Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, those were wise words from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I join him in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and his committee.

All seem to agree that the context within which the report was drafted has changed dramatically. Obviously, one would be the announcement by our Prime Minister of an increase in defence expenditure and more to come, but also the flurry of announcements made since Munich by the President and the Vice-President, which makes some argue whether we can still rely on the US and whether all the assumptions we have made since the Second World War about transatlantic relations are put in question. Are we still confident that the US will come to our aid? I note that the former US ambassador to Moscow said over the past few days that we need to rethink the side on which the US is now, because there have been so many things said by the President which favour Moscow, and there has been no criticism of Moscow but much criticism of President Zelensky, who was lectured, indeed humiliated, when he visited the White House and may yet again, Canossa like, have to go on his knees when next week he visits, or is likely to visit, the President, possibly with President Macron and our Prime Minister. The question of trust must arise and must affect all our relations, including our reliance on the US for the nuclear deterrent.

There is an old adage, “Think it, don’t say it", and we have to understand our Prime Minister when he bites his tongue, I guess, about things he would like to say about the utterances of President Trump, but he cannot say them, and we are more able to do so.

You can talk about the responsibility for the war. President Trump mentioned Ukraine as starting the war. He wants to increase the G6 to the G7, and it is sad to see the way in which Congress, or at least the Republicans, a few days ago sycophantically rallied around the President, yet a few months ago, they would have given just the same response to President Zelensky. Now they exult in the President’s new clothes.

Paragraph 155 of the report states that we should:

“expect a gradual shifting of US priorities”.

There has not been a gradual shifting. There has been a fundamental reversal by President Trump, by the pause, in terms of Ukraine, on both the military side and intelligence. To remove intelligence, in terms of both the offensive and defensive capability of Ukraine, can harm the war effort immensely so that Putin can take yet more land in advance of any peace treaty.

Since the publication of the report, we have seen this flurry of declarations, and we need to re-evaluate our relationship. It is argued that the specialist cadre in the Foreign Office regarding Russia has hollowed out. I recall that many years ago when I was in the Foreign Office in response to that challenge, we responded to the Hayter report to increase concentration on Russia. Do we now need a similar Hayter report?

I turn to particular aspects of the report: the wider challenge of defence in a more diverse society and the role of the reserves, which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke wisely about. The older generation in our country is more ready to relate to the military than the younger generation. When I sell for the Royal British Legion for 11 November, I often find that young people are reluctant to give to the military whereas older people are very ready to do so. We need to educate our communities.

Many have made points about the global South, as it is now called. The committee says that we should deal with that with ODA—that does not sit easily with the recent cuts to ODA.

Finally, there is the question of realism, mentioned in the summary and discussed well by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Can we still afford the full spectrum on defence and to what extent should there be a substantial move to our European allies and a rejection of some of the ideological antagonism towards Europe? It is very important that the Government respond to the new Germany, as Chancellor-to-be Merz asks to be brought within the circle of our nuclear powers. On this point of realism, we should invite everyone to go to Delphi, consult the oracle and perhaps be ready to examine ourselves and know ourselves better than we do at present.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Russia’s malign maritime activities are not confined to its navy. My noble friend the Minister will recall that, on Christmas Day, the Finns impounded a vessel and took it to their home port; it contained spy equipment and, allegedly, dragged its anchor and damaged a number of cables. That was part of the Russian shadow fleet, which is underinsured, potentially polluting and sanctions-busting. Can my noble friend say what can be done to counter the threat of the Russian shadow fleet?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that, for any ship posing a threat to this country, there will be an appropriate maritime response from our military, primarily through our maritime capabilities. He raised a really important point. So far, we have sanctioned 93 vessels, which means that they are unable to access some of the normal arrangements that ships have, including access to financial markets. As a result, some ships—I think there are two, but there may be others—have had to remain in port. The sanctioning of those ships is an important way forward. We are well aware of the various activities taking place, and where we suspect it and can prove it, we will take action.

Air Defence Capabilities

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful question. We are committed to the 2.5% and he knows the policy, which I have laid out on many occasions. The important point that I am trying to make with respect to the noble Baroness’s Question is that air defence will have to play an important part in our defence in the future, whatever level of budget we arrive at.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that recent exposure of our vulnerability to missile defence attack should lead to some reflection on whether we should tilt to the Indo-Pacific or give greater emphasis to homeland security? Perhaps we should take advice from the Israelis, with their Iron Dome, about how best to do it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We need an air defence system that is appropriate to our own country and our alliances, which is why we are seeking to build those alliances through a number of different projects. I very much take the view that there is an indivisibility of conflict. What happens in the Indo-Pacific affects us in Europe; what happens in Europe affects the Indo-Pacific. I have been to South America and heard the concerns there about what is happening in Europe. Wherever you go in the world, those who stand with us in the defence of freedom understand that there is an indivisibility of conflict, and that is what we need to stand for. It is really important for this country, and we should be one of the leaders of that.

Relations with Europe

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, to the noble Baroness I say congratulations. Bilateral relations are important but should be no substitute for a closer relationship with the EU as such. I agree with her in looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Hodge, with whom I have worked internationally as an anti-corruption campaigner.

This is a timely debate because people are, in my judgment, coming to realise that the Brexit vote was a major historic mistake on our part; that the Government now aim to reset relations with the EU as an institution; and that there is the possibility of a Trump victory, which would have major implications for our defence policy. We in the UK now have a new stability at a time of insecurity in a number of EU countries, which gives us the opportunity to promote initiatives.

The EU has changed, and both sides of the old argument must recognise that. We see increasing populism and nationalism in the EU—most notably latterly in those countries close to Russia and Putin: Hungary, Slovakia and possibly, shortly, Austria. On the economic side, the Draghi report shows the current economic disarray in Europe.

The starting point must surely be that the referendum result is a fact and that we cannot now hope for a “big bang” return to the status quo ante but must proceed by incremental steps, where we can, with what the EU agrees is in the common interest.

I take the three points made by the noble Baroness. On diplomatic and political initiatives, I submit that our weight in the world has reduced as a result of Brexit. Our influence with key allies, such as the US, is less, so we must seek ways to build bridges. For example, is there scope to strengthen the EPC with more frequent meetings, a formal treaty and a secretariat?

Culture knows no boundaries. Turing is a poor substitute for Erasmus. I hope that my noble friend will update us on the current position in respect of youth exchanges and comment generally on that issue. One fact of migration is that Iberian baristas and Polish plumbers have been replaced by excellent care workers from the Indian subcontinent and southern Africa who do not stay for a short while, like the baristas, but stay for a long time and bring their families with them.

On the security side, here perhaps is the greatest scope for co-operation, with our excellent military, defence industry and intelligence facilities and a common adversary in Russia. After all, in February 2018, Theresa May proposed a defence security pact. I believe that the appointment of my noble friend Lord Robertson to head the review was inspirational. My only fear is excessive caution on the part of the Government, as if they are walking backwards to Europe with great hesitation.

Our direction of travel so far is right but surely, after the great election victory, we can now be bold and put the Ming vase back in the display cabinet.

King’s Speech

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome our new Government Front Bench. We have just had a general election; normally, foreign affairs do not play a leading part in elections, with the exception this year of Gaza, which perhaps reflects the new diversity of our country.

Looking at the manifestos and the conduct of the Government, at the moment there is a relative continuity of policy towards what has happened over the past year—certainly towards Gaza and Ukraine, where there may be broad consensus between the parties. However, there are differences between them which will become manifest in the tone of policy, humanitarian and development policy and, above all, our relationship with Europe and what the new Foreign Secretary calls a progressive realism or pragmatism.

I see a post-Brexit Government who seek to connect and reconnect with their allies and avoid the nostalgia of “global Britain”. I noticed the headline in today’s Telegraph: even the moderate Mr Tugendhat says he is ready to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. Well, membership of the convention is necessary to be a member of the Council of Europe. How can it add to global Britain to leave the Council of Europe, in which we played a leading part?

We welcome the new defence review and the inspired appointment of my noble friend Lord Robertson as its leader. There has been a general consensus among speakers in the Chamber on the importance of his appointment. The 2022 refresh was of course an improvement on its predecessors but still included a tilt to the Indo-Pacific, which perhaps now needs to be moderated, and underlay the development of the two carriers when recent evidence increasingly points to the turbulence in our own backyard of Europe.

During the review, policies in the United States may develop. If a Trump-Vance duo is elected and leads US policy, this will clearly have major repercussions on NATO and on defence policies in Europe, which would stimulate Europe to make greater provision for its own defence and affect mightily the defence relationship between the UK and the European Union.

Any incoming Prime Minister wishes to focus mainly on domestic policy, but our own Prime Minister was speedily diverted by both the 75th anniversary of NATO and by the EPC in Blenheim. How do the Government see the EPC developing? It may be like the WEU. I was in the Foreign Office in the early 1960s, when we used the WEU as a linkage between us and the European Union, as it has become. Will there be a more structured development for the EPC with, for example, a secretariat? Does it have growth potential? Europe is littered with bodies which have not properly adapted and should perhaps be abolished or at least modified. I am thinking of the OSCE, formed after the Helsinki Accords, and even of the Council of Europe, which should concentrate more on core human rights. Like the Western European Union, the EPC is certainly a forum for relations between us and our European partners.

Finally, there will be a major change, in my judgment, on Europe. I recall that the old Fabians saw an advance to socialism, brick by brick, in the same way we advance to Europe, with youth exchanges, Erasmus, veterinary policies, energy policies and so on. These are the bricks which one day may approach the ultimate goal, and I speak as a very convinced European. We have many national assets which we shall draw upon, and now we have a new Government with a new spirit. Above all, we are in a turbulent world. One thing the new Government bring, which is of immense importance, is stability to our foreign and defence policies.