Future Capability of the Armed Forces

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent and fascinating debate, with hugely perceptive contributions. I thank my noble friend Lord Harlech not only for securing the debate but for his insightful and powerful contribution, made in a characteristically elegant and gracious manner—which I do not promise to emulate.

The Government’s defence policy can be summed up in four words: too little, too late. It is too little money and too little equipment, all delivered too late. I make that claim because the plans the Government have laid out are for the future; they do not meet the threats we face right now. The NATO Secretary-General has warned that we may face war with Russia within the next five years. If that happens, we need to be ready to fight a major war by 2030, not after 2030. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I know the advertisement to which she refers from BAE Systems above the escalator in the Tube station, but, unlike her, my view is: what an advert for British skills, and what a formidable capability this terrific British company is capable of delivering. May I see it translated into our defence capability before too long.

On the Secretary-General’s memo, the Government seem to have missed that point. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, reminded me—poignantly, because I remember where I was in August 1968—that the invasion of Czechoslovakia caused shock. As she rightly pointed out, you cannot assess risk on the basis of what you can afford. Risk is there, threat is there and the duty of the country is to have the wherewithal to counter it.

Where are we? The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard, confirmed in a Written Answer that there will be no new deliveries of F-35s until the early 2030s. The integrated air, space and missile defence operations centre, announced in the defence investment plan as the future ballistic missile defence system, will not be operational until the early 2020s. The Type 91 uncrewed missile platform announced in the defence investment plan has no planned in-service date, and the only timeframe the Government can offer is “from the early 2030s”.

There is a pattern emerging. Virtually everything in the defence investment plan will not materialise until well into the next decade. The vital new equipment required by our Armed Forces right now will not be ready in time, and the Government simply do not get the urgency and the immediacy with which we need to rearm.

Last week, in front of the House of Commons Defence Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who obviously is one of the Government’s own, said:

“Quite simply, we are running out of years. The reality is that the challenge is now bigger, more serious and earlier than we had anticipated, yet the defence investment plan does not come up to it”.


His concerns were emphatically endorsed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and reflected upon gently and philosophically by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, to whom I also extend my best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement. I extend my thanks to him for his reassuring presence on those Benches, to which I often direct a glance at moments of tension.

The defence investment plan was supposed to do two things: prepare our Armed Forces for major combat operations within the next five years, and end the uncertainty and unease dogging our defence industry over the last two years. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, eloquently described the challenge. However, instead of allaying all those fears, the defence investment plan, unbelievably, made things worse. We have been left with less clarity as to the Government’s plans for defence than we had previously.

Take the Royal Navy, for example. The DIP confirmed that the Government will scrap the Type 83—the replacement for the Type 45 destroyers—and scrap the new light class of frigate, the Type 32. Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Minto mentioned the common combat vessel. This is the proposed replacement for both the Type 83 and the Type 32. The Type 83 was in the concept phase of its development. It was supposed to be the centre of the Future Air Dominance System, which had its outline case approved but has now been scrapped without a successor. We know absolutely nothing about these common combat vessels—how much they will displace, what armaments they will have, how many sailors will be required to crew them. We have no detail. It is a phantom concept, a ghost ship.

What was the MoD doing in the past year while it was preparing the defence investment plan? If it was planning to replace the Type 83 and Type 32 with the CCVs, one would have thought that it would have done more preliminary work so that when it published the DIP, it could tell us what a common combat vessel would look like. The suspicion is that the MoD did not decide to scrap the Type 83 until very recently. In September, in response to a Written Question from my honourable friend Ben Obese-Jecty, the Minister, Luke Pollard, said:

“The Type 83 is planned to enter service from the mid-2030s and is assumed to have a 25-year service life”.


So just last September, the MoD was committed to the Type 83s, but now it has changed its mind. It is frightening.

Let me express a caveat. This concept of a hybrid Navy deserves a word of caution. I am increasingly concerned that the lessons from Ukraine are being overlearned. We seem to be moving in a direction that assumes that drones and automation are the answer to every question of future capability. However, Ukraine is not the same as the north Atlantic. Providing a carrier strike, escorting supply ships, fighting piracy and defending a naval taskforce from air attack has no parallel with the Ukraine conflict. What of hard defence diplomacy, which the Government have said they are championing and to which my noble friend Lord Ahmad astutely referred?

An uncrewed missile barge does not have quite the same clout as a large, highly capable destroyer. I completely understand the benefits of uncrewed vessels and aircraft. They have their place and we must learn from their use in Ukraine. However, they should be additional rather than an alternative capability. They should complement destroyers and fighters, not replace them. We will need conventional warships for years to come. Yet, under these plans, Britain will have no destroyers at all by 2040.

I hope that the Minister will understand that my unrelenting and unapologetic focus is on the threat that we face now and the urgent response that is needed to address it. I am trying to impress upon the Government, as far as I possibly can, that the mid 2030s is, quite simply, too late. We know the threat. Sadly, we can predict the conflicts. We need more F35s, more modern Typhoons, more helicopters, more drones, more warships, more missiles, more tanks, more armoured vehicles and more air defence—and we need them as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, delivering the Lord Speaker’s Lecture last night, to which many of us were privileged to listen, quoted Warren Buffett:

“Predicting rain doesn’t count; building arks does”.


This was a wise man quoting a wise man. Let me conclude by quoting a third wise man, Shakespeare:

“Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends”.

That is my message to the Minister. I look forward to his response.

Defence Readiness Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that I would not take when I arrive for a debate as a model for anything. I can say without fear of contradiction that my Whips will endorse that sentiment. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for enabling this debate. It is not just timely; it is important. I thank him for the persistence with which he has pursued these critical issues of resilience and preparedness. I will structure my contribution around three simple propositions: the defence readiness Bill is not ready; the national conversation that was supposed to accompany it is currently mute; and the Treasury’s purse strings, as evidenced by the DIP, remain bleakly closed. Each failing compounds the others, and together they explain why, a year on from the strategic defence review, we are still debating proposals rather than debating action.

On the first point, let me be blunt about the timeline. The strategic defence review recommended this legislation over a year ago. It was absent from the King’s Speech in May. Ministers have told this House and the other place that proposals are being developed, that officials are working at pace and that the Bill will come forward later in this Parliament. We have words, but no date. The authors of the review have made no secret of their frustration at the yawning gap between the urgency of their conclusions and the glacial pace of their implementation—a frustration that I think we all inferred from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, today. Speaking before the Defence Committee this week, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, said:

“We are running out of years, and the reality is the challenge is now bigger and more serious and earlier than we anticipated, and yet the defence investment plan itself does not come up to it”.


These words of the noble Lord should bring the Government up short.

The second point is on the national conversation. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, is correct to say that this is not some fireside chat. The review was explicit that a whole-of-society approach requires the Government to level with the country about the threats we face, the sacrifices that resilience may demand and the roles that reserves, industry, local authorities and ordinary citizens might all be asked to play, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, so eloquently—indeed, chillingly—described.

Instigating at least the planning for how that conversation should be structured, followed by rollout, could have started a year ago. Where is it? Is the Minister still the lead on it, or is that to be found somewhere else in government? I hope the Minister is the lead on it. If there is any ambiguity, I have a piece of advice for him: you plough the furrow and make the others follow, because I happen to think the Minister would make a good job of it.

Quite apart from the financial implications of all of this, my noble friend Lord Harlech rightly pointed out that if the Government intend to ask the public to accept new obligations, whether on mobilisation, infrastructure or preparedness in their own communities, the public have to be brought into this discussion long before the legislation is passed, not presented with it as a fait accompli. This vacuum, in my opinion, is doing damage and potentially creating danger because complacency is filling the void. The watchword should be “urgency”.

Thirdly, and perhaps most tellingly, there is the Treasury. Every government document on this subject is written in the conditional: commitments when circumstances allow, ambitions for the next Parliament, targets that recede as the calendar advances. The 3% ambition remains an ambition. The gulf between what the review says is needed and what the Treasury is willing to make available remains. If anything, fiscal pressures have made that gulf wider and starker. The same timidity that produced 10 months of delay on the defence investment plan is stamped all over this Bill. A readiness Bill that arrives without the resources to make readiness real will be a Bill in name only, a framework, a skeleton with no functioning limbs. I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House that this legislation will not become simply another unfunded commitment layered on top of all the others.

I have three questions for the Minister. When precisely will the Bill be introduced? What concrete steps are being taken to start the national conversation that the SDR said was indispensable? Can the Minister confirm whether the Treasury has agreed to fund the powers the Bill will create or are we again being asked to legislate first and pay later? I think we are all agreed that the country’s resilience is critical and it cannot be built on aspiration alone, however worthy. I hope the Minister can offer some comfort and provide some details of substantive proposals, rather than rhetoric.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to wind up this debate for His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, that I am very pleased to be sitting here and I do not envy the Minister sitting over there. Everything has its moment.

As my noble friend Lord Minto said, we on these Benches support the Bill. This House has renewed this legislation every five years since the 2006 Act, in an unbroken constitutional tradition stretching back to the Bill of Rights of 1688—a discipline this House takes seriously. We certainly shall not be a roadblock to its progress.

This has been a rich debate; as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, there have been many contributions which have been genuinely interesting to listen to. However, one issue has recurred with such frequency it is almost like a musical reprise: funding. I shall leave the Minister to respond to that in whatever way he can, but the current position is overwhelmingly regarded as unsustainable.

Turning to other matters addressed by my noble friend which resonated with others, I want to reflect briefly on some contributions from around the House. The importance of housing was universally agreed throughout the Chamber. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich reminded us, houses, flats, terraced accommodations, bases and dockyards also have to be homes. I am grateful to him; we should never forget that.

On housing and the creation of this new defence housing service, there is a risk of duplication of function—I remember the extraordinary size of the defence infrastructure organisation when I was in the MoD—as I gather this will remain as a directorate within the MoD. If we have two organisations both claiming responsibility for defence estate, duplication is not a hypothetical risk, and that is precisely the kind of institutional confusion this House should be pressing the Government to eliminate before Royal Assent and not after.

I note that Section 343F gives the defence housing service the power to

“form, participate in forming, or invest in, a company, partnership, joint venture or other similar form of organisation”.

I simply want to ask the Minister: why do the Government see this as necessary? What kinds of commercial vehicles does the ministry envisage the defence housing service establishing? And what safeguards will apply to ensure that a body created to serve service families and house them does not drift into activities that begin to serve as accountancy balance sheet operations?

There must also be a clear boundary between the defence housing service and the residual functions of the Ministry of Defence, and clarity of purpose about where responsibility and accountability lie, not least because Schedule 1 provides that the service will not enjoy Crown status in respect of much of its property, save in specified circumstances, which itself raises questions about its legal exposure that I hope the Minister can address.

My noble friend Lord Minto offered up the policy on these Benches of an Armed Forces housing association. That is an alternative model for service accommodation reform to that which the Government propose. Whereas the Government have opted for a body that remains tied closely to the Secretary of State, subject to Treasury borrowing consent and a government direction, our model would deliver a genuinely independent, tenant-accountable organisation. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on why the Government judged a Crown-adjacent body preferable to that independent, not-for-profit model, and what protection service families will have to ensure that the defence housing service does not simply repeat the mistakes of the past. At the risk of making the Minister feel a little uncomfortable, my noble friend asked about the rumoured deferral of investment in defence housing to help fund the DIP, and I hope that question can be answered.

Since I, as a Minister, took the then overseas operations Bill through this House, politicians from all parties, with the possible exception of the Liberal Democrats, have started to question the impact of the ECHR on UK sovereign law and sovereign decision-making across a whole spectrum of activity, and there is a debate to be had. Specifically in relation to defence, the court decision of Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom, decided in 2011 by the Strasbourg court, clarified the reach of that law into a live arena of conflict. The court ruled that the detention of terrorist suspects in Basra by British troops violated Article 5 of the convention, and that the British state had therefore acted unlawfully. This has serious ramifications for future operational decision-making and for the ability of British troops to hold prisoners of war in any future conflict.

The extent to which such law may now to be incompatible with the overriding need to make instant life and death decisions in a conflict environment requires, in my opinion, serious reflection. I look forward to continuing this argument in Committee, where our amendments will receive fuller scrutiny, and I hope the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is feeling encouraged by my contribution.

A number of very interesting contributions were made on the service justice system. I certainly welcome the sensible alignment of various provisions with the arrangements in the civilian criminal justice system. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for raising a number of valid concerns, because there is a conundrum here. Under the Bill, service police will not be able to authorise pre-charge custody for offences under Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Act 2006—offences such as battery—even where there is a clear domestic context, because the legislation is drafted so that only “serious offences” fall within scope, a category which does not capture Schedule 1 offences and does not separately articulate the context of domestic abuse.

A further issue arises under Clause 16, whereby a provost marshal may act as the appropriate authority when a person has been charged with a serious offence, meaning there will no longer be any involvement from the commanding officer in terms of pre-charge attention for such an offence. This seems to be fairly significant interference with the chain of command if we consider the environment where many of these offences might be occurring, which could be a base remote from other places with a military police presence but not an extensive one—I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s reasoning here. There is also a concern that commanding officers are not obliged to refer offences, such as common assault, voyeurism, and actual bodily harm in a domestic abuse context, to the service police. Consideration should be had to amending Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 to ensure that commanding officers are required to refer such offences for investigation.

These Benches welcome the incorporation of the Armed Forces covenant into law. It finishes off what I was privileged to start in this Chamber in a previous iteration of the Armed Forces Bill. I say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that I realise the pace may have been too slow, but I pay tribute to his tenacious pursuit of this issue and to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his continued and vigorous support of the covenant. The previous Government’s reticence was through caution, because we need to understand the consequences of such statutory incorporation. Further questions will follow, and it seems from the Bill’s attempt to define national authorities, local authorities, education authorities and health bodies that this is far-reaching. But what about arm’s-length bodies—corporate bodies which deliver many of the functions detailed in Clause 2? Can the Minister explain their omission from the Bill?

I think we all welcome the provisions in the Bill on reserves to improve flexibility and create fluidity. That is important because there are skills, expertise and niche specialisms in civilian roles which our Armed Forces need to be able to call on at short notice. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, gave some interesting examples to show how that could work in practice. But as for the laudable objective to increase numbers in the active reserve by 20%, my noble friend Lord Minto indicated a proposal from these Benches of a tax-free first 30 days of reserve service, and that seems to me a no-brainer. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton’s reference to the successful recruitment experience in Canada following a national conversation has not been lost on the Minister. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the vital work which he is doing and ask the Minister to take some of these ideas back to the department.

This has been a useful and constructive debate, and I have highlighted the issues of particular significance to these Benches. I hope that the questions that my noble friend Lord Minto and I have posed can be addressed by the Minister; I have also tried to indicate where we expect to return to issues in Committee. I conclude by saying that, notwithstanding these Benches’ serious reservations about the broader funding issues, there is a lot of good in the Bill, which I am sure the scrutiny of your Lordships can make even better. My colleagues and I shall endeavour to make a positive contribution to that process.

Defence Investment Plan

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for both the briefing and prior sight of the defence investment plan, which he provided to me and my colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, yesterday. I doubt any plan was so dogged by delay and preceded by such drama as this one, but that doleful prelude was eclipsed by the gloom and scepticism that engulfed the plan when it became public. To quote my honourable friend in the other place, Mr James Cartlidge, it is “too little, too late”.

The threat we face is now. This plan, lacking in significant detail, is for the next four years. It was intended to deliver the recommendations in the SDR. It does not. It should have laid out a path to the 3% of GDP needed before the end of this Parliament, never mind during the next one. It does not. As for a path to NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, that apparently remains in the mists of the Prime Minister’s imagination: undiscernible and shortly to disappear.

The Prime Minister criticises the previous Government for not spending enough, but I point out to your Lordships that my party responded to the threat as we understood it then, in the wake of a searing economic challenge inherited from a Labour Government in 2010. However, despite austerity, we kept the RAF Lossiemouth air base open; ordered the vital Poseidon planes that operate from there; ordered eight Type 26 frigates and five Type 31 frigates, which are being built now; launched the Global Combat Air Programme to produce the next-generation fighter; and commissioned the Dreadnought programme to renew our nuclear deterrent. I am not going to speculate on Mr Burnham’s Harry Potter powers to wave a magic wand to fix this deficient defence investment plan. Given his projected political strategy to date, fixing defence is not on any wish list I have seen. However, I know that none of this is the Minister’s making. He is here to answer questions, which I know he will do with his customary loyalty, integrity and courtesy.

I will start with the Secretary of State’s foreword to the plan. If we strip out the roseate language, £298 billion is to be spent over the next four years. Some £283 billion of that is not new money; it is simply what is required to keep the doors open, pay the people turning up and ensure that the day-to-day bills are paid. The crux question is: how much is needed on top of that? The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, says that £28 billion of additional money is needed over the next four years to do what must be done to keep us safe. My party is prepared to answer that call and fund it by reinstating the two-child benefit cap, reallocating up to £50 billion currently being spent on welfare and costly net-zero projects, and scrapping Labour’s catastrophic Chagos deal. This Government are not prepared to answer that call and will short-change defence by the £13 billion that they were never going to provide. That is completely unacceptable.

The former Secretary of State, John Healey, has said that this plan leaves the country “less safe”. The authors of the strategic defence review have said that the funding package is “not enough”. What will it take for the Government to listen to the service chiefs, the retired senior officers, and indeed members of their own party, and find the money that they all say is needed to keep us safe?

Even the inadequate £15 billion that the Government are going to provide immediately starts to fall apart under scrutiny. We know from the Chancellor that £4.7 billion is not there. According to the accompanying funding explainer, it is to be allocated at the Autumn Budget, presumably by a new Prime Minister and a new and as yet unknown Chancellor.

If this were not bad enough, page 73 of the Defence Investment Plan is revealing. It discloses that £10.7 billion of the £15 billion is to come from “defence efficiencies” over four years. So, as we speak, that money is not there either. This is accountancy smoke and mirrors. On the defence efficiencies, £1.1 billion is to come from “reform and service redesign”—so what reform, what redesign and what details can the Minister provide? Some £3.3 billion is to come through “workforce and resourcing”. What does that mean and what detail is available? Some £2 billion is to come through “infrastructure”. What infrastructure? How is that money to be provided? Some £0.2 billion is to come through “digital”—how? Some £3.7 billion is to come through “acquisition and supply chain”. How has that figure been arrived at, and what underpins that estimate? The more alert among your Lordships will have noticed that that totals £10.3 billion, not the £10.7 billion that is at the head of the defence reform efficiencies. So we have another £400 million whistling into the blue yonder. Separately, the plan also states that £1.1 billion will come from asset sales, so what assets will the Government flog off?

Unless the questions I have posed can be answered, this plan is meaningless. NATO, the MoD, politicians and the public need clarity about how much money is being given, when it is coming and how it is being provided. Smoke and mirrors and Treasury trickery do not cut it.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is clearly a very delayed and extremely underfunded plan. As we have heard, at £15 billion it falls well short of the £28 billion requested by the defence chief to keep our country secure. But we know that it actually falls even shorter than that, as nearly £5 billion is unfunded and some £11 billion or more relies on undetermined efficiency savings. So, after months of paralysis, resignations and Cabinet chaos, the Government have short-changed the Armed Forces.

However, we should remember that it was the Conservatives who hollowed out our military, leaving the Army and Navy smaller than they had been for hundreds of years. The Tories failed to look after service personnel properly, through a lack of suitable housing and poor mental health support—that was unforgivable.

This Statement is a long way from solving these vital issues and many others. It is a political choice made by Sir Keir Starmer and the Treasury, and it leaves us less safe. Furthermore, it undermines our reputation as a leader in NATO. Last year, all NATO countries pledged substantially to increase investment so that we all hit 3.5% of GDP by 2035. But, even if the missing money is found, the share of GDP that we spend on defence by the end of the decade will be only 2.7%. In media interviews today, the Procurement Minister, Luke Pollard, said that the spending review next year will describe a pathway to 3.5%. That review will need to find an extra £25 billion per year to get to our stated target. Given where we are starting from, this is hardly credible.

This lack of credibility is not just a domestic phenomenon. When I attend NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings, I can sense the reputation of the UK falling back. This is more than just worrying. So I will suggest some ways to increase investment and leverage what resources we have more effectively. The Liberal Democrats’ plan for defence bonds would provide an additional £20 billion at least, funnelling in private sector investment. This is not pie in the sky. Poland’s armed forces support fund, for example, was established in 2022, with the main source of funds being issuing bonds. For context, last year Poland spent 4.7% of its GDP on defence.

There are better ways of leveraging our existing defence spend. The UK could take part in the nascent defence, security and resilience bank. This ticks a number of important boxes: it would be multilateral; it would work with a greater number of allies; it would help project financing to span election cycles; and it would cost-effectively pull in private finance, multiplying our state investment by many times. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, is a major proponent of this initiative. He met with Sir Keir’s envoy, Gordon Brown, last month to discuss it but, disappointingly, there seems to have been no progress.

The Government could also take bolder steps towards working with our European allies. Last month, the Lib Dems announced a plan for a UK-EU defence pact, including our intention to join Security Action for Europe—the SAFE programme. Andy Burnham is quoted as having said favourable things about both defence bonds and the DSR bank. He has also been historically in favour of closer relations with the EU. Does the Minister agree that the new Burnham-led Government should issue defence bonds, work with Canada to deliver the DSR and join the SAFE initiative in Europe?

There are also ways of making our spend on big ticket items go a bit further. For example, GCAP currently involves the UK, Japan and Italy. Canada, Saudi and possibly Germany have been mooted as additional partners. Can the Minister confirm that, through adding to the GCAP group, money could be diverted to other UK defence needs?

Much has been made of the headline spend of £5 billion for advanced uncrewed systems over the rest of this Parliament. I am sure this is welcome, as these systems are at the heart of modern warfare. However, to put this into context, the three-year £5 billion investment is only a tiny percentage of the plan’s £298 billion spend over four years.

We welcome the commitment to establish six new energetics factories by 2030. However, the nine-month delay in publishing this spending plan has frozen procurement and put many SMEs in peril. Now that we have a funding plan, how will the Government change the procurement process to give SMEs the certainty to invest and the cash flow to thrive?

Finally, last year’s strategic defence review rightly stated that national resilience cannot be bought with military equipment alone. It stressed the need for a comprehensive national conversation to shift our mindset and prepare the wider British public, local government and business for the hybrid, cyber and non-traditional threats that we already face. This is a whole of society challenge that spans far beyond the MoD, so what concrete progress is the Minister making with his government colleagues to initiate this national conversation?

Palantir: Public Service Contracts

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite wise to raise that point; it is a question I asked too. Officials told me that it was the only company—the only available platform—that could provide what the MoD needed and give us the operational capability that was required. Under the single tender regime—I cannot remember the exact title—where there is no other option available, it is okay and legal for the Government to operate in that way. That is why the Government did that. Of course we are looking at whether other people can provide the sort of expertise that the noble Baroness refers to, but there was no point going out to procurement when the only provider was Palantir.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, by common assent, Palantir’s technology has rapidly and dramatically improved the Ministry of Defence’s logistics and operational planning systems without either human rights or reputational risks. Given that the current challenge confronting the MoD is recognised in the SDR, which recommended achieving a 10% efficiency saving by greater use of AI systems, what progress has been made on that objective to date?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will see in due course some of the ways in which we are taking forward AI, but she is quite right to ask about this. AI is crucial to the future provision for our Armed Forces and to enabling them to have the capability and capacity they need for the conflicts of the future. Palantir is one example of the way in which we seek to take that forward. Other options will be brought forward as part of the defence investment plan. Clearly, AI is the future of much of the technological co-operation that will be needed both within government and with our allies.

Russian Shadow Fleet

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Let me end by saying something that I have always believed: the defence of our nation is a shared endeavour. It falls to those of us who step forward to protect the country in and out of uniform. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those people who exposed themselves to risk yesterday and to those who will do so tonight, tomorrow and in the future. I have a responsibility now to them to ensure that they get what they need, and I am determined to fulfil those duties. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my huge admiration for all those personnel involved in the seizure of the “Smyrtos” at the weekend, from the Royal Marine commandos and officers of the National Crime Agency to the sailors of HMS “Sutherland” and HMS “Ledbury” and the airmen aboard the Poseidon P-8 and the Merlin and Wildcat helicopters. They executed their duties with characteristic—indeed, exemplary—professionalism, and I thank all involved.

It is welcome that the Government have finally begun interdicting sanctions-busting Russian ships, and that is the right move to disrupt Putin’s war machine, to degrade Russia’s efforts to undermine Britain’s security, and to help our allies in Ukraine. It is the duty of all political parties to stand by the Government in their efforts to help Ukraine defeat Putin’s vicious invasion. But many unanswered questions remain. The Government announced back in March that they would start boarding and seizing vessels of the Russian shadow fleet, and yet the first instance of such action occurring was this past weekend, so why the delay? The new Secretary of State for Defence failed to answer this question from my honourable friend James Cartlidge in the other place, so I hope the Minister will do better.

Why did it take so long to start boarding these sanctioned law-breaking vessels? Surely it does not take three months to plan for one operation. According to the BBC, there have been at least 94 instances since March of shadow fleet vessels crossing into British territorial waters without being interdicted, and that is in addition to almost 200 that have entered our exclusive economic zone. That is 94 vessels carrying sanctioned Russian oil that have been allowed to pass unimpeded through our waters, with the cash flowing directly back to Putin. That is not acceptable.

Shortly after the Government announced that British forces would be boarding these vessels, we heard reports that the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, was bizarrely concerned about breaching international law. The Government were very coy about responding to that allegation and refused to respond to my honourable friend David Reed when he asked that question on 13 April. Can the Minister confirm whether concerns about international law were holding the Government back and causing this delay, and if so, how has this situation changed? Can the Minister tell the House whether this is a one-off, or will the Government start hitting every ship of the Russian shadow fleet that enters British waters?

There have been further reports that after the operation at the weekend, six shadow fleet vessels that were heading for the channel have now turned round. There seems to be a likelihood that they may head up through the North Sea and around Scotland. This, of course, elongates their journey, but if they are permitted to continue, they will still reach their destination, offload their illegal oil and send that money back to Russia. So will the Government intercept vessels making that journey north?

Finally, this all leads back to resource. The Minister and I have had many exchanges on this topic recently, so he is fully aware of my position, but I have to repeat it. If we are to continue seizing Russian vessels; if we are to play a leading role in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, as the Prime Minister announced today at the G7; if we are to maintain a military presence abroad, particularly in our overseas territories; and if we are to continue to deter our adversaries, our Armed Forces must have the funding they truly require. The funding they truly require far exceeds that which the Government have committed to date. We know that the Chief of the Defence Staff has asked for £28 billion as a minimum. Why will the Government not commit to that level of funding for the defence investment plan?

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the boarding of the “Smyrtos” was conducted speedily, efficiently and without any casualties. It is a real credit to our Armed Forces. We all agree that it was a very impressive effort, and we should be grateful to them, but it is the first that has happened, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. My understanding is that the “Smyrtos” was operating under a Cameroonian flag, but Cameroon abruptly purged 36 shadow fleet vessels from its shipping registry last week. Can I ask where the other 35 are, and indeed who is pursuing them, and who is going to take any action to block them, deter them or prevent them from completing their journey towards Russia? What are we doing, either by ourselves or in co-ordination with others, to ensure that collectively we stop this shadow fleet? If you are talking about that number of ships, there is a huge amount of oil that is still being got through to Russia and that Russia is using to finance the Ukraine war.

On the oil that has been seized—which I think is 100,000 tonnes—what will happen to that? I assume that it will be sold on the market, but will those funds go to Ukraine to compensate it for the war? I hope the Government will consider that. Does this not also raise the case to lift the waiver on Russian fossil fuels now, rather than at the end of the year? Is it not quite ironic that we are launching military escapades to capture shadow ships while at the same time allowing oil to go to Russia legally? That is a huge contradiction, and a total lack of common sense. So I ask the Government: what are we doing to try to eliminate this shadow fleet—not by ourselves, but collectively with our allies? What are we doing to end the Russians’ waiver and apply the sanctions? Can we ensure that any oil seized is used for the benefit of the Ukraine war effort?

Defence Investment Plan

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

The disagreement in recent weeks was never about whether we should fund our forces; it was about how fast we increase the spending for defence and on what capabilities. That is a serious argument to have—I make no apology for pushing hard within the Government to win it, because that is the job. But the job is also a team sport, and that is why the Ministry of Defence, with the new Defence Secretary, is working with the Treasury, other government departments and No. 10 to get this right”.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Chief of the Defence Staff has today given the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House stark evidence of what funding is needed and why we need it to maintain our defence capability. Does the Minister agree that, whatever ends up being in the defence investment plan, there must be an emphasis on funding ongoing operational activity such as boarding sanctioned tankers, paying for drones, equipping our serving Armed Forces personnel with everything they need to maintain operational readiness, and ensuring that our reserves are trained and equipped to optimise military and national resilience support? Does he accept that these are priorities?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

The priorities, and the moneys for the future, will be laid out in the defence investment plan. The noble Baroness is right to point out some of the important capabilities we have to protect our country and to work with our allies. She was right, for example, to point to the importance of the reserves—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, here—and to the ability to maintain our operational requirements. This goes back to a question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place. As the DIP goes on, an important thing that will have to be wrestled with is the relationship between RDEL and CDEL, which is crucial to the way we will operate in the future.

UK Defence Capability

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It would be wrong of me not to say that I appreciate my noble friend’s remarks on Normandy. A number of us were there on Saturday; the relative of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was the day after. My uncle, who I am named after, was killed on D-Day, soon after landing on Sword Beach. I really appreciate my noble friend’s comments.

On the current situation, he will know that the defence investment plan is due to be published and the Prime Minister has made clear that it will be before the Ankara summit on 7 July. We are in discussions about the money. He will have seen that well reported. I cannot tell him exactly what the outcome of all of that will be, but there will be additional investment. My noble friend is right to point out the need for us to increase our capability, and we are doing that. In terms of countering the Russian threat as it stands at the moment, we are not standing still, we are taking action with RAF Typhoons and are with working with our NATO allies in the North Atlantic and the High North. With his naval experience, he will know that the carrier HMS “Prince of Wales”, following a bit of maintenance in Norway, is now out ready for Operation Firecrest and that a number of operations such as Nordic Warden and Arctic Sentry are taking place to protect our interests, take action to counter the Russian threat and protect things such as underwater cables. Of course, there is a need for more investment, more readiness and more capability, but we are taking action with the resources we have now to defend our country as well and as much as we can.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, wounds imposed by one’s friends are always more painful to bear than those imposed by one’s adversaries, so I shall try not to compound the Minister’s agony. The Chief of the Defence Staff has laid bare profound concerns about our capability. The noble Lord, Lord West, has encapsulated the problem succinctly, and I shall not repeat that, but at the heart of the chaos we find ourselves in is a fundamental difference of opinion between defence experts who get it and, arguably, a political leadership who do not. Can the Minister clarify precisely how and when this impasse will be resolved? We do not need talk about the defence investment plan; we need it now. We need to see the detail. It may or may not resolve the problem, but dither, delay and inertia are now completely unacceptable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I welcome challenge on these issues from His Majesty’s Opposition, my noble friend Lord West and my noble friends because it is important the Government are challenged on all these issues. They relate to the defence and security of our country and the defence and security of our continent and beyond so it is quite right to hold the Government and the Ministers who speak for the Government to account on this. The noble Baroness quite rightly asked me about the defence investment plan. I cannot do any more than say to her that the Prime Minister has said that the defence investment plan will be published before 7 July, which is the Ankara summit, the next NATO summit. That is all I can say to her. We hope to be able to publish it well before that, but all I can say to her is that work is ongoing. It will lay out the investments for the future as well as the type of capability that we need. All I was saying to my noble friend Lord West and I say to others is that we have already increased the amount of defence spending and are already increasing available capabilities and taking action where a threat is made against us to defend our country, our people and the alliances to which we belong.

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.

Civil Preparedness for War

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. This is a timely debate. Sadly, the impossibly short speaking time precludes a normal wind-up, so I hope that noble Lords will indulge me.

I want to talk about money, consequences and national conversation. You cannot sensibly discuss civil preparedness for war without also embracing our military readiness for war. If we are militarily on the front foot and prepared with all the necessary technology, assets and personnel, it may be possible to avoid war, shorten any conflict or mitigate the consequences of war, with a beneficial effect on our civil preparedness. Yet, nine months on from the defence review being published, the Chancellor still does not have a funding plan on her desk. There has been a scathing critique by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, which I shall not repeat it because he has, far more eloquently and authoritatively than I could ever have done, brought us up to date on where we are.

Let me make some suggestions to the Minister. I want to see a much more politically muscular approach adopted towards the Treasury. The Chagos deal, which is moribund for the foreseeable future, allows the Government to free up imminent payments that would have gone to Mauritius now to go to defence. As the MoD struggles to balance the books, with the current £3.5 billion black hole, it has to prioritise. Getting warships out of maintenance seems a glaringly obvious priority.

The lack of clarity on funding and the absence of the defence investment plan have real-time consequences for safety and national security. When the Middle East war was triggered, we had no warships or naval assets in the region. It took weeks to get HMS “Dragon” out there. That is shocking. Defence companies are existing on a wing and a prayer, which is not sustainable. They need to be clear about their own financial planning, investment and retention of a skilled workforce. They need an order book. Who or what is blocking the defence investment plan?

The national conversation proposed in the SDR is sensible. The question being asked this afternoon is: where is it? I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are not facing the Whitehall block of every department under the sun wanting to get its oar in and create stasis and stagnation. We do not have time.

I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Defence should lead this, and lead it now. I am prepared to help the Minister. I have ideas about how to structure this and deliver it. Some of it can happen quickly. I make myself available to meet his officials, and I hope that that proposal might appeal to him.

These Benches do not always disagree with the Government, but this debate is another important opportunity to repeat to the Government the anger, frustration and warnings of failing political leadership. We need change. What can the Minister report by way of progress and encouragement?