EU Security Action for Europe Programme

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend Lord West that there are discussions with a wide range of people. The confirmation of the GCAP within the DIP was a hugely significant event and a number of discussions are ongoing at the present time with a small number of different countries on how that develops and is taken forward. That is all I wish to say at the present time.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that this is one case and one sector where the postponement of the EU-UK meeting from this month to the autumn provides an opportunity, and that there is a great necessity to ensure there is a defence element in anything that is agreed in the autumn?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. The defence and security partnership signed in May 2025 between the EU and the UK was a significant step forward. There will be a further summit, as and when it is arranged. For obvious reasons, it had to be postponed, but, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is a significant event, and we will continue to pursue that.

Strait of Hormuz: Merchant Shipping

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can confirm that it has been government policy for a considerable period to restore aid, as and when the conditions allow, to 0.7%. There is nothing new in that. I heard what the Prime Minister said about his commitment to defence in his speech, so we will see what happens. As I say, it is government policy, as it stands, to restore aid to 0.7% and the Prime Minister made clear his commitment to defence in the remarks he made outside Downing Street. I think that is the answer for the noble Lord.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, for nearly 30 years after the signature and entry into force of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—to which we all subscribe and which considers the Strait of Hormuz to be an international waterway—it was possible to sustain that in the face of Iran not so agreeing, but not by using force? Could that not be an element in a diplomatic approach to this which would cover the extremely important issue of Iran’s nuclear programmes as well, both of which need to be resolved if there is to be peace and security in that region?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting and important point. The commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is an important restatement of the fundamental principle, not only in the Middle East but across the world, of the freedom of navigation. It is an extremely important point and the noble Lord is right to remind us of it. That remains our policy objective with respect to the Strait of Hormuz. It is an international waterway; it should be free and the freedom of navigation should operate there. On the noble Lord’s other point about nuclear, I reread the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, and, for me, that could have been followed through to start addressing many issues, including the nuclear issue that he referred to.

Military in the Gulf

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that those discussions with the Treasury continue. On the point she makes, of course they ask for various military capabilities. HMS “Dragon” is in the region at the moment to support any operations that may be needed. Alongside that, what they have particularly asked for, given the indiscriminate way in which Iran responded, is for anti-air defence. We have provided that in significant quantity, with jets and the capability to defend their bases. They have been very appreciative of that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that military means are not necessarily the best means to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and that one better way of achieving that might be to revert to the situation we have been in for the last 30 years, where the Iranians did not ratify the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea but they did not interfere with freedom of navigation? That would surely be a better way of restoring economic growth to the world than military action.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know from his own experience that diplomacy is the first option in any problem—any issue that arises. Certainly, one way forward would be for Iran to ratify that treaty. He will know also that, in terms of the multinational mission we are planning jointly with France, our belief is that needs to happen within a permissive environment, which is what we are seeking. We see the current ceasefires with Lebanon and Iran, whatever the tensions are around them, and we would encourage people to maintain those ceasefires and try to find a diplomatic solution to the situation we are in.

King’s Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

To say that we live in a volatile and disrupted world is to state a truism. Truisms can get tedious, especially if too often repeated, but one ignores them at one’s peril. For no country is that truer than for Britain, a middle power in the Canadian Prime Minister’s perceptive characterisation, which has sacrificed influence by deciding to leave the EU in 2016, and which, while still having worldwide interests, cannot hope to further them effectively on its own. Add to that the fact that our closest ally for the past 80-plus years, the United States, can no longer be regarded as dependable in all circumstances.

It is frequently said that we can no longer rely on the rules-based international order, to the development of which Britain contributed so much in the aftermath of two disastrous world wars, and that we must come to terms with the new systems which have succeeded that order. However, the hard fact is that there are no such systems emerging, merely the modern equivalent of the law of the jungle, where might is right. That certainly does not suit our interests or our values.

The capacity of the rules-based order has not lost its value to us, whether we are talking about the UN charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea, the European Convention on Human Rights, the international trade rules of the World Trade Organization to secure freer and fairer world trade, or one of the many others. They are not outdated, nor would it be in our interest to allow them to wither on the bough.

Take nuclear weapons as an example. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which has recently held its periodic review conference, remains a cornerstone of international security. Without it, there would be many more nuclear weapon states than there are now, vying with each other in regional arms races. That treaty has ensured that only one of its signatories, North Korea, has flouted its obligations. In recent decades, Iran has come quite close to doing so too, but that point was not imminent when Israel and the US attacked it at the end of February. It is surely in our collective interest that Iran should never have a nuclear weapons capability.

That can be achieved only at the negotiating table and sustained only by a rigorous system of safeguards operated, without interference, by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That should surely be the aim, but little is being done to secure it since President Trump destroyed the best attempt to do so. Take too the dialogue on strategic stability between the recognised nuclear weapon states, which has been suspended since Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine. That too will need to be resumed at some future moment, together with agreements to limit the unlimited accumulation of those weapons.

The world needs a rules-based trading system, too, if we are not to slip back into the protectionist, tit-for-tat retaliation of the 1930s. Tariffs, unilaterally applied, are simply a synonym for taxes, which in the end negatively affect one’s own consumers and producers. There needs to be some international procedure for handling trade disputes, which is why the Government’s recent decision to join the interim procedure in Geneva was so welcome.

Later this year, an important decision will be taken in New York on the appointment of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UN has taken some hard knocks in recent years, as it did in the 1970s and early 1980s, but Britain as a permanent member of its Security Council should surely be doing all it can to secure the appointment of an effective, reforming leader to take over its leadership. We should be working to consolidate and strengthen the procedures introduced when Secretary-General Guterres was first appointed to open up the choice to more transparency and to ensure that no trace of gender discrimination is allowed to interfere with that choice.

The disruption we have seen in recent years to our international relations has already wrought some real damage to our ability to shape our destiny. That destiny is as a European middle state, with most in common geographically, politically and economically with other European countries.

Strait of Hormuz: Mine Clearance

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We always talk to the United States and continue to do so. The noble Baroness will know from the answers that have been given that we do not support the blockade, as proposed by the United States, and we are seeking other ways to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This is why I have talked about the summit we will co-host with the French in the next few days, and why I have talked about the nations that will be invited to PJHQ to find a way that is internationally supported and co-ordinated and has the support of all regional allies, so that at the end of hostilities, we can reopen the Strait of Hormuz in a way that is sustainable and which will deliver the result we all want. Of course, we continue to talk to the United States. I make no apology for saying that the United States, whatever the current situation, remains a crucial ally of this country and in the development, peace and security of the world as we go forward.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Can the Minister give us some reaction from the Government to the legality, under international law, of the action being taken by Iran to impede passage through the strait? It does not belong half to Iran and half to the Omanis; it is a strait with international waters. Can he say what action will be taken and how this affects our own involvement in future?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s fundamental point is a good one. That is why the Government have consistently said that they will act in accordance with international law—and we call on all states to act in accordance with international law. I know that sometimes people find this frustrating, but what moral status would we have, when calling other nations to respect and to co-operate according to international law, if we ourselves do not respect it? This is the point that we are making: we will always act in accordance with international law, and we expect all other countries to do the same, not only in the Strait of Hormuz but anywhere in the world.

Iran and the Middle East

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There are vast books written about international law that the noble Lord may wish to consult. But, clearly, after Iran strikes civilian sites—hotels in Dubai where British nationals are staying, with their lives put at risk—then what we are doing to support the United States is clearly a defensive action.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister agree that, for there to be any stability in the Gulf region and in the Middle East, there will have to be some kind of negotiated outcome on Iran’s nuclear activities, its missiles and its support for proxies? If that is so, what are the Government doing to discuss with the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France ideas that could be brought forward at some stage to achieve those objectives, other than by a collapse into chaos of Iran?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Experience tells us that, at some point, this becomes an issue of dialogue and negotiation. Who is involved, the nature of it, how it is staged and where it takes place are, as of today, not known.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There will be as wide a debate as possible. Some of it will not be debated on the Floor of the House necessarily—for example, rules of engagement and so on. Having said that, let me reiterate what the Prime Minister stated last week, because it is important to make sure that I am accurate:

“If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 254.]


The noble Baroness can read into that the answer to her question.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have had any indication from any Russian source that Russia would accept either British and French peacekeeping troops or troops deployed to uphold an agreement in Ukraine, or a ceasefire, which has been proposed on a number of occasions by President Trump? Then, could he perhaps also say whether the very high-level American attendance last week in Paris, where the commitments were made by the President and by the Prime Minister, meant that the United States Administration is firmly supportive of what the Prime Minister and the President were saying they would be ready to do if there was a settlement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have no knowledge at all of any commitment by Russia regarding the points the noble Lord made. On the American commitment to the discussions and the declaration of intent in Paris last week, it was very significant that people such as Steve Witkoff were saying how strong those commitments were and how much they welcomed them. That is extremely important. The Americans’ part in any security guarantee is really important and something we will continue to work on. As the noble Lord says, the fact that there was such high-level American representation is hugely significant.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

In general, my point applies, I hope, to a whole lot of amendments for which I would have much more sympathy—such as the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. He makes a valid point, but his amendment says that that point would have to be explored with the Mauritius Government before the treaty could be ratified. Therefore, I am afraid, I cannot support it.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I wish briefly to speak to Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I am struck by the fact that, in all his interventions so far in these debates—at Second Reading, in Committee and, now, on Report—he has never referred at all to the report of the International Agreements Committee on this treaty. He also seems not to have registered, let alone to respect, the vote that was taken at the end of the debate on 30 June.

The point I am making is that, were the noble Lord to go back to the documents and the evidence that was tabled at the time when the International Agreements Committee’s report was laid before this House, he would find there the testimony of Sir Christopher Greenwood. It is remarkably convincing and answers the question posed by the noble Lord in his Amendment 40; it describes what Sir Christopher thinks would happen in circumstances where Mauritius returned to a route that involved international litigation.

It is all set out there. He is an extremely distinguished British national judge of the International Court of Justice. It has nothing to do with the advisory opinion. It is to do with his views about the situation that would then exist. He believes that Mauritius would not have too much difficulty in convincing any international court to which it took litigation that the Chagos Islands were transferred at the time of Mauritian independence.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for not writing to him, but I hope that I can answer his concerns this afternoon.

Amendments 1 and 38, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, relate to the termination of the treaty based on environmental degradation of Diego Garcia island. As I am sure that he will appreciate, given the importance of the base to both UK and US national security, we and the US are working hard to ensure that the base is protected from environmental damage. We have a programme to address coastal erosion and, while we cannot predict future erosion, specific studies have concluded that the overall land area of parts of the island that are not shaped by military construction decreased by less than a single percentage point over the last 50 years. However, I know that this is not really his point. He is using climate change and rising sea levels, but equally a significant pollution event, a meteor strike or something else could happen, so have the Government considered what they would do in an unpredicted and unpredictable situation that may arise and render the base unusable? That is the kernel of what he is getting at.

For obvious reasons, we do not want to get into a debate about other future hypothetical scenarios, whether they relate to the base becoming unusable or its no longer being needed. It is difficult to see that happening. The US, which has invested heavily in Diego Garcia, agrees that opening up the possibility of the agreement with Mauritius being terminated early is not helpful. However, I take the noble and gallant Lord’s point that, when dealing with a treaty over such a long period, we must at least be aware of the possibility that things can change. That is why we have included in the treaty the joint commission as a mechanism for agreeing between the UK, the US and Mauritius any developments relating to the base that we wish to raise. Should any of the hypothetical scenarios that I have referred to transpire, these are the sorts of issues that could be discussed in the joint commission, with decisions taken based on all the circumstances at the time. We have also included provision in the treaty for the matter to be raised up to prime ministerial level if necessary.

Using these mechanisms the UK and Mauritius would, in close consultation with the United States, agree a way forward. Ultimately, there is provision in the treaty for it to be terminated on two grounds, both of which depend on action by the UK. One is our failure to make payments. As noble Lords know, the UK abides by its international obligations, but in any particular case the Government of the day would need to consider their options in light of all the circumstances, looking at the terms of the treaty as well as wider international law. It is this wider international law, which we have not discussed previously, that I encourage the noble and gallant Lord to consider. He may wish to bear in mind that the international law of treaties permits the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for the treaty to be performed as a result of

“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.

That is wider international law; that is not something that is held within this treaty itself. That is helpful and I hope it reassures him about his concerns.

I hope that the noble and gallant Lord can see that we are taking steps that are necessary to prevent the base becoming unusable and that, however hard hypothetical situations might be for us to imagine today, there are processes in place established by the treaty to resolve them. Using these processes, based on the circumstances of the time, no doubt any future UK Government would do what was in the best interests of the UK.

In the same vein, Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, discusses the ability to extend the agreement at the end of its initial 99 years. I assure him that there is already provision for the treaty to be extended by 40 years and beyond with the agreement of both parties. Even if agreement is not reached, the UK has the right of first refusal during that first 40 years after the initial period expires, meaning that no other country can use Diego Garcia without the UK being offered use first. I cannot accept his amendment as it seeks to change a carefully negotiated aspect of the treaty.

Similarly, I cannot accept Amendment 40, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which calls on the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the Government’s understanding of the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago should the agreement be terminated. The noble Lord is aware that the UK honours its international obligations and is committed to the treaty. The grounds for terminating the treaty are incredibly limited, as I have said, and entirely depend on the UK’s actions.

I thought it might be helpful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in particular, to outline a little more detail about from the law of treaties, which I am relying on in my attempts to persuade him this afternoon. Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which the UK and Mauritius are both parties to, provides that:

“A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.


Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a ground for terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty if the impossibility is the result of a breach by that party either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty”.


That covers the situation that he refers to—sea level rise—but would also cover many of the other situations that, at this stage, we are able to envisage occurring in the future.

I hope that noble Lords feel able to not press their amendments.

President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters, and he knows that numerous conversations go on and numerous efforts are made by numerous countries, in ways we cannot often speak about in this Chamber. Whether it is India and Pakistan, or other countries, numerous debates and discussions take place to ensure that we are as safe as we possibly can be. As he knows, the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will meet in New York next year—I think is an important statement that it is taking place in New York. It is a really important treaty. We have the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and we have the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I think sometimes that what countries such as us should do, as well as recognising the difficulties and problems, is to continue to push the importance of those treaties and to do all we can to ensure their continued success.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this is the latest instance of the potential use of nuclear weapons being referred to loosely by leaders of the recognised weapon states, on which President Putin gave the lead on several occasions when he spoke about it in the context of the Ukraine conflict? That is surely a lamentable change from the taboo on talking about these matters since the end of the Cold War. Does he think that we would do better to work at the non-proliferation treaty review conference next year for a reaffirmation of the view that a nuclear war must not be fought and cannot be won?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. With all the questions and my comments so far, it is extremely important that we do not let rhetoric cause a problem. The question that the noble Lord has posed is important. As I have said in my answers so far, it is important that we talk about the success of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We have not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1991. The United States and others have conformed to that as well. People must be really careful in the use of rhetoric in whatever circumstance. Our debates and discussions on these matters are looked at and pored over. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously. We need to be very careful in how we discuss these matters while having the right to discuss them.

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.