EU Security Action for Europe Programme

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent steps they have taken to explore the UK’s participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe programme.

My Lords, the Government entered SAFE negotiations in good faith, but will only enter into agreements that are in the national interest. While no SAFE agreement was reached, we remain committed to EU co-operation under “NATO first”, whether through SAFE or other initiatives. It makes sense for Europe to work more closely together. In this context, we welcome the UK’s participation in the EU’s €90 billion Ukraine support loan, announced last week.

My Lords, I also very much welcome that announcement and I agree that the price tag from the EU was totally unreasonable on the first round. The fact that the defence sector in Europe is divided is an indication of weakness in the West and a gift to Putin. Will the Minister and the Government renew their efforts to find a sensible solution to joining SAFE? If the Canadians can, surely the United Kingdom can.

Of course, we remain committed to co-operating where it is in the national interest to do so, as I said. The noble Lord is right to point out that it is in all our interests for Europe to co-operate on industry and defence to generate the interoperability that we need to cope with any threat from Russia. That takes place within the overall umbrella of NATO. As he and all noble Lords know, the defence industry is a vital component of any means by which we deter any adversary; for them to believe that we can arm and supply the troops we put on the front line is crucial.

My Lords, in this week of the Farnborough air show, and following the excellent Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference last week, which I attended, does the Minister agree that these opportunities for us to bring together our European counterparts and, importantly, European industries are significant events in our annual calendar?

Alongside our failure to get an agreement on the SAFE project, as the noble Lord, Lord Teveson, highlighted through his Question, there are numerous initiatives taking place and numerous things happening. My noble friend is right to point out the Farnborough air show, which brings together industry from across Europe and across the globe. It is at those sorts of events where industry can co-operate to provide the equipment and resources that we need to deter any threat. You can see initiative after initiative, and I may get the opportunity to lay them out further on this Question, where we and other European countries have come together to establish defence agreements which take forward all our defence needs.

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on not accepting totally unacceptable terms on the first idea from the EU. Can the Minister confirm that our defence contractors can look forward to a very big increase in orders for our own defence requirements, so we do not need to pay a lot of money to get contracts elsewhere?

Of course we want the growth of our own industry, and we want it to have the means to support our UK Armed Forces; that is really important. But our industry and our defence also need exports, so I do not see this as one versus the other. Growing our own industries is important to supply our own Armed Forces, but working with partners to develop exports helps collective defence, and we should pursue that as well.

My Lords, the word “weaponisation” is in common usage. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to weaponise the defence industry of the whole continent of Europe to meet the scale of the challenges that we need to be ready to deter? Forcing us apart is not the way to do it. Whether through the SAFE initiative or one of the other initiatives that the Minister mentioned, it is now time to get the supply chains of Europe together on a sound financial footing, involving all parts of a weaponised financial system, which would give us an advantage. Does the Minister agree?

I agree with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord. It was best illustrated when, soon after the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, I read in a newspaper that Ukraine had had to retreat: not because it did not have the soldiers or desire to fight but because it did not have the weapons to fight with. That cannot be a situation we allow our allies or ourselves to be in in the future. The ability to keep your own forces and those of your allies supplied is absolutely crucial to any conflict. As the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, preparing for war is one sure way of preventing war.

My Lords, the Minister suggested that he might have an opportunity to talk a bit more about bilateral and other relations. When this Government took office barely two years ago, a lot of preparatory work had been done, for example between John Healey and Boris Pistorius on a British-German relationship on defence. Can the Minister confirm that the sort of work that has been going on for the last two years to strengthen bilateral defence relations will continue and that a change of Prime Minister and other personnel is not going to impede the effective work that is being done?

I can confirm that. Clearly, it is in all our interests that, alongside the collective agreements we seek, we also seek individual agreements, as the noble Baroness pointed out. She will already know of our agreement on frigate building with Norway, the recent announcement with the Netherlands on amphibious ships, the typhoon arrangement with Türkiye, the individual arrangements with Germany and France, and there are many others. The bilateral relationships that we have with other countries, and the bilateral agreements to rebuild our industries, are crucial to building the defence industrial base we need.

My Lords, I congratulate our new Prime Minister: he was a good MP for Leigh and Mayor of Manchester. In the interest of our country, I wish him every success. Last week, I met with military chiefs at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and they told me of their profound concerns about the outgoing Prime Minister’s defence investment plan, which led to the resignation of his Defence Secretary and Minister for Veterans. Will the new Prime Minister reopen the defence investment plan, in order to fund our defence properly? Will he also have the good sense to keep the Minister in his place?

Well, I agree with the beginning and end of the noble Lord’s question. As he knows, we have had debate and discussion about the defence investment plan, and we will continue to do so. We have heard the Prime Minister talk about the importance of defence and the noble Lord will know that, as it stands, we have a defence investment programme and a commitment to raise the £4.7 billion in the 2026 Budget. He will also know that defence and security will be the number one priority of the 2027 spending review. It is then that further discussions will no doubt take place about how we move forward with the defence investment plan we currently have.

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that discussions are still going on with Germany about its involvement in the global combat aircraft work?

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.

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?