Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we have before us a very important report at an important time, indeed a turning point. Rather than pick out particular aspects of the report, perhaps I could summarise what I have been hearing so far this afternoon in three conclusions: Europe can no longer rely on the United States for its defence; Europe alone is not currently capable of defending itself or Ukraine; and President Trump’s most recent statements and conduct are compromising the credibility of NATO’s nuclear deterrent. Those are pretty serious conclusions for us to be drawing. I will say a few words on each.

On whether Europe can still rely on the US to defend itself, I strongly agree with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said. The US has been focusing away from Europe and towards Asia for a long time, and has been doing so based on a ruthless and dispassionate assessment of its own self-interest. Flagging that up is not anti-Americanism; saying it is a necessary antibiotic to clear some foggy, sentimental minds, particularly those clouded by too much attachment to the special relationship. We all hope that Article 5 is still alive in Washington but, like many noble Lords in this Room, I feel much less confident about that than I was only a few weeks ago. Just as concerning is that a similar assessment will be being made by potential adversaries, and therefore the risk of an extension of this war, or some further war, even if caused only by a miscalculation on this, is made much greater.

I will provide a few figures on the second conclusion that I drew—that Europe is not currently capable of defending itself. European-NATO GDP stands at $27 trillion. By comparison, Russia’s GDP stands at about $2 trillion and the UK’s is $3.6 trillion. Russia is supported by China; in fact, I do not think we have discussed China enough today. Part of the key to the solution, or at least to providing a long-term peace, probably lies in Beijing. On the question of European weakness, President Trump is right: Europe is well capable of defending itself. Our weakness is derived from a weakness of collective will and failure to organise logistics and co-ordinate our manufacturing capacity; it is not one of underlying economic capacity.

While I am throwing out a few numbers, I also point out that, based on figures from the Kiel Institute, 0.5% of European-NATO GDP in one year provides a sum greater than the total value of US support to Ukraine in the three years of this war. Another figure worth bearing in mind is that China’s GDP is six times that of Russia, which has, at least to some degree, become a satellite of China as a consequence of this war.

On the third point, the question of nuclear deterrence, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, and will add a couple of observations. Even if US nuclear policy has not changed in substance, President Trump’s disruptive style of diplomacy, and the uncertainty that comes with it, increases the risk of miscalculation. Certainty and consistency of policy bolster deterrence, but we are currently experiencing the opposite. Secondly, any diminution of the credibility of deterrence increases the risk of coercion of parts of Europe into concessions. That is the road to Finlandisation, and it is extremely concerning.

I end by referring to the fact that not only do we need to spend more money on defence and work much more closely with Europe to reconstruct our military manufacturing capacity and secure interoperability; we must also work with Europe to re-establish credible deterrence. On that, I quote what Friedrich Merz said two days before his election, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred:

“We need to have discussions with both the British and the French—the two European nuclear powers—about whether nuclear sharing … could also apply to us.”


Two days later, on the night of his election, he said,

“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe … so that … we can … achieve independence from the USA”.


He said the US

“does not care much about the fate of Europe”.

I do not know whether he is right, but I do know that we cannot rely on him being wrong.

Ukraine: Ammunition and Missiles

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has indicated why the Written Ministerial Statement came out when it did. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State produced one a year ago and undertook to do that. I think the noble Baroness will understand that the provision of ammunition to Ukraine is a fluid and fast-moving scenario. We respond to the requests. We do our best to ensure that we provide Ukraine with what it actually needs. The effect of that is already being seen in the conflict zone. The noble Baroness will be aware that on 21 July my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary sent out a very helpful letter that detailed a raft of information that I think is very useful not just to the other place but to this Chamber.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, further to that question and to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I am sure the Minister agrees that:

“We must shift our whole organisational culture away from the previous peacetime mentality to one where we live and operate as we would fight, focusing more on outputs than inputs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/23; col. 788.]


I am quoting the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons last week, so I am sure she agrees with that. The truth is that the Ukraine war has exposed the difficulty of increasing defence production quickly and the vulnerability of our supply chains. Is it not time now that the Government publish a full strategic plan to set out how to remedy this, not only because it is vital to our economy but because it will be crucial to the prosecution of the war?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord, in reference to the answers I have already given, that there is a very clear picture of how both the Government and industry have responded to this challenge. Industry was indeed operating on a peacetime expectation, and that has been shattered by the illegal war in Ukraine. From the information already provided, to which I have referred, it is obvious that a vast amount of work is going on. The MoD has already commenced a lot of the commendable reform work indicated in its Defence Command Paper refresh. I am satisfied that it is a fighting fit, ready-for-purpose department.

Ukraine: Russian Drone Attacks

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord is focusing on something very pertinent. Russia has increasingly struggled to secure critical inputs and technologies needed for its war against Ukraine because of unprecedented sanctions and export controls. We are committed to doing everything we can to isolate Russia further, and we are continuing to monitor whether it will extend its procurements from Iran to other suppliers of foreign weapons systems. That would be a very unwelcome development, but one that we would need to be aware of.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, further to the question that was asked earlier, as Russia has escalated the war in this shocking way, why have we not supplied the Ukrainians with the advanced weapons they need to defend themselves directly and to attack the sites, including those on Russian territory, from which these drones are being launched?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

We have been very careful as a country, whether acting bilaterally with Ukraine or in consort with our allies, to ensure that we are responding to what Ukraine says it needs and what Ukraine’s armed forces have identified as the necessary weaponry for them. That is a very important message to listen to, and we have been endeavouring to respond to it as best we can.

Aircraft Carriers and UK Shipbuilding

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

None. The Trident programme is a capital programme. The constraining factor in terms of the Royal Navy is far more around operating costs and crewing than the capital costs of platforms. We have to make sure we have a Navy that is sustainable and that we can afford to operate and crew in an increasingly tight market for engineering skills, where we often have to pay premium rates to get people with the appropriate skills. There is no point in building platforms we cannot afford to put to sea.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State appears to have resolved a massive problem that he inherited, and he deserves our congratulations for that, although the closure of the Portsmouth yards will be a big blow for many of my constituents. Can he give an initial estimate of the likely scale of the compulsory redundancies and will he reiterate the assurance that he has already given once, that none of those jobs were lost to keep jobs in Scotland at a politically sensitive time?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. On the last point, the analysis of where best to build the Type 26 ships, which will have to be built to a very tight budget and a very tight timetable, was made by the company—endorsed by the MOD, but made by the company. I can tell him, as I think I said in the statement— or, certainly, as the Prime Minister said earlier on—that 940 job losses are anticipated at Portsmouth between now and the end of 2014 as a result of the decision to end shipbuilding. About 11,000 jobs in the dockyards and the supporting infrastructure will remain.

Records of Detention

Lord Tyrie Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Tyrie]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the oral statement of 26 February 2009, Official Report, columns 3294-97W, on records of detention (review conclusions) and the answer of 6 July 2009, Official Report, column 549W, on Afghanistan: detainees, what steps UK authorities took to determine the status, under the Geneva conventions, of the two detainees concerned; whether the two individuals were classified by the UK authorities as (a) prisoners of war, (b) civilians, (c) protected persons or (d) under any other legal classification; in what detention centres in Iraq the two detainees were held by the US prior to their transfer to Afghanistan; and on what date the two transfers to Afghanistan took place.

[Official Report, 13 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 371-72W.]

Letter of correction from Dr Liam Fox:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) on 13 July 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Fox]

[holding answer 9 June 2011]: These individuals were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba and they were captured as they posed an imperative threat to security in Iraq. They had travelled to Iraq to target coalition forces and the operation launched against them was necessary in order to save lives. Our forces risked their lives to capture such individuals and to ensure the security of Iraq.

They were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad in February 2004, at the time that the UK was an occupying power in south eastern Iraq, and immediately transferred to US forces in Iraq in accordance with established processes. The reason for this transfer was that the UK did not have its own detention facility close to where the two individuals were captured. The individuals were then held in US detention at Balad and subsequently transferred to a US detention facility in Afghanistan by August 2004.

UK forces did not undertake an assessment of whether or not the individuals were prisoners of war because they were immediately transferred to US forces for detention. As part of the review of the case completed by officials between late 2008 and early 2009, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) considered the status of the detainees and determined that, as there was no information to suggest that they were members of the armed forces of Iraq, they would not have been prisoners of war. They may have been protected persons under the Geneva conventions, subject to certain criteria being satisfied. If they were protected persons, compliance with the Geneva conventions in respect of detainees held by US forces was primarily a matter for the US.

The MOD is co-operating fully with Sir Peter Gibson's Detainee inquiry, the purpose of which was described by the Prime Minister, in July 2010 as to

“examine whether, and if so to what extent, the UK Government and its intelligence agencies were involved in improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in counter-terrorism operations overseas, or were aware of the improper treatment of detainees in operations in which the UK was involved”.

We understand that the Detainee inquiry will consider this case as part of their work.

The correct answer should have been: