(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the comments of my right honourable friends in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary, in supporting the Government in taking measures to tackle the ongoing scourge of sanctions-busting shipping activity.
The enforcement of sanctions on Russia and Iran is crucial to defending our interests both at home and abroad and critical to upholding our ongoing support for Ukraine, and any action we can take to weaken Putin’s war machine is welcome. I thank all those service personnel who took part in the operation to assist the United States in the capture of the MV “Bella 1”. As ever, their commitment to our country and our security is exemplary.
On the substance of the declaration of intent signed by the Prime Minister and the President of France, there is a list of unanswered questions. I understand that the Minister will not be able to go into operational specifics—I would not want him to do that—but I hope he can shed some further light on this plan.
The Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place mentioned that the meeting in Paris last week was
“the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 384.]
with 39 nations present. But as far as I can tell, it was only Britain and France that agreed to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement. Can the Minister confirm that all members of the so-called coalition of the willing will be contributing to the multinational force for Ukraine in that eventuality? Does he know which other countries have expressed a willingness to also make such deployments?
There is a matter of critical, fundamental principle we must acknowledge here: any peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine will be fragile. Russia has not exactly garnered a reputation for reliability, and there is always a risk in the event of a peace deal being negotiated that Russia could violate any such agreement.
I do not need to spell out to the House what the consequences of that would be if we had British troops in that country who could then find themselves forced into direct combat with Russian troops. It is an outcome that none of us would wish to see happen, but the Government and the British people must be prepared for that scenario.
I therefore ask the Minister: does this not heighten the importance of the national conversation on defence, as outlined in the SDR and committed to by the Government? Surely we must now prepare the British public for a future which in reality will be less secure and less peaceful. The prospect I have just outlined is very important for the British public to understand, so I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm how the progress on the national conversation is proceeding.
The other point is support for our troops. Are the Government absolutely satisfied that they will be going in as best equipped as we can possibly make them? This rather underlines how important it is that the Government not only ramp up defence spending but that we begin to see this much-delayed defence investment plan.
I confess to disappointment that despite repeated undertakings which the Government have given, that investment plan has not yet materialised. We were told just before Christmas that we would see it before the end of the year, but there has been no sign of it. I understand that we might not now see it until spring this year. Given the scenario that the Prime Minister is outlining, this is beyond the theoretical and the hypothetical. This is actually getting into the very real and raw territory of what we need to fund the MoD to make sure these troops will have everything they require. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what he understands the position to be in relation to that investment plan.
We also have the helicopter factory in Yeovil teetering and the frigate-building programme stalling, and our munitions supplies have not been replaced at anything like the speed necessary. All of that I adduce in support of my proposition that we must now have clarity. There is a need for this defence investment plan, in whatever form it is in, to see the light of day. The most important thing is that we ask a lot of our Armed Forces; we all hugely respect what they do. If troops are to be deployed in Ukraine as part of a multinational mission post some peace agreement, they need to be safe in the knowledge that our Government—and all of us—care about them, and the Government have their back.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, during the previous Government, there was a bit of a triumvirate when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was the Minister. Many times, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I would stand up and ask questions, and I would associate myself immediately with his comments. Today, I find myself in a similar position, standing up to associate myself and these Benches with the comments and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which are extremely important. My questions should therefore be seen very much as additional to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.
I first thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces, particularly at the start of a new year, and say how important it is that we support them. Obviously, our personnel were not actively involved last week, but we support them and we want to ensure that the situation for our Armed Forces will be such that we are ready to deal with all the international situations that may come up in 2026. Although this Statement was officially labelled, “Ukraine and Wider Operational Update”, already in 2026 we have had Iran, Ukraine and Russia, and the other issue, of course, is the situation with Venezuela.
I do not propose to ask the Minister questions specifically about Venezuela, but I stress that the importance of supporting the United States last week in tackling the tanker and dealing with the shadow fleet is precisely that we understand that that was in accordance with international law. It is important to stress that we support His Majesty’s Government as long as the action taken is in accordance with international law. Will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, where actions are taken, even by our closest ally, the United States, we will hold them to account if we believe that they are not acting according to international law?
We clearly have a difficult situation where, on some issues, we agree entirely with the United States and on other issues we find ourselves perhaps at one remove. Could the Minister help the House understand where the United Kingdom is in discussing with the United States the situation of another sovereign entity—namely, Greenland? We have had reassuring answers from the FCDO, suggesting that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Kingdom of Denmark. But Greenland is a significant geographical part of NATO. There are questions around what support we as the United Kingdom, particularly the MoD, are giving to Greenland and to the Kingdom of Denmark.
Building on questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, if the United Kingdom were to commit troops to Ukraine, what would the conditions be? I understand that there would be a vote in the other place, but would it be just the United Kingdom and France? Are His Majesty’s Government sure that, if we did that, we would not actually be creating vulnerabilities for our own troops, because the prospect of peace in Ukraine still seems a long way off?
Finally, is the Minister convinced that the commitments to defence expenditure are adequate? He said in the Chamber last week and the Secretary of State said in the Commons as part of this Statement—or in response on this Statement—that we have our 3% commitment, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked, if we are not spending that money, and if we are not letting the contracts and there are vulnerabilities for our frigates and helicopter services, where does that leave us in terms of national security? Supporting the United States in supporting Ukraine is important, but so is our national security.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their general support for what the Government have been doing, which, to be fair, carries on from the last Government. It is a source of strength for our country that that is the case and that there is a degree of consensus between us all about that. As a statement of the obvious, it is extremely important for our adversaries to see that unity of purpose between us all.
I also join the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, in thanking our service personnel for the various operations that they have been involved in in different ways. I want to praise the American forces as well for their bravery in what they did in conducting that operation. Again, I thank both noble Baronesses for their support for that operation, which was of huge significance. The noble Baroness talked about the importance of tackling sanctioned vessels. I remind her that we have sanctioned 544 shadow vessels, of which we believe 200 have been forced off the water, which has led to a decline in Russian oil revenues of 27% since October 2024. While we all wish we could do more, some progress has been made, and indeed we always consider what more can be done.
The noble Baroness asked about the 39 nations—they will contribute in different ways. As she will have read, France and the UK are at the forefront, and discussions are going on about what different countries will do. Most importantly, we need a peace agreement, and Russia is the impediment to that. If we get a peace agreement, a multinational force—whatever form that takes, but with France and Britain at the lead—can then provide that security guarantee which makes it a reality.
I also say to both noble Baronesses and other people the House that it was particularly important to hear the remarks of the Americans, such as Steve Witkoff, at the conference in Paris, where he said that the discussions that had taken place were very significant. Given the way in which we sometimes question whether the involvement of the Americans is as strong as it might be, that was a particularly important point that he made and one that we were very pleased with and are keen to continue to support.
I will mention two other strategic points, because we talk a lot about the Americans. There was a lot of talk a couple of months ago about the new American national security strategy. Less attention was given to the National Defense Authorization Act that the Americans passed at the same time, which laid out the Americans’ military budget, which included significant sums of money for Ukraine and significant troop numbers in Europe and confirmed the American general as SACEUR, which is important. So, in answer to the noble Baroness’s point about America, we continue to work very closely with the Americans. They are a very important ally to us, and we talk to them. I will come to Greenland in a minute, but we talk to them, and that is particularly important.
The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the point about the national conversation. We are starting with that work, but there is an awful lot to do to alert the British people much more to the challenges that they face, not necessarily just in terms of troops invading but certainly hybrid threats, cyber attacks and some of the activity we have seen on our streets, not least in Salisbury a few years ago.
The protection of critical national infrastructure and the development of the reserves will become increasingly important. We certainly live, to put it mildly, in unsettled and uncertain times, and the national conversation is a really important point. If the noble Baronesses, or indeed other Members, have ideas about how we take that forward, I would very much welcome them because it is an important national endeavour that is taking place.
Going back to Ukraine, of course, planning is being undertaken. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been talking about what may be done. There is a lot of planning going on—I am not going to go into details—certainly in terms of making sure that the various equipment and materials that would be needed to deliver the reassurance are available.
The noble Baroness has heard what I said about the defence investment plan. We are working at pace to try to get that developed as quickly as possible. There is a debate and discussion about the defence investment plan but this country does an awful lot militarily, even within the existing budget. I reflected on that when the noble Baroness was asking that question. I was thinking about the RAF Typhoons that, with France, took action in Syria just a week or so ago.
We have the commitment we are going to make to Ukraine and the commitment in the Arctic; we have marines training in Norway and troops in Estonia; we had the carrier strike group recently out in the Indo-Pacific and, of course, the support we gave to the Americans, so notwithstanding the debate about whether enough is being spent, this country does an awful lot militarily, and sometimes we should remind ourselves of that.
On helicopters, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the Philippines has just placed an order with Leonardo for six helicopters. That does not answer the question about the defence investment plan and the British Government’s investment, which is still being considered, but certainly those six orders will be welcome news for Leonardo.
Of course, we operate on a legal basis. The action against the shadow vessel was against a sanctioned stateless vessel, which carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with Iran and Russia. It is a sanctions-busting ship. It was stateless: the noble Baroness will know it changed its flag when it sailed towards the eastern Caribbean. It was flying a Guyanese flag, and then when it sailed away, it changed it to a Russian flag.
There is a strategic point, which will not be lost on some colleagues here, that sometimes America’s attitude towards Russia is questioned—whether it sees Russia as a country it ought to take action against—but that was a very clear demonstration that where the United States believes it is in its interest to do so, it will take action.
The noble Baroness asked me about Greenland. She is quite right. We believe that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and it has the right to determine its own future. There is a question about Arctic security, and we have discussed in this Chamber at great length the need for us to consider how we develop that. I have mentioned in debates that climate change and the melting of some of that ice opens up that territory in a way which means that we will have to consider its security even more.
The noble Baroness asked again about the commitment to invest. She will know what I have said about investment, and that debate will go on. The Government have made their commitments. I would argue that even within the existing budget, we make a significant military contribution to the defence of democracy and of our values. We shall continue to do that, not least in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of our minds all the time, and in supporting the Americans where we believe that that should happen, as we have proved just recently in the last few weeks.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I was impressed by two points that arose in the debate in another place last week. First, the Statement itself said that
“if Putin prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine”.
Secondly, Rishi Sunak said that we must have
“credible and durable security guarantees”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 390.]
I very much agree with those two points. Is the Minister seized of the vital need to ensure that any settlement with Putin over Ukraine does not ignore the possibility of him just jumping in and repeating the operation elsewhere? I am thinking particularly of Georgia and Moldova, where there are striking similarities to the Ukraine situation. Putin would argue, with the same dishonest and disgraceful justifications he used over Ukraine, first, that they used to be under Russian influence and, secondly, that Russia already has a military foothold in Moldova and Georgia in a similar way to what it had in Ukraine. I have been to both places. In South Ossetia in Georgia, I looked down over the Russian military base, materiel and equipment with which it illegally invaded some time ago. In Moldova, I have been to Transnistria and met the generals and colonels, who told us in those days that they had only 1,500 troops there, which was a total lie. Will the Minister agree that a settlement with Putin is not just about Ukraine?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord made a series of very good points, and I could say that I agree with him about the need for all the things he said. I completely agree with him about the need for there to be a security guarantee for Ukraine. Any arrangement that is made has to have the support of the Ukrainians. That is why we have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to put together a coalition of the willing. There are still discussions going on about that. It is good that the UK and France have been at the forefront of it. We have tried very hard, and it was good to hear what the Americans said at the meeting of the coalition of the willing in Paris. Their involvement is essential as well, and sends a strong signal to Russia.
The noble Lord made a point about Moldova and Georgia. He will know that in Moldova we supported the facilitation of free and fair elections, which led to a result that Russia did not want. We would certainly wish to see similar in Georgia. The noble Lord makes a really good point—Putin has to know he cannot be seen to have won, and we are doing all we can to ensure that that is the case—and he is right to point out that the front line in Ukraine is our front line as well.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, the Statement leaves me puzzled. Are the Government insisting on boots on the ground in Ukraine as a condition of a ceasefire? As the Russian Government have said that under no conditions will they accept NATO boots on the ground, is that not equivalent to a policy of prolonging the war rather than hastening the arrival of peace? Leading on from that, what other plans or ideas do the Government have for security guarantees for Ukraine?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The whole point of us saying that we are willing to deploy troops to Ukraine, with France and perhaps others, is precisely to ensure that any peace agreement arrived at is guaranteed and acceptable to the Ukrainians. That is important. It is what the Ukrainians want and have asked for, and we negotiated on that. As I said to other noble Lords, the Americans are working with us to provide some sort of security guarantee. Putin needs to negotiate with us. He is the impediment to peace in Ukraine. We say to him: let us negotiate in a way that is acceptable to the Ukrainians.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, to take the Minister back to the question of resources, he will be aware that the Chief of the Defence Staff gave evidence to a Select Committee this afternoon and confirmed that there is a gap between the funds available and the ability to spend on current strategic defence programmes. For reasons I do not quite understand, he said that the size of that gap is a secret. Can the Minister be a little more open with us?
The real point of my question comes back to what I said last week. The defence industrial plan is a signal of how serious the Government are about putting our money where their mouth is. Last week, the Secretary of State said that the Government were working flat out on it. There are indications that it will not be published until the spring. He will know that, in government, “spring” is an elastic concept. I would not want the Minister to have to work flat out for six months. Can he give the House a bit of an indication as to whether we are talking about something that will be here in the next few weeks, or is it months away? We will draw conclusions from his answer.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord but I will not be a hostage to fortune and say that it will be in a few weeks, or when it will be. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can to deliver as soon as we can a defence industrial plan that meets the needs of the budget we have and the needs of the country to deliver the military force and capabilities we need. That is what we are seeking to do. The noble Lord will continue to argue the case for more money and resources. We are working with the resources we have and seeking to deliver the military capability we need.
In my answer to the noble Baroness, I was trying to point out that, even within the existing budget, this country does an awful lot of which we can be proud with our existing military and the Armed Forces personnel that we have. But there is no doubt that the debate that the noble Lord quite rightly raises will continue.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, when asked about the deployment of a multinational force, the Secretary of State for Defence in the House of Commons said:
“Any deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine will take place only after a peace deal”.
That is fine. He then said:
“Secondly, the role of that force is primarily one of reassurance, the regeneration of the Ukraine forces, and deterrence of any future Russian aggression”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 395.]
To that last point, if it is supposed to serve as a deterrence to future Russian aggression then the national debate has to start with what would happen if that peace agreement were breached and what our response would be. The Minister will say that these are hypothetical questions, but I think the national debate will have to prepare people for that possibility.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is a hypothetical situation. It goes back to the point I was trying to make in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. There is a need for a national conversation about the threat that we face. There is a national conversation about the state-on-state threat that exists now in a way that people would not have predicted a few years ago. The Cold War and Russia and one country versus another country were supposed to be the wars of the past; we were supposed to be combating terrorist activity, counterinsurgency and those sorts of things. Although those threats have not totally gone away, the state-on-state threat has now re-emerged. Part of the national conversation has to be about what that means for our country and our Armed Forces.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question is also about the national conversation. To put it on the record, the Green Party supports the principle of UK troops serving in a peacekeeping role in Ukraine, following a negotiated settlement with a robust international mandate and standards. We are very pleased that the Statement says there will be a debate and a vote in the other place beforehand; that is the minimum democratic standard. Can the Minister reassure me that MPs will be able to scrutinise robustly the Government’s proposal, so that they will have before them—this follows on from the noble Baroness’s questions—details about the size and the composition of the force, what weapons they would have, the rules of engagement, and measurable indicators of what success looks like? It is important that it is not just a debate but a full debate.
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.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, let us be quite clear that Mr Putin does not want a ceasefire under any circumstances—it is not going to happen. Without wanting to sound trite, I pay tribute to the armed forces of Ukraine, which are defending our freedom in Europe with their lives, blood and treasure. I am sure we all agree with that, but it is worth saying again.
The question I want to ask is slightly different. It strikes me that, over the past 12 or 18 months, when it comes to propaganda, Ukraine and its right cause has been on the defensive. During 2025, the Russian forces occupied a further 1%, to the nearest percentage point, I believe, of Ukrainian territory, with huge and obscene losses of their own troops and population, yet we still have the feeling that the White House understands that Ukraine has no cards, the cause is lost, and there is no future in successfully stopping Putin from winning. It is all very difficult, but those are the facts of military change over the past year. What are the Minister’s thoughts on how we can reverse some of that feeling, so that we can be more positive about what Ukraine is achieving in its work and its firepower and that side of the conflict? How can we change the narrative?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is an important question. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the Ukrainian armed forces, and acknowledge the stoicism and bravery of the Ukrainian people for resisting in the way that they have.
Whatever the debate about defence investment and how much we should be spending, we should remember what we actually are doing. Notwithstanding the difficulties and challenges that Ukraine faces in re-equipping and so on, we should remind ourselves that Russia was not expecting to be in the position that it is now. When it attacked, it was expecting to take Kyiv within a few days, put a puppet Government in place and have a vassal state. That was the intention. Has Russia been successful in doing that? Not at all. Instead of saying that this is where we are now, sometimes you need to go back and look at what the original objective was. I say to this House, this Parliament and this country that Russia has totally failed in its original objective. Ultimately, it has failed because of the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the support that most countries have given to them.
What else did Russia expect? It expected NATO to be weakened and implode. What has happened? Notwithstanding the discussions we have had about the United States, NATO has been strengthened. Who would have said at the beginning of the conflict that Finland and Sweden would join NATO? They have, and that has strengthened NATO. As well as looking at the challenges and difficulties that we face, we ought to remind ourselves sometimes about what has been done and is working well. Russia has failed in its original objectives, and we should remind people of that.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I want to take the Minister back to the issue of conversation. He and I have discussed in the past that, these days, social media is a weapon of war. I quoted to him a senior military figure who said to me, “We should spend as much on social media as we do on hard kit”. I suspect that comes pretty hard to those with a military background, but what does he think of that suggestion?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is important to recognise that warfare is changing, and that part of the battle now is understanding what is fake news and what is happening in reality. In every area of life, what appears online is an important part of any battle. The noble Lord will know that, both in Ukraine and in other parts of the world, the battlespace is online. Part of the Government’s response to that is to open up new cyber recruitment routes into the Armed Forces. To develop that, we have a new cyber offensive command as well as our defensive operations. That is how warfare is changing. I am not sure that everyone who will come in through the cyber route would naturally have got in via the soldier route before, but they are the soldiers of the future as well as those whom we would regard as soldiers in the more traditional sense. So, that is a good point. The war of the future is going to have many of the features of the past but also features along the lines that the noble Lord has just outlined.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, may I speak like a fool? I do not have all the facts, so I am speaking like a fool. Ukraine has spent a lot of hours in all those conversations and discussions about peace, attending endless meetings, when everyone knows that Putin is not interested in any of that. By encouraging conversations about peace, have we drained the energy that Ukraine had before the talks started? Is the coalition of the willing giving Ukraine the weapons that it needs, especially since a few days ago a ballistic missile was used to devasting effect in Ukraine and surrounding areas? Are we letting Ukraine down?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
No, I do not think we are. Conversations and discussions take place on how to bring about peace, but alongside those we continue to stand with Ukraine and arm it to defend itself against Russian aggression.