Corrected oral evidence: UK-Poland Security and Defence Partnership
Oral evidence, 30 June 2026.
The Chair
I might just stop you there, because I know you have to go.
Stephen Doughty
Yes, in five minutes.
The Chair
I have a quick follow-up question. These are all good things, but surely they are happening already. Why will the treaty make a difference? Is there a specific technical point to say, “Tomorrow, we will have more information sharing and everything else”? What is the difference?
Stephen Doughty
In some of these areas, I think you also need to have a very strong framework. This often involves working across government, both in the UK and in Poland, and with the EU or different parts of NATO. It is an important signal and framework that then gives a sure underpinning to the engagement we are rightly having with different parts of the Polish governmental system or otherwise. I do not know whether Joanne wants to add anything.
The Chair
It gets our Government to actually work together, which is quite useful.
Stephen Doughty
Yes, all the different parts of our Governments. I have excellent co-operation with my MoD and Home Office colleagues on this, and our teams work together very closely. That has to happen with all our partners as well, and I am confident that it happens in Poland.
The Chair
Do you have two more minutes?
Stephen Doughty
Yes, sure. I wonder whether there is something to add on the cyber front.
The Chair
We will come back to that. Joanne, can you remember to come back on that point, because I would like to dig a bit deeper? Q16 Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Minister, you have been giving a picture of working together with Poland. Earlier on, you said that the treaty was a step change building on previous agreements, but you then said that there should not be too much micromanagement. Can I pick up on how we are going to deliver this? You mentioned that you are following up on specific projects that you are currently working on. What are the specific projects?
Stephen Doughty
I will let the team give some examples of different particular pieces, but what I was trying to say at the beginning was that the overall framework is there to empower, not to constrain. It also sends clear signals to all the systems in both our Governments, as well as our EU partners, our NATO partners and, fundamentally, our adversaries, so that they can very clearly see what we are working on together. I do not know whether we have some of the specific landmark projects—they are called “lighthouse projects” in some of the treaties, but these are landmark projects.
Joanne Hamer
I will give one example, and Kirsty may then want to jump in. We talked about weapons earlier, so the one I would pick up on relates to weapons. Crucially, we are developing a new sovereign effector together. The UK and Poland are positioning themselves as a joint European leader in complex weapons, which presents a really exciting opportunity. What we are trying to do with that—the Minister has touched on this—is drive innovation and reduce dependency on external suppliers, and we want to make sure that there are long-term prosperity opportunities for both parties. Baroness Anelay, you asked about delivery and making sure that we deliver on that. Certainly, from a defence perspective, we will have an underpinning bilateral defence plan that will support the treaty. The Defence Secretary will hold us to account on that, and we will report to the treaty owners on how we are doing against it, so we will be held to account on delivery.
Kirsty Hayes
I can give a couple of examples outside the hard defence space, one of which is co-ordination on sanctions policy, which is obviously a key part of our economic deterrence of hostile actors. We will be strengthening our co-operation on both implementation and enforcement. Another would be our joint action plan on irregular migration, which we have already touched on. All the landmark projects are actually published, and we could certainly circulate them to the committee, if you have not seen them. The way it has been working in the case of lighthouse projects under the treaty we have signed with Germany, for example, is a really good way that we can hold ourselves to account. We have a structure in place, and we make sure that it is not all about the excitement of the signing of a treaty; it is about the substance within the treaty being taken forward in practical, pragmatic stages.
Stephen Doughty
I will give one other example. While this is about expanding the definition of security, one of our landmark projects is importantly expanding our health co-operation, particularly in issues related to health security—for example, how we respond to CBRN threats, how we deal with people who are injured in conflict, or how we deal with civil contingencies, medical evacuations and all those really important issues. We have a huge amount to learn from Poland on its civil resilience piece, as we do from our friends in the Baltic and Nordic countries. I really welcome the fact that we are seeing security in a broader sense here, because these are ultimately the things that keep people in this country safe, whether that is developing a particular medical technique or a way of detecting something. Given the threats from adversaries that we know we are up against, that is absolutely critical.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
Apologies for arriving so late; of course, I have not heard what has gone before, so apologies if I am repeating myself. One of the things that came through last week was the really strong relationship between the UK and Poland. I am old enough to remember something called the Anglo-Polish round table, which existed before the end of communist rule, and that was a very important element in building relationships. How will the treaty’s commitments on industrial defence co-operation impact defence industries in the UK and Poland, particularly on co-production and co-development? One of our witnesses last week, Justyna Gotkowska, said that there was a really strong feeling of co-operation between our two countries, so it would be nice to end a very positive note.
Stephen Doughty
We have mentioned a couple of the projects that we are working on developing, but another is large-calibre ammunition production and our expertise in drone and electronic warfare. I think you will see that those sit very well alongside some of the announcements that will be made today—I want to get ahead of those. I think there will be a crucial UK-Poland part of our wider mutual defence readiness and capability. I have huge affection for Poland and a real recognition of the history that we have together. I had a very moving moment when I attended, with Lord Coaker, the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Arnhem, in which my own grandfather fought; he was taken a prisoner of war and wounded. Of course, not many miles away the Polish were also bravely fighting, including General Sosabowski and others. I attended moving memorials at both Ginkel Heath and Driel with Polish friends. What was really powerful to me was not only that we finally recognised that it had not been properly recognised by the UK Government, which was a change that we secured through a statement from the Prime Minister and others, but that seeing our UK paratroopers and personnel alongside today’s Polish paratroopers and personnel was an incredibly powerful signal. It showed not only that we had fought alongside each other before but that we were ready to defend our countries and this continent again, if required. I think that is a great testament to the strength and depth of that relationship.
The Chair
Minister, thank you very much indeed. While we speak, the defence investment plan is being revealed, so I am sure you are going to go across and join that. Your engagement today has been hugely significant—we really appreciate it. Joanne and Kirsty, thank you very much for staying with us for a bit longer. Maybe we can go to some of the more specific points that I know you want to contribute on. Joanne, I think you were going to talk about some of the cyber threats and how we are going to work together with Poland through this treaty specifically.
Joanne Hamer
Can I go in reverse order, as I just want to pick up on that important industrial point? We talked about co-development and co-production, which is absolutely the place we want to be. What I would particularly bring out is that this is about getting both our industries and our military to military working better together, which is ever more important. Industrially, we are hoping for joint requirements that jointly shape delivery, building skills together, making sure that the skills are transferrable with one another and enhancing the co-production, which I think is going to be critical. One vignette that you may not be aware of is that we have something called the UK-Poland Joint Programme Office, which is both industry and government working together, based in Abbey Wood. It is seeing through the programmes that are already in place, and it will then also oversee the programmes that we do in future. I think the industrial place is in a really good position, just to build on what has been said. Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: I am interested in this, because skills is one of the things that we are interested in domestically. Can you expand a little bit on the co-operation on skills? Joanne Hamer: This is both of us learning from each other. For example, the Polish are very keen to rebuild their shipbuilding industry, so they are learning from us. It is then about what skills we can learn from them and, as the Minister said, it is very much about strengthening the partnership we have with them as well. That is about looking at where we both have skills gaps and asking whether we can help one another take that forward. I hope that answers your question. Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: I think we have all experienced the skills gaps since the Polish have left. The Chair: On procurement, with this plan being announced today, the constant feedback is, “It is very well having more money, but is it going to be spent better?” Many of us remain concerned that the MoD simply does not procure effectively and rapidly enough. Do you think this will help drive change within the MoD? Is it truly adaptable enough to actually work closely with a partner like Poland, which seems to be moving faster than we are in the new types of technology we need? Joanne Hamer: You asked earlier about some of the lessons that we are learning. One of the areas where we have struggled, but we are now learning through those struggles, is the ability to transfer information and commercial processes, which really picks up your point. We now have good collaboration and we are learning those lessons. Certainly, from a defence perspective, we have learned how to be more agile with our procurement through the Ukraine conflict and our support to Ukraine. We are looking to put those lessons more and more into business as usual, so those will support the relationship with Poland. Q19 Lord Anderson of Swansea: It is going off-piste a little, but we have excellent relations with Poland, and we have excellent relations with Germany through the Trinity House agreement, yet there is almost a lingering hostility towards Germany from many leading Poles based on historic experience. Is there any prospect of us acting as a bridge and helping to improve relations on that sort of level between Germany and Poland? Kirsty Hayes: We certainly can try to work in a trilateral manner. While I recognise the historical situation, as you set out, I think the urgency of the threat on the eastern flank of Europe has led to all European states working together more closely and forging ahead. I do not necessarily recognise the current characterisation of tension between Poland and Germany. Where we can play a productive and supportive role in that space, we would be very happy to do so with both our Polish and German friends. Joanne Hamer: Just to build on that, with the burden shift that we are seeing in NATO, we will see European nations working together much more closely to develop the capabilities that we need to fill the gaps left by the Americans. Q20 Lord Boateng: Culture plays very little part in this treaty, which is of course primarily focused on security and defence. However, over the centuries there has actually been a strong cultural link between the UK and Poland—musically and in a number of other ways. I wonder how the Government plan to flesh out what is referred to in the treaty, namely society links. Do you envisage that there will be more youth exchanges, or that there will be opportunities for cultural exchanges going forward that underpin the relationship of values that binds our two countries together? Kirsty Hayes: First of all, thank you for raising this. I think we would all recognise the tremendously powerful people-to-people links between our two countries, and the really significant contribution that the Polish community in the UK makes to our life and society. I would draw your attention to a couple of the landmark projects, one of which is close collaboration on science and technology. The other is the deepening links between our diplomatic services, which is something we are taking forward, but I think you are right that there is space to do more. The important thing to remember with all these treaties and projects is that they are not the end state. The strengthening of our links with our most important European partners should be a continual endeavour. That is something we can certainly look to take away for the future. If I could beg your indulgence, I just want to recognise the work of Katy and Oliver in my team, who are two of the real drivers behind this treaty and the project. I am sure they can take this away as something that they will work on with our embassy. Katy Reid: I can add on that point, if I am allowed. I am not sitting at the table.
The Chairman
Just come forward. Welcome: a surprise witness. Katy Reid: I am deputy head of Europe North department, so I have been covering Poland and several other countries for the last couple of years. There was a decision by Ministers to keep this treaty focused on security and defence—and security and defence in their widest context, as the Minister has explained, incorporating national security, illegal migration and economic resilience. On culture, we have good co-operation with Poland. The British Council concluded its season of culture just a few months ago. There were dozens of events in UK and Polish cities that celebrated the deep people-to-people connections that we have between the countries. On youth mobility, there are discussions with EU partners on youth experience at the moment, which I think is the appropriate vehicle for that discussion, rather than a bilateral issue. Kirsty Hayes: Sorry, I should have picked up on that point. Baroness Verma: Following on from what you just said, the concern is the skills gaps, particularly in the UK, and alongside that the approach we have to migration. We need to deal with illegal migration, of course, but in the wider context of migration, tackling the skills gaps with partners is critical for us. I think it comes to your point about the cultural side of all this within the debate, which I find is becoming more and more difficult. I do not know how you work around that, but it is really important, given that we are lagging behind in many areas on skills. Kirsty Hayes: If I may, I will pick up on a couple of points there. On specific skills, there is probably a global shortage in terms of countering some of these particularly hybrid threats, issues such as disinformation and cyber. This is not a governmental battle; it is a societal one. That is why the treaty draws out education and training as being so fundamental. Looking more specifically at skills gaps and migration writ large, Katy was right to highlight the fact that we are working really closely with EU partners on what a youth experience scheme might look like for our young people in particular. That is something we can continue to discuss with European partners. Q21 Lord Boateng: Let me give you one very practical example, and I declare my interest as a director of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Polish musicians in the UK and British musicians in the UK and in our respective countries are finding it increasingly difficult, frankly, to navigate the complex hurdles following Brexit in terms of keeping alive, maintaining and taking forward those cultural links. What positively can be done in that regard that might show the way for a broader EU-UK approach to the issue of musicians working in this area? I am old enough to remember the Know-How Fund and all that went into the links between the UK and Poland in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Culture played a hugely important part in all that, and we neglect it at our peril. It would be helpful, if you cannot answer now, if you would write to the chairman of the committee about this issue, because it is one that is tied up with the broader issue of the defence of our values. Kirsty Hayes: I really recognise the problem you outline there. I think our musical artists have found touring within the EU incredibly challenging, and that is a loss for everybody. It is a very important part of our soft power offer as the UK, but it is also a loss for potential audiences who benefit from the richness of that offer. Again, I cannot get ahead of ongoing negotiations with the EU at the moment, but it is something we are very seized on and we would be very happy to share further information at a later date. The Chair: It is often raised in this House. Lord Anderson of Swansea: On the cultural side, I am impressed by the fact that Poland must be almost unique in calling its main airport after a musician—Chopin. I ask about the English language. I assume that in this bilateral defence co-operation, English is the language used by both sides. We have been teaching the Polish military English for quite a long time. Presumably that continues. To what extent is it spread with English language teachers going to Poland? Joanne Hamer: We still do English language training. I would have to check on whether it is us going to them or them coming to us. I am afraid I do not know that detail, but we can provide an answer pretty much immediately after the session, if that is acceptable. Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: Lord Boateng, thank you, because it is normally the subject I bring up. This is not criticism, but in your response you said science and technology, and actually it is not just science and technology; it is culture. On the matter of youth mobility and so on, that is obviously for the Government, but I understand that it is quite useful if it is not Brussels-led but communication with each country. It is not just musicians, by the way; it is artists across the spectrum, the problem about being able to go to Europe but not come back after 90 days, and all that kind of stuff. As I understand it, we are being asked to be bilateral, as it were. I just hand that thought over. Kirsty Hayes: The reason I mentioned science and technology is that it is encompassed within the framing of security in the bilateral treaty and, as Katy has set out, that does not mean we are not doing a lot of bilateral cultural work with Poland; it is just not framed in this particular treaty and series of projects. Baroness Blower: I hope that even if the burden is that we are teaching English to our Polish friends and counterparts, we are actually making sure that some of our people have some words of Polish. It would be just a matter of courtesy, really. This is really a remark rather than a question, following on from Paul’s question about culture. I know from my experiences in the education area and working with teachers’ unions across Europe that there is an immensely close and very good working relationship between the teachers’ unions in Poland and the teachers’ unions in Germany. They do a very great deal of work together and seek to make sure that it features in their curricula. Of course, they are not the people who choose that—it is their Governments—but they do a lot of work on that. British unions, through the European level of Education International, have also done a lot of work with both Germany and Poland and trilaterally. Q22 Baroness Lawlor: You are writing to Lord Boateng about the cultural exchanges because you say that at the moment you cannot really comment, but the issue of visas and obstacles placed in the way of touring artists has reached crisis point. I am not sure that you have acknowledged the seriousness of the position, given that this was one of the very modest requests made by the Government to the EU in the run-up to the reset. It was a modest request both before the Labour Government was elected and after, and no progress whatever has been made. Could you at least clarify this for the committee now, if you are not at liberty to say what is going on? Is this a question of bilateral allowance, or is it a question of not being permitted at EU level? There is a defence and security aspect, because I have heard and we have been told—if not in this committee then elsewhere—that part of the problem is the security risks attached to the equipment that touring artists have to bring, and it complicates visas and allowance for visas. It cannot be brushed aside, it is a very serious matter and it goes to the heart of a number of other questions. Perhaps when you write to us, you could let us know where these things have gone. Can you tell us now: is it an EU-wide obstruction or is it a country doing something on a unilateral basis? Kirsty Hayes: I am very sorry if it felt like I was downplaying this issue, because I fully recognise how existential this issue is at both an individual and an industry level. For what it is worth, it is something I feel strongly about on a personal level too. Lord Boateng: That was very clear in your answer. Kirsty Hayes: Thank you. In my opinion, the most effective way to tackle this issue is at EU level. That is why I gave the answer I did. As I say, discussions with the EU are ongoing at the moment, and I do not want to get ahead of those, particularly given the postponement of the UK-EU summit, but I just emphasise that we are very seized of the issue. The Minister is no longer here, but I know it is something he feels strongly about as well. Baroness Lawlor: Can this be tackled on a bilateral level? The EU poured cold water on it at the 2025 summit. Can it be done, as a matter of fact, on a bilateral level? The Chair: That is a good question. I do not know whether you know the answer to that. Kirsty Hayes: I will follow up on that. The Chair: Thank you. When I was in the Department for Business and Trade, this was called cabotage. Is that the word? It is a bizarre, totally unnecessary obstruction, and everyone has been trying to get rid of it, so we wish you great success on that. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I welcome your recognition that there is not a bilateral bypass to a problem that is at EU level; we have to deal with them both. Are we satisfied that the Poles in their activities within the EU are taking a helpful line, trying to unlock this seemingly rather tangled problem of carnets, cabotage and so on? Kirsty Hayes: At the risk of sounding evasive, I do not think it is my place to comment on how EU member states are interacting with the EU on this or any other issue. What I know is that in quite a lot of EU member states, there would be a lot of welcome for more British artists coming over, and vice versa. The Chair: Any other last questions? Lord Anderson of Swansea: My declaration is that I have a granddaughter who is a ballerina in Poland, so she has managed. Joanne Hamer: Fantastic. I am delighted to hear that. Q23 The Chair: We should do a trip to watch a performance of “The Nutcracker”, or whatever it is. Very good. My last question is in relation to the German friendship and defence treaty that we signed recently. This seemed to be a bit more detailed and to cover more areas, in my reading of it. At the same time, the treaty with Germany was also quite extensive and was building on other treaties. Is there any significant difference, maybe an evolution or something that we should comment on, in relation to the two treaties and their differences? Kirsty Hayes: We are trying to take forward concrete improvements in our security collaboration with a number of key players across Europe. I think this is a really extensive and impactful treaty that we should feel proud of but, as I said before, this is not the end of a journey. With each one of our key defence partnerships, we should look at not just what we have achieved so far but what the future is. That is why in both treaties we have put a lot of emphasis on the concrete projects, the lighthouse and landmark projects, because it is not just the aspirations set out in the treaty that are important; it is the concrete actions. The Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Katy Reid, thank you for joining us as well. Kirsty Hayes and Joanne Hamer, thank you for your time. This is something that we are going to follow in detail. We hope to produce a report in the next couple of months, which we would refer to you; hopefully you will be pleased with what we say. We try to be as helpful, but also as critical, as necessary on where we think these treaties should go. Your time today has been greatly appreciated, so thank you very much for being with us.