EU Security Action for Europe Programme
Baroness Antrobus Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
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.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
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?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
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.
Future Capability of the Armed Forces
Baroness Antrobus Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that this debate has already focused, and I am sure will continue to focus, on the challenges facing our Armed Forces—issues around funding, the defence investment plan and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, eloquently argued, the role of our reserves. I declare an interest, as my husband is a reservist.
However, in the context of a strategic defence review that put NATO first, and a defence investment plan which headlined our NATO commitment as its first priority in stepping up UK leadership, I want to focus on our Armed Forces’ nuclear deterrent capability. Sir Adam Thomson, former UK permanent representative to NATO, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on Monday and made an important point that I wish to amplify in this Chamber.
The UK is one of only two European nuclear powers, and the only one that has committed its nuclear capability to NATO. In the DIP, our Government set out their key investment commitments, including to the UK nuclear deterrent. The plan committed to over £20 billion more investment in the defence nuclear enterprise over the next four years, compared with the previous four, to modernise the UK’s nuclear capabilities and the facilities that deliver them, including new submarines. This is a commitment that contributes significantly to European deterrence against our adversaries.
It also recommitted, following the original June 2025 announcement, to joining NATO’s dual-capable aircraft nuclear mission. This will see the Royal Air Force, in the form of the acquisition of F35A combat aircraft, returning to the airborne nuclear role it relinquished in 1998. In the last 12 months, I have reconvened some of our now-retired RAF “Cold War warriors” from the Tornado, Jaguar and Nimrod aircraft forces to distil lessons from that era. Although there are many differences—the weapon will not be a UK weapon, the technology has changed vastly, and the likely readiness commitment will be significantly less—there is also much to learn from the past. I, of course, say that as a history scholar.
The Chief of the Air Staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff have both talked about the need for the RAF to rediscover its “nuclear IQ”. Those who joined the RAF during the Cold War were fully aware that they were joining a nuclear-armed force and that they might be stationed at a nuclear-armed base, regardless of their branch or trade. Now, the RAF is constituted almost entirely of personnel who joined after the Cold War, during the era of wars of choice. Similarly, politicians and the public have lived through the decades of expeditionary warfare.
This future airborne capability—the theme of today’s debate being, of course, future capability—will add an important rung to the escalation ladder. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, wrote in a recent paper, co-edited with Daniel Skeffington,
“the stronger …the ‘ladder’ … – through the possession of credible capabilities on a sliding scale between small arms and strategic weapons – the stronger the deterrent effect”.
To conclude, there are many challenges facing our Armed Forces, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that we should find, in Sir Adam’s words, “fresh ways” to emphasise the importance of our nuclear deterrent to the UK and to our NATO allies in Europe.
UK Defence Capability
Baroness Antrobus Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Yes, I really do. If people feel that their country, their livelihood, their families and way of life are threatened, and they understand that, I think people will. I am sure there will be a small minority who will not, including some conscientious objectors and others who may not have that view, but I take the view that the context is everything. If people feel threatened, I believe passionately that the British people, as they always have done, will defend their democracy, their homes and their family.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s point about the national conversation, only last week I was briefed on research showing that senior military leaders and the heads of the security services have a particularly significant impact with the public when they talk in the media about the threats that we face. Does my noble friend agree that it would be beneficial for the national conversation that he is now responsible for, and which we need to have, if we could hear more from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the other service chiefs?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have always been of the view that in many situations—my noble friend has served, so she will know this—a military uniform gives a legitimacy to things that are said. That is quite right because, over many centuries, people have felt that those in military uniform have earned the right to be heard, and they believe that those people speak with integrity. In direct answer to my noble friend’s question, using all military personnel—not just senior personnel but military personnel of every rank, in their local communities and areas, including the reserves, and even cadets talking to other young people—in terms of a national conversation would be an immensely powerful thing to do. I shall make sure that we do that.
King’s Speech
Baroness Antrobus Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned his due humility to those more senior than him in this House. I am but an infant in comparison, so I address your Lordships with that in mind. In the brief time I have, I will reflect on national resilience, on government progress—or lack thereof—following the recommendations in the SDR, and on the contribution that your Lordships’ House is making and can make in the immediate future.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, spoke of deterrence, and resilience is part of deterrence—specifically, in doctrine, deterrence by denial. Colleagues who have visited Ukraine this spring have commented on the impact that the last horrific winter had on the Ukrainian will to defy Russia’s illegal invasion. They spoke of lives lived underground, under nets and under concrete. They talked of the worst winter ever, because of both the huge increase in Russian drone and missile strikes and the impact of attacks on energy infrastructure, combined with bitterly cold weather. Yet it seems that, if anything, that has hardened resolve and resilience—a sense that, “If we can survive that, we can survive anything”.
However, in the UK, I worry about what the public could survive. Already, we know that Russia is attacking us. I live in Salisbury and know well the impact that Russian murderous aggression has had on our soil. My fellow citizen, Dawn Sturgess, lost her life due to that attack, and the city of Salisbury suffered severe physical and economic consequences over not just months but years. The issue is not whether people have courage—of course they have. It is whether government and institutions have given them the information, tools, trust and support to be resilient.
We need a clear path to improve national resilience, to have that national conversation that we know we need to have. Resilience does feature in the King’s Speech, and prominently in the cyber security and resilience Bill, but as expected there was no defence readiness Bill, which was recommended in the SDR. That leaves us without a clear path to improving national resilience, and I hope my noble friend the Minister can explain to the House later how that national conversation will be stimulated by the Government in the coming months. The need is urgent—in fact, critical.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, chair of the House of Lords National Resilience Committee, wrote in the House magazine this month of the Nordic countries’ approach to preparing their citizens for emergencies. As she put it, those Governments
“communicate candidly about risks. The result is not alarmism but assurance”.
The Nordic example shows us that honesty about risk can be reassuring, empowering and mature. Assurance and information are what people need and I know that this House cares about this topic: we recently debated civil preparedness for war in Grand Committee and the overwhelming conclusion was that we need to make more time for this subject in this House.
In conversation, I have become increasingly vocal in my opinion that this challenge cannot be answered by defence policy or strategy alone, just as the SDR said. A couple of weeks ago, I and some of my fellow Labour newbies, or new joiners, met to discuss defence issues, because it is a subject we all care about. It became very apparent to us that my fellow Peers, with expertise from local and national government to insurance, from the emergency services to law, and from housing to education—that is just a small sample of the experience of my intake—have deep understanding across hugely important, diverse areas in the national resilience conversation. The answer does not lie just with those who live and breathe defence and security, although the experience of noble and gallant Lords and other specialists in these areas is always needed.
Your Lordships’ House contains exactly the range of experience a serious resilience conversation requires. I look forward to the report from the National Resilience Committee in November and I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees that we all have our part to play now—today and tomorrow; not just in this House, but outside it; and not just talking but acting. To reiterate, resilience is not about frightening people, it is about trusting them with honest information and giving them the confidence and means to play their part.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
Baroness Antrobus Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that the reserves are an essential part of the defence of our nation; they will be an increasing part of the defence of our nation. As such, they deserve a budget which matches the responsibility they are going to be given.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, on Tuesday, my noble friend the Minister called on all sides of the House to come together to deal with the threats we face. However, my noble friend Lord Robertson this week called out the lack of engagement of the Liberal Democrats and Reform, who did not respond to his offer—at least until this week—to brief them on the strategic defence review. The Green Party is at best, if I am being charitable, ambivalent about NATO. What needs to be done to bring all sides together in the face of the toughest compounding circumstances in decades? It is apparent, from recent conversations, that noble Lords on all sides care and think deeply about this issue.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The point I was trying to make on Tuesday—I am happy to reiterate it—is that the threat we face needs the country to respond as a whole. The Government’s responsibility, working with others, is to ensure that the population understand that threat and the increasing nature of it. I think that, in response to that, we can expect everyone to come together, as our country always does.
Atlantic Undersea Cables: Russian Subsurface Operations
Baroness Antrobus Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Antrobus
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the Armed Forces in deterring Russian sub-surface operations threatening Atlantic undersea cables.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, as demonstrated by the operation that the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, our Armed Forces are continually ready to respond to threats against our and our allies’ critical undersea infrastructure. We are further supporting our Armed Forces in this effort by: launching the Atlantic Bastion programme, which will create an advanced hybrid naval force; providing an extra £100 million for vital P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft; and working closely with NATO allies, including delivering the Lunna House agreement with Norway to build a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and uncrewed systems.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that taking a more overt approach to highlighting Russian aggression is necessary to send a message that attempts to attack critical undersea infrastructure will be called out and attributed to Russia, and to ensure that the public are fully aware of the dangers that we face from our primary adversary? Additionally, given that the UK military operation lasted for more than a month and involved 500 British personnel, 450 flying hours and several thousand nautical miles sailed, does he acknowledge that our Armed Forces are confronting the most challenging security circumstances in decades, and that we must all understand better that this is no longer a world of isolated crises but one of interconnected threats?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend about interconnected threats. The important thing that flows from her Question is that, notwithstanding our focus on Iran, on Ukraine, quite rightly, and on many other operations across the world, it is a tribute to our Armed Forces personnel that they recognised the threat they found in the north Atlantic and responded to it. It is important that we demonstrate that to Russia, which, as my noble friend rightly said, is a major threat to us. As I have said from this Dispatch Box time and again, part of the Armed Forces response—and the response we need from our NATO allies—is to deter people from taking action against us, knowing that there will be consequences should they break international law or threaten us. The action we took in the north Atlantic on the attempted covert operation of those submarines was a tribute to all of us and to our country.
UK Homeland Defence
Baroness Antrobus Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As the noble Viscount will know, discussions continue around that. As the British public consider the threats that they face and the turmoil in certain parts of the world, there will be an interesting debate about that. From talking to many people who, frankly, do not share the noble Viscount’s opinion, I know that they would rather see money spent on other things—health, pensions, schools, children and so on—but my view is that the first priority of government is that to defend your country. Some of the rights that everybody enjoy are there only because of the people who fought in the past. Hopefully, nobody will have to fight again, but let us remember that and remember that it needs defence funding to fund it.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, I would argue that societal resilience is very much part of a country’s aura—how it comes across to its adversaries and how it is perceived—and that adds to our deterrence presence. Some of us heard from President Zelenksy last week about what it is like to live in constant fear of attack from the air and how that affects everything in life. Reinforcing the point that my noble friend made in questions, now is the perfect time to use the opportunity—that is a terrible word, but the fact is that we are seeing what is playing out in the Middle East—to have a direct conversation with the public, this week, next week and over the next few weeks, because they are focused on this and it is super urgent that we do that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is very urgent to have that conversation. I think everybody understands and accepts that. I go back to the noble Lord’s point about defence spending; it requires that conversation, so that will take place. To pick up the other point, I have said time and again from this Dispatch Box that NATO, we and many of our friends and allies need to rediscover the theory of deterrence. You prevent war by preparing for war. You prevent war by people believing that you will actually respond if they break international law. That is a really important point. The rediscovery of deterrence is important. My noble friend’s point about having a national conversation is really important.