King’s Speech

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a predictably good debate, with some excellent points punching through strongly. As my noble friend Lord Callanan indicated, I will focus on defence, but, before I do, I will stray very briefly into foreign affairs.

I listened with humility—I looked around the Chamber and I was not alone—to the lucidity, expertise and wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and to my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. I suggest to the Minister—with no disrespect to his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who introduced the debate so well—that this talented duo be brought into the FCDO to help inform policy and advise on how we disseminate UK influence in relation to Iran. I have not heard two people with more brains and knowledge than that pair to whom I listened today.

Since we last debated a most gracious Speech, the world has become demonstrably less safe. Not only has that been an unmistakable theme emerging in the course of the debate today, but it was acknowledged by His Majesty in the first line of the gracious Speech. To give me a comparison point, I looked back to see what I said in 2024:

“My starting point is the Government’s recognition in their manifesto that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe”.—[Official Report, 25/7/24; col. 633.]


So we have two immediate points of clarity and consensus: the Government must keep the country safe, and our safety is more at risk than two years ago.

The noble Lord the Minister knows that I hold him in high regard, as I do the noble Baroness the Minister, and I know that neither will question these two premises. But our situation is grave, and the Government have completely failed to grasp the gravity of the situation. Indeed, we are less protected, less war-ready, than we were two years ago. Who do I call in aid to support that view? I call the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, frequently referred to during the course of the debate.

If the noble Lord were remarkable only for having been His Majesty’s Keeper of the Swans in the upper reaches of the Thames, I do not suppose anyone would pay much attention to his opinion. But this man is a former Labour Defence Secretary, a former Director-General of NATO and the Prime Minister’s appointed author of the strategic defence review. When he accuses the Government of “corrosive complacency”, do you know what? I would start to tremble.

The Prime Minister’s own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, is reported to have warned that Britain will struggle to maintain our position on the world stage without a significant increase in defence spending. Just today, there were contributions from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who said that weakness makes war more, not less, likely, and deterrence means capability plus political will. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, expressed his regret that the narrative on defence, in his opinion, was neutered. He was blunter when he said that defence capability is in a mess. The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, in a cogent and, I would say, very plucky contribution, echoed the noble and gallant Lords’ concerns about the lack of a defence readiness Bill. I also noticed that the normally dependably loyal noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, also referred to that omission. So there are serious commentators here who are expressing concern.

The chilling reality is that, despite the Government’s repeated claims—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, earlier this week in this very Chamber—that they have instituted the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, the Government have nothing to show for it. Any Government can give the MoD more money; what matters is what it does with it. What things does that money buy which better protect the country, make us more war-ready, and effectively deter?

The defence investment plan is still nowhere to be seen, despite being promised last autumn. Intentions to spend mean absolutely diddly squat if they do not translate into actual spend of actual extra money, and the Government have not spent any extra because they have not published their investment plan. We are in Alice in Wonderland territory here. Every time Ministers are quizzed, they simply respond by saying that it will be published in due course and that the MoD is working flat out to get it finalised. Well, if a nine-month delay is a result of the Government working flat out, we are in some state.

The reason I keep pressing the Government on the defence investment plan is because the delay and inertia have a real-time effect. Defence is in limbo. Military planners cannot plan. Orders have dried up. Defence companies cannot plan, do not know how to seek investment and do not know what to invest in. Procurement has been frozen. While the Government prevaricate, our adversaries become more brazen, and our allies become more frustrated.

I hate to remind the Minister of this, but when his party came to power, the previous Government left them a fully funded plan immediately to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Government scrapped that plan—it was their privilege to do that—and it took them seven months to announce that they would reach the same figure, but not until 2027, and they still cannot guarantee that they will reach 3% within this Parliament. The previous Government left Labour a fully funded £10 billion munitions plan to replenish our national munitions stock. What did the Government do? They scrapped it.

Governments have the right to determine their own priorities—nobody disputes that—but what is completely unacceptable is laying waste all before them and putting nothing in place of the devastation. I say to the Minister that I think we are past the point of words—we urgently need action. The country is crying out for political leadership—I am not going to make cheap jokes about the Prime Minister, who is going through a most turbulent time—and we must have somebody who substitutes deeds for talk and a Government who show courage, face up to the hard decisions and have the grit to take them.

I remind the House where starvation of defence funding has got us. Recently, Britain was unable rapidly to move resources to the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East to protect our interests. British sovereign territory in Cyprus was left undefended. Our regional allies were left tearing their hair out at the glacial pace of our response.

On shipbuilding, we have all seen reports that the next Type 26 construction slot on the Clyde may be awarded to the Norwegians. That will further delay our frigate-building programme, which, given that the Royal Navy is now down to just five Type 23s, is not sustainable.

On aircraft build, the details remain sparse around one of the few procurement decisions that the Government have announced, the nuclear-capable F35A. In fact, I hesitate even to call it a procurement decision because, as far as I can tell, no aircraft has actually been procured, but we have a vague announcement that we will purchase 12 F35A fighters. In October, the Public Accounts Committee said:

“In June 2025, the Department announced that it intends to procure 12 F35As to be both training aircraft and capable of carrying nuclear weapons. But only now is the F-35 programme’s Senior Responsible Owner talking to other partner nations about what is required to deliver the new capabilities, and the Department has not produced any estimates of what these might cost”.


Can the Minister clarify what stage this procurement is at and how much these planes will cost?

I will fling in a few more questions for his attention. When will we start construction of the Type 49 destroyers to replace the current Type 45s, and how many of them will the Government commit to? What is the status of Challenger 3? When will the Government set out the procurement timeline for the remaining 90 F35Bs? When we should be moving heaven and earth to support British industry, why have the Government not purchased UAVs, such as Octopus-100 and Herne XLAUV, which are made by British firms?

This dithering and delay are having significant ramifications on our defence industry. Last week, sadly, Aeralis announced that it had been forced into administration. Announcing the news, the company said:

“The appointment follows a sustained period of pressure on the Company’s cashflow as a result of continued delays to the UK Defence Investment Plan”.


Aeralis is a marvellous British company. It has produced a modular, technologically advanced jet that could act as a future fast jet trainer and an aerobatic aircraft for the RAF. It could be a British designed and produced replacement for the Hawk trainers and the Red Arrows, yet Aeralis was forced into administration by the uncertainty created solely by the Government’s inaction.

The Minister will be quick to say that there have been announcements, for example, on the new medium helicopter and the RCH 155. These are welcome but the Minister knows that this is all too little, too late. If the Government are struggling to conjure up a plan to increase defence spending while maintaining fiscal discipline, perhaps I can help. My honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge, has a fully costed plan to establish a sovereign defence fund that would be utilised to increase spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. It would be funded by repurposing £17 billion from the National Wealth Fund, reallocating R&D funds and cutting the welfare and net-zero budgets. Now, that is a clear proposal. People may disagree with it, but that is leadership. There would be tough decisions involved in delivering it, but that is leadership. That plan could be implemented tomorrow.

I just hope that the Government are listening and that some food for thought is being provided to the Minister, as in, perhaps, my noble friend Lord Howard’s suggestion that if every government department were to accept a 1% self-imposed cut, money could be produced. Of course, there would be a huge rammy about who was doing what and what the consequences were, but that is what political leadership is about: you have to determine political priorities.

Funding and equipment are of course one aspect of our defence readiness and resilience. Another, and arguably the most important, is our people—the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who sacrifice so much to keep us secure. I know that everyone in the House joins in paying tribute to them. We would not have a military were it not for their sense of duty to King and country, so it is all the more painful for me to see the way in which they are being treated. Personally, I think it is quite wrong that those who have served, and those who continue to serve, should have to constantly look over their shoulders, awaiting the service of a legal writ. There are veterans from the Troubles who have faced decades of lawfare, dragged before investigations and hauled into courtrooms for the simple act of doing their duty for their country.

We now have the Government’s Troubles Bill, which, after the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, can only be considered as wholly unnecessary. The court has explicitly found that the commission established by the previous Government’s legacy Act can carry out investigations that are compliant with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, so what purpose will the Government’s Bill serve? I fear the only outcome of repealing the legislation that we passed in 2023 is that the fear, the gnawing anxiety and the uncertainty that our brave veterans have had to contend with will be opened once again as their lives are raked over, with them asked to account for split-second decisions they made 50 years ago when serving their country. How do the Government justify going on with the Troubles Bill?

On the Royal Artillery monument at Hyde Park Corner there are inscribed the words:

“They will return never more but their glory will abide forever”.


We all owe it to those who have served King and country so gallantly to ensure that their glory does indeed abide for ever—and if we are to do that, we have to reject the temptation of historical revisionism. We have to support our veterans by having their backs, funding defence properly and robustly defending our nation’s interests wherever they are challenged. I thank the Minister for his unstinting commitment and his passion for defence, but this Government are failing these fundamental tests.