point that I mention from the report is the conclusion reached, which reads:

“We welcome the new Government’s commitment to negotiate an ambitious security pact with the EU. This could represent an important step towards rebuilding credible conventional deterrence”.


Clearly, that requires all European members of NATO to strengthen their defence spending substantially; in that context, the Government’s announcement last week of such an increase is very welcome. How far has the security pact project now progressed? What prospect is there for a breakthrough on that by the time of the UK-EU summit on 19 May?

Turning back to Ukraine, the newly appointed US Secretary of Defense told us that we can have confidence in President Trump because he is

“the best negotiator in the world”.

If your Lordships are tempted to believe that, I suggest you read a report written by your Lordships’ same committee, published early in 2020, about the deal with the Taliban struck by President Trump, which provided for a time-limited and uncontrolled withdrawal of all NATO troops from Afghanistan. That deal paved the way for the miserable fiasco later that year.

The shenanigans that occurred at the UN on the day marking the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine defy description or analysis. To end up, as the United States did, abstaining on a Security Council resolution that it was itself sponsoring stretches credibility to breaking point, as does vetoing a resolution put forward by its allies in the company of the aggressor, Russia. That will not strengthen the chances for a just and lasting settlement in Ukraine. Things have gone a long way downhill since the first Cold War ended.

I make one final point. During last week’s meeting at the White House between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, several references were made to the need for diplomacy; the Vice-President was particularly eloquent on the subject. Well, now we know one of the essential components of successful diplomacy: avoid discussing in public contentious issues that are components of future policy. We could do with a bit more of that sort of diplomacy. I hope that the Minister will say what the Government are doing to encourage that sort of diplomacy—not just using the word as a genuflection in its direction.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord West for his question. No, I have not been there but I will go. I will write to let him know when I am going so that I do what I say I am going to do.

I take my noble friend’s point about capabilities. There will always be a debate about the capabilities and their development, but we are also entering the realm of the capabilities that we need. He will be pleased about the order for eight Type 26 frigates, which will be delivered by the middle of the 2030s. I think I laid that out in answer to a question from my noble friend.

On that development, although there will be differences, I give credit to the last Government where it is due. They ordered the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship “Proteus”, which deals with many of the underwater threats we face and has capabilities that are developing all the time. That has made a big difference. As my noble friend Lord West has often asked, what has happened to the commitment for the second? It will not necessarily be exactly the same type of ship as “Proteus” but it will have similar aims and objectives. That will certainly be part of the defence review as well.

My noble friend Lord West is right to make the constant demand for capabilities, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, did. That has to be a consideration: how many of such a platform we do have and what sort of platforms do we need to meet the future threats we face?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Minister is right when he says that the threat from the Arctic to the NATO area is increasing, with the melting of the ice and many other factors. When the Secretary of State for Defence has a first contact with his new US opposite number, who has just been confirmed, will he argue that we need to protect all the assets that NATO has in the Arctic and not be diverted and distracted by the issue of who owns Greenland or who wants to buy it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I could get myself in a lot of trouble here. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I am seeking to outline that it is important for us to start with the point, which is obviously true, that the US-UK special relationship and alliance is fundamental to our country and to the alliances to which we belong for the freedom and defence of democracy in Europe and beyond. One then goes on to say that of course we face various challenges, not least because of the opening up of the Arctic, so how do we best meet those challenges together? That is the way to take forward that relationship and those discussions, whether they are with the new Defense Secretary in the United States or the new President. That is how we can deliver the peace and security that we want and a sensible policy objective, rather than get into, “This is what somebody said”. That is a grown-up, sensible foreign/defence policy. If I am wrong then I am wrong, but that is the way I would approach it and that is the sensible and pragmatic way in which our country should do so.

Ukraine

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate after my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup. It is a well-known fact that the Cross-Benchers do not toe any party line, but I can say without any hesitation that I agreed with every single word in his contribution. It is also a privilege to speak after the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. I was delighted that he raised the issue of what we are doing to counter the disinformation of the Russian regime of Putin. I raised that in the first debate that we had, two days after the invasion, and I am still waiting for a reply. When the Minister responds to this debate, I hope that in reply to the noble Lord’s maiden speech she will say something on that aspect.

My own contribution to this debate will be about the diplomatic, political and historical background to it, about which I have some modest knowledge, rather than the all-important military background, of which my experience is slight. It must be clear to any observer now that the West’s position of virtually unqualified support for Ukraine, backed up by economic sanctions and supply of funding and weapons, is getting less backing from what is known as the global South than it did at the outset of hostilities, when Russia invaded Ukraine. Some of that loss of support is due to a fairly classical game of playing two sides off against each other, which is like mother’s milk in the diplomatic services of developing countries, but some of it goes deeper and deserves careful consideration and countering. It is striking, to say the least, that so many of the states that have abstained in recent UN General Assembly votes on Ukraine, or voted against them, are small countries with larger and better armed neighbours that run the risk of being treated by them as Russia has treated Ukraine. That is pretty odd. Do they not appreciate the risk, or do they just discount it? We need to talk that through with these Governments in a calm and dispassionate way and try to persuade them that we all have a collective interest in deterring behaviour like Russia’s. It is all very well talking about a moral high ground, but the bottom line for every country tends to be its national interests.

Then there are those—a few in this House and many more elsewhere—who feel that we should push Ukraine to come to terms with Russia, accepting some pretty large losses of territory. I have just spent a few days during the Recess in the French regions of Alsace and Lorraine, and have become more familiar with their tragic historic background—conquered by France from the Holy Roman Empire in 1676, seized by the newly established German empire in 1871, returned to France in 1919, seized again by Hitler’s Germany from 1940 to 1944, and only finally at peace and in security within the post-war establishment of what has become the European Union. In between that time and during that course of events, many millions of people died because of those botched settlements and the determination to overthrow them. That is the risk of going down what could be called a Minsk III route.

Then there is the double standards argument, cited in many different forms—Suez, Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the failure to recognise a Palestinian state and neglect of the civil war in Sudan, as well as many more expressions of what I am afraid can be described as “what about?” arguments. Some of these have validity in their own right, but not one contains a scintilla of justification for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, in blatant disregard of its own guarantee of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity when that country handed over its nuclear weapons in the 1990s. Not one of those arguments contains a smidgen of legal or political backing for bombing and seizing large swathes of Ukrainian territory inhabited by Ukrainians. There are things that can and should be done to address the double standards criticisms, but those do not alter the basic case for reversing the aggression against Ukraine.

All this leaves the impression that there is much that an active diplomacy by western countries needs to do but that there is no justification for changing our basic policy of solid support for Ukraine—quite the contrary.

Relations with Europe

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, a triple congratulations is surely in order for this debate: first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who has obtained a topical and substantive issue for us to cover; secondly, to the Government, for having set out so clearly in the gracious Speech the twin objectives of their European policy, a new security pact with the rest of Europe and a reset of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU; and, thirdly, to the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, whose chair, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, spoke earlier in this debate, and whose previous chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, set out in April 2023 a very clear agenda of what needs to find its place in such a reset.

We can now see, more unmistakably than ever, just how bad the Brexit deal that the Johnson Government “got done” in 2019 really was. It was bad for Britain’s trade and economy, bad for our relationship with the rest of Europe and bad for our influence around the world when we need it most in troubled times. Such mitigation as came with the Windsor Framework and rejoining the Horizon research programme has not altered the case for the substantial reset that the Government are now contemplating.

But we should have no illusions. Such a reset will need to be one that brings mutual benefit to both parties—otherwise, there will just be a lot of talk about cherry picking. That does not mean that every item of the reset has to be perfectly balanced; that would be to fall into the trap that Brussels has rightly criticised as the “juste retour”. But there will need to be an overall balance—otherwise, a better deal will not be struck. The Government are surely right to give priority in timing to the new security pact. That will be needed whoever wins the US election. It will need to cover security issues in the widest sense, including not only defence issues but law enforcement and the vexed issues relating to migration, which are showing so many signs of destabilising the domestic politics of too many European countries.

In responding to the debate, I hope that the Minister, who not only is responsible for defence but has experience with migration, will be able to say something about the objectives the Government are pursuing in the security pact. Are we thinking of joining more PESCO projects? Are we planning to establish a link with the European Defence Agency, such as the US has? Are we making a larger contribution to peacekeeping in the western Balkans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, called for? As to the wider reset on cultural, economic and trade issues, the agenda of 2023 remains as valid as when it was put forward.

All this will take time to achieve. There will be setbacks along the way. The issues are complex and sensitive. We are asking the EU to contemplate a deeper relationship with a third country than it has ever had before. It will need to be underpinned, I suggest, by a structured framework of foreign policy co-operation, from which the previous Government shied away when the European Affairs Committee proposed it. I hope the Minister will reverse that shying away, because we will need to work closely with our European partners on a whole range of issues: Ukraine, obviously; relations with China; restoring our eroding links with what is called the global South; and handling the global challenges of climate change and pandemic diseases. We will have to do that if we are not to fall far short of what we could achieve working together collectively.

I conclude with a fourth congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her very moving maiden speech.

King’s Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, it makes no sense either to deny or condone the fact that the recent election campaign was, to all intents and purposes, a foreign policy-free zone—and that at a time when both main parties agree that the risks to our security and the challenges to the rules on which it is based, from those in the UN and Paris charters to those in the Geneva conventions on international humanitarian law, are higher than they have been for decades. A hard fact is that, although foreign policy may not be a high priority in most people’s eyes, hard choices on foreign and security policy will be thrust upon us in the period ahead. Today’s debate is an opportunity to remedy that lapse.

The two foreign and security policy issues that stand out in the gracious Speech—the reset of the UK’s relationship with its European partners and the proposal for a new security pact to strengthen co-operation on the mutual threats faced by the UK and the EU—seem to me to be worthy of wholehearted support and to measure up to the challenges of the day. The security pact, interpreting the word “security” in the widest sense to include aspects of law enforcement, merits the greater priority, not because it hinges on the outcome of the US election—it will be needed whoever wins that election—but because the ruler of Russia continues to insist on his right to seize by force large parts of Ukraine, a country whose territorial integrity and sovereignty were guaranteed by Russia in the 1990s in the Budapest memorandum when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapon. This flagrant breach of international law threatens our security and that of our fellow Europeans.

How long will it take to achieve those two objectives, and in what form and substance? It is far too soon to say or even to speculate, but I suggest that the Government might do well to engage in an in-depth process of exploratory talks with the EU and its member states before tabling proposals or entering negotiations. I hope that the issue of youth mobility will be included in that probing period, because it is not free movement, as some people say it is. The watchword throughout our reset must be to realise mutual benefits to all concerned—the very reverse of cherry picking. The Prime Minister seems to have made a good start on that at the NATO and European Political Community summits. Just remember, as we go along, the Chinese saying that the longest journey begins with the first step.

If we have learned nothing else from the horrendous events in and around Gaza from last October onwards, it is surely that neither Israel nor Palestine can hope to achieve security or prosperity without a two-state solution. It is to be hoped that the Government will throw their full weight behind the recent UN Security Council resolution designed to bring about an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and a massive increase in humanitarian aid. On that last point, I welcome very much the decision to resume our funding for UNRWA. I hope that the Government will act with real determination against any party which rejects that UN Security Council resolution or last week’s ruling of the International Court of Justice. As to the recognition of Palestinian statehood, would that not best be achieved alongside the recognition of Israel’s statehood by those of its Arab neighbours that have not already done so at the outset of renewed negotiations for a two-state solution, so that recognition does not again become a hostage to the outcome of those negotiations?

In conclusion, it is good that the gracious Speech recognises the urgency of global climate change. What is needed now is not so much more warm words at successive COP meetings as the implementation of national commitments already entered into, our own included. It is also essential to strengthen the capacity of the World Health Organization to respond rapidly and equitably to the next global pandemic when it comes along, as it will do, and to catch up the ground lost in making progress on the UN sustainable development goals, not least by moving our own ODA contributions back towards the 0.7% of GNI to which we committed ourselves under law.

A challenging period lies ahead. We should do our best to rise to the occasion.

Ukraine and Georgia

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. The whole issue of the “foreign agents” law is that it is very similar to a law that is operating in Russia, although it has not yet gone through the entire democratic parliamentary process. We all saw the riots inside and outside the Parliament of Georgia earlier this week. They are a strong signal that the concept that the foreign funding of external NGOs and agencies beyond the level of 20% creates an external threat needs to be vigorously resisted. We believe in free and democratic relationships and will do all we can with our friends in Georgia to ensure that that is maintained.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

On Georgia, does the Minister recognise that the effectiveness of external action will be crucially determined by its unity—that is, that the US, the UK and the EU are all taking the same line? Does he recognise that a number of member states of the European Union may say categorically that, if this Bill comes into force, it will not be compatible with Georgia’s membership of the European Union? That does not require unanimity in the European Union. It requires only one member state to say so, and that will stop it.

UK Armed Forces in Middle East

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the diplomatic situation with Iran is that we are using every possible effort to quieten down what could have become an extremely dangerous situation. So far, that diplomacy does seem to be working.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench recognise that neither of them referred, in their replies, to the role of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus? Does he not agree that the bases we have there have played an extremely positive role in recent times, and indeed in more previous times than that? Would he offer some thanks to those who are manning those bases?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly will and would. We are part of international coalitions and there is a certain level of sensitivity around precisely which states are involved in what. But I can assure the House, in all respects, that the level of support from various areas could not be higher.

Situation in the Red Sea

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I do not know the precise situation of where we are, but I know that there is great flexibility in transitioning to the new fleet. I will find out and respond.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will remember that, at an early stage in the crisis, the UN Security Council called on the Houthis to desist. What consideration are the Government giving to further action at the United Nations? Are they, for example, seeking to put together a majority in the UN Security Council, calling on all member states to stop supplying weapons to the Houthis and stop helping them in their illegal actions? If the first resolution went through, is there not a chance of getting something a little stronger by building on that?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Yes, there is quite some activity, but I am sure I need not point out to your Lordships that the Houthis pay scant regard to anything that the United Nations says.

Afghan Relocations: Special Forces

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I assure all noble Lords that we are in very close contact with the highest level of the Government in Pakistan. They are being extremely co-operative on the situation. Regarding the 12-week timeframe, we would like to get this sorted out as soon as possible. It has gone on for a very long period, but please keep in context the 142,000 applications. It has not been easy, and it is important that we get the safe routes correct so that people can get out of Afghanistan. Once they are in Pakistan and get the letter, we can get them out. We got another 2,900 people out fairly recently. It is a challenge, but we are getting there.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, what the Minister has said today is very welcome, even if he is denying that it is a change of policy, which of course it is. It would have been quite shameful to have continued on the basis on which we were proceeding before this change. Can he or his colleague in the FCDO say whether reconsideration is being given also to those who worked with and for the British Council over many years? I declare that I negotiated the opening of the British Council in Kabul some 60 years ago.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I will certainly take up that question about the British Council. The Government are absolutely clear about their responsibilities under ARAP and ACRS, and are doing their absolute best to ensure that we end up with a fair and equitable solution.