New Medium Helicopter Contract

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are certainly making those points—with respect not only to the importance of the main contract but to the impact on the supply chain that is dependent on these contracts—to the Treasury, not just on the important Leonardo discussions but on the many other contracts the Government are signing with British industry.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, is it not precisely that this contract is not being let? As my noble friend said, the conversations need to start now. If Leonardo is the only company in the running, why are the Government not having those conversations right now?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are having conversations with Leonardo; we have been talking to it for a considerable period. Those discussions go on. All I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and to the noble Baroness is that the final decision with respect to Leonardo and the new medium helicopter will be made as part of the defence investment plan. She will have to wait for the outcome of that for final decisions to be announced.

Boarding of Sanctioned Vessels

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has just said, we are waiting for the defence industrial strategy. What is holding it up, the MoD or the Treasury?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

What we are doing is trying to make sure that we get it right. Even if you increase the budget by £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion, there will be debate about the correct way to spend that money. What is the war-fighting readiness that we need? What is the capability that we need to tackle the threats that we face? We as a Government are determined to ensure that we can fight the war of the future—that we are ready to fight the war of the future, not the war of the past. That takes decisions, that takes debate, that takes discussion, and that is what is going on.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by echoing the comments of my right honourable friends in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary, in supporting the Government in taking measures to tackle the ongoing scourge of sanctions-busting shipping activity.

The enforcement of sanctions on Russia and Iran is crucial to defending our interests both at home and abroad and critical to upholding our ongoing support for Ukraine, and any action we can take to weaken Putin’s war machine is welcome. I thank all those service personnel who took part in the operation to assist the United States in the capture of the MV “Bella 1”. As ever, their commitment to our country and our security is exemplary.

On the substance of the declaration of intent signed by the Prime Minister and the President of France, there is a list of unanswered questions. I understand that the Minister will not be able to go into operational specifics—I would not want him to do that—but I hope he can shed some further light on this plan.

The Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place mentioned that the meeting in Paris last week was

“the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 384.]

with 39 nations present. But as far as I can tell, it was only Britain and France that agreed to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement. Can the Minister confirm that all members of the so-called coalition of the willing will be contributing to the multinational force for Ukraine in that eventuality? Does he know which other countries have expressed a willingness to also make such deployments?

There is a matter of critical, fundamental principle we must acknowledge here: any peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine will be fragile. Russia has not exactly garnered a reputation for reliability, and there is always a risk in the event of a peace deal being negotiated that Russia could violate any such agreement.

I do not need to spell out to the House what the consequences of that would be if we had British troops in that country who could then find themselves forced into direct combat with Russian troops. It is an outcome that none of us would wish to see happen, but the Government and the British people must be prepared for that scenario.

I therefore ask the Minister: does this not heighten the importance of the national conversation on defence, as outlined in the SDR and committed to by the Government? Surely we must now prepare the British public for a future which in reality will be less secure and less peaceful. The prospect I have just outlined is very important for the British public to understand, so I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm how the progress on the national conversation is proceeding.

The other point is support for our troops. Are the Government absolutely satisfied that they will be going in as best equipped as we can possibly make them? This rather underlines how important it is that the Government not only ramp up defence spending but that we begin to see this much-delayed defence investment plan.

I confess to disappointment that despite repeated undertakings which the Government have given, that investment plan has not yet materialised. We were told just before Christmas that we would see it before the end of the year, but there has been no sign of it. I understand that we might not now see it until spring this year. Given the scenario that the Prime Minister is outlining, this is beyond the theoretical and the hypothetical. This is actually getting into the very real and raw territory of what we need to fund the MoD to make sure these troops will have everything they require. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what he understands the position to be in relation to that investment plan.

We also have the helicopter factory in Yeovil teetering and the frigate-building programme stalling, and our munitions supplies have not been replaced at anything like the speed necessary. All of that I adduce in support of my proposition that we must now have clarity. There is a need for this defence investment plan, in whatever form it is in, to see the light of day. The most important thing is that we ask a lot of our Armed Forces; we all hugely respect what they do. If troops are to be deployed in Ukraine as part of a multinational mission post some peace agreement, they need to be safe in the knowledge that our Government—and all of us—care about them, and the Government have their back.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, during the previous Government, there was a bit of a triumvirate when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was the Minister. Many times, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I would stand up and ask questions, and I would associate myself immediately with his comments. Today, I find myself in a similar position, standing up to associate myself and these Benches with the comments and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which are extremely important. My questions should therefore be seen very much as additional to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

I first thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces, particularly at the start of a new year, and say how important it is that we support them. Obviously, our personnel were not actively involved last week, but we support them and we want to ensure that the situation for our Armed Forces will be such that we are ready to deal with all the international situations that may come up in 2026. Although this Statement was officially labelled, “Ukraine and Wider Operational Update”, already in 2026 we have had Iran, Ukraine and Russia, and the other issue, of course, is the situation with Venezuela.

I do not propose to ask the Minister questions specifically about Venezuela, but I stress that the importance of supporting the United States last week in tackling the tanker and dealing with the shadow fleet is precisely that we understand that that was in accordance with international law. It is important to stress that we support His Majesty’s Government as long as the action taken is in accordance with international law. Will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, where actions are taken, even by our closest ally, the United States, we will hold them to account if we believe that they are not acting according to international law?

We clearly have a difficult situation where, on some issues, we agree entirely with the United States and on other issues we find ourselves perhaps at one remove. Could the Minister help the House understand where the United Kingdom is in discussing with the United States the situation of another sovereign entity—namely, Greenland? We have had reassuring answers from the FCDO, suggesting that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Kingdom of Denmark. But Greenland is a significant geographical part of NATO. There are questions around what support we as the United Kingdom, particularly the MoD, are giving to Greenland and to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Building on questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, if the United Kingdom were to commit troops to Ukraine, what would the conditions be? I understand that there would be a vote in the other place, but would it be just the United Kingdom and France? Are His Majesty’s Government sure that, if we did that, we would not actually be creating vulnerabilities for our own troops, because the prospect of peace in Ukraine still seems a long way off?

Finally, is the Minister convinced that the commitments to defence expenditure are adequate? He said in the Chamber last week and the Secretary of State said in the Commons as part of this Statement—or in response on this Statement—that we have our 3% commitment, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked, if we are not spending that money, and if we are not letting the contracts and there are vulnerabilities for our frigates and helicopter services, where does that leave us in terms of national security? Supporting the United States in supporting Ukraine is important, but so is our national security.

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

First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their general support for what the Government have been doing, which, to be fair, carries on from the last Government. It is a source of strength for our country that that is the case and that there is a degree of consensus between us all about that. As a statement of the obvious, it is extremely important for our adversaries to see that unity of purpose between us all.

I also join the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, in thanking our service personnel for the various operations that they have been involved in in different ways. I want to praise the American forces as well for their bravery in what they did in conducting that operation. Again, I thank both noble Baronesses for their support for that operation, which was of huge significance. The noble Baroness talked about the importance of tackling sanctioned vessels. I remind her that we have sanctioned 544 shadow vessels, of which we believe 200 have been forced off the water, which has led to a decline in Russian oil revenues of 27% since October 2024. While we all wish we could do more, some progress has been made, and indeed we always consider what more can be done.

The noble Baroness asked about the 39 nations—they will contribute in different ways. As she will have read, France and the UK are at the forefront, and discussions are going on about what different countries will do. Most importantly, we need a peace agreement, and Russia is the impediment to that. If we get a peace agreement, a multinational force—whatever form that takes, but with France and Britain at the lead—can then provide that security guarantee which makes it a reality.

I also say to both noble Baronesses and other people the House that it was particularly important to hear the remarks of the Americans, such as Steve Witkoff, at the conference in Paris, where he said that the discussions that had taken place were very significant. Given the way in which we sometimes question whether the involvement of the Americans is as strong as it might be, that was a particularly important point that he made and one that we were very pleased with and are keen to continue to support.

I will mention two other strategic points, because we talk a lot about the Americans. There was a lot of talk a couple of months ago about the new American national security strategy. Less attention was given to the National Defense Authorization Act that the Americans passed at the same time, which laid out the Americans’ military budget, which included significant sums of money for Ukraine and significant troop numbers in Europe and confirmed the American general as SACEUR, which is important. So, in answer to the noble Baroness’s point about America, we continue to work very closely with the Americans. They are a very important ally to us, and we talk to them. I will come to Greenland in a minute, but we talk to them, and that is particularly important.

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the point about the national conversation. We are starting with that work, but there is an awful lot to do to alert the British people much more to the challenges that they face, not necessarily just in terms of troops invading but certainly hybrid threats, cyber attacks and some of the activity we have seen on our streets, not least in Salisbury a few years ago.

The protection of critical national infrastructure and the development of the reserves will become increasingly important. We certainly live, to put it mildly, in unsettled and uncertain times, and the national conversation is a really important point. If the noble Baronesses, or indeed other Members, have ideas about how we take that forward, I would very much welcome them because it is an important national endeavour that is taking place.

Going back to Ukraine, of course, planning is being undertaken. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been talking about what may be done. There is a lot of planning going on—I am not going to go into details—certainly in terms of making sure that the various equipment and materials that would be needed to deliver the reassurance are available.

The noble Baroness has heard what I said about the defence investment plan. We are working at pace to try to get that developed as quickly as possible. There is a debate and discussion about the defence investment plan but this country does an awful lot militarily, even within the existing budget. I reflected on that when the noble Baroness was asking that question. I was thinking about the RAF Typhoons that, with France, took action in Syria just a week or so ago.

We have the commitment we are going to make to Ukraine and the commitment in the Arctic; we have marines training in Norway and troops in Estonia; we had the carrier strike group recently out in the Indo-Pacific and, of course, the support we gave to the Americans, so notwithstanding the debate about whether enough is being spent, this country does an awful lot militarily, and sometimes we should remind ourselves of that.

On helicopters, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the Philippines has just placed an order with Leonardo for six helicopters. That does not answer the question about the defence investment plan and the British Government’s investment, which is still being considered, but certainly those six orders will be welcome news for Leonardo.

Of course, we operate on a legal basis. The action against the shadow vessel was against a sanctioned stateless vessel, which carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with Iran and Russia. It is a sanctions-busting ship. It was stateless: the noble Baroness will know it changed its flag when it sailed towards the eastern Caribbean. It was flying a Guyanese flag, and then when it sailed away, it changed it to a Russian flag.

There is a strategic point, which will not be lost on some colleagues here, that sometimes America’s attitude towards Russia is questioned—whether it sees Russia as a country it ought to take action against—but that was a very clear demonstration that where the United States believes it is in its interest to do so, it will take action.

The noble Baroness asked me about Greenland. She is quite right. We believe that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and it has the right to determine its own future. There is a question about Arctic security, and we have discussed in this Chamber at great length the need for us to consider how we develop that. I have mentioned in debates that climate change and the melting of some of that ice opens up that territory in a way which means that we will have to consider its security even more.

The noble Baroness asked again about the commitment to invest. She will know what I have said about investment, and that debate will go on. The Government have made their commitments. I would argue that even within the existing budget, we make a significant military contribution to the defence of democracy and of our values. We shall continue to do that, not least in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of our minds all the time, and in supporting the Americans where we believe that that should happen, as we have proved just recently in the last few weeks.

Defence Spending

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, investment is clearly vital, and it is obviously welcome that the Government are willing to spend more on defence, but this House needs to be reassured that the expenditure is going to come and that the capabilities will be in place in such a manner that we will be able to act more as a middle-ranking power, not a diminishing power. Do His Majesty’s Government believe that they are going in the right direction and that we will be able to play a full and effective role in NATO?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly will. I will not have our country categorised as a middle-ranking power or a diminishing power. I just do not believe that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness does either. She is quite right to challenge us on investment; we need the investment that I have outlined in the answers that I have given. I know she supports that investment, and I look forward to working with her, and collectively across this House, to ensure that we have the capacity and the capabilities we need to play the full and proper role in NATO that she and I support.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.

We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee pointed out, the current legislation, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, managed to do one thing, which was to unite the parties of Northern Ireland against it. The Minister is right that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. Can he reassure the House and veterans that the proposals that are coming forward really will ensure that veterans are not left vulnerable? In particular, as my honourable friend the Member for Lewes said:

“Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 63.]


Will the draft legislation actually ensure that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, as always, has asked a very important question. A number of people will listen to her question. There are a number of people in this Chamber who know Northern Ireland far better than I do—it is good to see my noble friend Lady Anderson here. The Government will continue to discuss with veterans’ organisations, veterans themselves, people across this Chamber and indeed the other place, and people in Northern Ireland to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that is fair to our veterans, the families and the people of Northern Ireland. Part of that is the continuing discussions which are taking place.

We are pleased that the protections for veterans will go into the Bill. There will be five protections in the Bill and there is continuing discussion about the sixth. But I can reassure the noble Baroness and others that we will continue to talk across this Chamber and the whole of Northern Ireland to ensure that, as far as possible, we build a consensus and take into account the views of everyone, but most especially our veterans.

Russian Ship “Yantar”

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for such an important question. The Royal Navy constantly monitors activity in and around UK waters. This includes the “Yantar”, which is continuously and closely monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS “Somerset” and the RAF’s P-8s. As the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, Russia has been developing military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. For that reason, we have directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture so we can more closely track and robustly respond to the threats from that vessel and many others. Such actions have previously included surfacing a Royal Navy submarine, strictly as a deterrent measure, close to the “Yantar”, to make it clear that we have been covertly monitoring its every move. We will not shy away from the robust action needed to protect the UK.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the “Yantar” has form. Do His Majesty’s Government feel that sufficient action is being taken? I note that one question asked in the other place was whether the Russian ambassador had been called into the Foreign Office, and the answer appeared to be in the negative. Do the Government need to be doing more? Are they doing everything to ensure that Russia realises that we will not tolerate its actions and incursions into our waters?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is another very important question. The whole House will recognise the significance of what the noble Baronesses have said. The UK Government are constantly talking to the Russian ambassador, constantly making the Russians aware of what we are doing, and we are constantly monitoring those ships that seek to monitor our underwater cables, potentially for purposes in future. We have Royal Navy ships monitoring that and P-8 Poseidons from Lossiemouth —we have a fleet of nine now—looking at that. But I say to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords—and I am sorry to repeat it, but it is just to make it clear, because the implications of what I am saying are obvious—that to surface a Royal Navy submarine close to the “Yantar”, as was done towards the end of last year, is an unprecedented way of demonstrating to Russia and the “Yantar” how seriously we take what they are doing. I know that that is supported by all Members of your Lordships’ House, but that signifies the importance of the deterrence and the importance and significance of the activity that we are undertaking to try to deter such activity.

UK Defence and Aerospace Facilities: Protests

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there seems to be an issue with public opinion at present about a failure to understand the importance of defence. Recent polling has suggested that many people of service age would not be willing to fight for our country. What are the Government doing to engage in the national conversation that the strategic review said was necessary to help people understand the importance of defence to our country and that any attack on the defence sector is also an attack on our own resilience?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point and, by asking the question, she starts to raise the conversation that we need to have as politicians about having more confidence to speak to the British public about why, as a country, we do the things that we do—and why it is extremely important that we do them. On a practical level, to make that rhetoric a reality, one thing that we are doing is to talk about the need for national resilience, the importance of protecting our critical national infrastructure and the importance of the reserves as well as the full-time personnel. The noble Baroness, who follows these matters closely, will also have seen the massive expansion that we are bringing to the cadet organisation in this country, which I think will help to make a very real difference.

Republic of Ireland: Defence Co-operation

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are witnessing the recognition on the part of Ireland that the changed environment in which it finds itself requires attention. These are decisions for the Irish Government. Like all Governments across Europe, they are looking at the changed geopolitical environment and the strains and stresses that puts on the defence of their own country. Discussions are taking place, in an appropriate way, between us and Ireland about what we can do around, for example, critical underwater infrastructure. Ireland is also looking at establishing its own radar capability. There are signs that Ireland is looking at what it can do to enhance its own defence and security.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the UK and the European Union had a rapprochement over security and defence in May of this year. Is there scope through that to begin to work bilaterally with Ireland within the realms of Ireland’s ongoing neutrality? That might be a way of ensuring that Ireland can begin to step up to the plate without saying to it, “Please write a cheque”, which seems to be mood of some of the Benches in your Lordships’ House. Keir Starmer is probably not going to be able to say to the Taoiseach, “Please can you sign a Eurocheque?”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Keir Starmer and the Taoiseach agreed, just a few months ago in Liverpool, that there should be a new memorandum of understanding, one pillar of which should be defence and security. That is a major step forward. It is important not only for the security of Ireland—and those are choices that it makes for itself—but for our security and the defence of Europe.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to welcome the SDR. Like the vast majority of speakers, we on these Benches feel that the work of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team, particularly Fiona Hill and Richard Barrons, has been remarkable; it really does give us an integrated defence review, whereas recent iterations of the so-called integrated security and defence review were a little more fragmented and less strategic than might have been desirable.

We echo the sense from around the Chamber that this SDR has understood the context of the challenges that we in the United Kingdom and our NATO partners and allies face. We also agree with the sentiment in the review—and across the Chamber—that we are at daily risk from cyberattacks and other routes from Russia, and other potential hostile actors. Although the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, thinks the dangers have perhaps been overstated, it is vital that this SDR has understood the challenges of the post-Cold War period. As several speakers have pointed out, we in the West have been rather complacent for too long. We took the Cold War peace dividend and we stayed that way until we got to a point at which Russia could say, “Actually, the West isn’t prepared”. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, about defence expenditure in the 1930s, and we are now in a similar situation.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I ask the Minister how His Majesty’s Government envisage increasing defence expenditure. Throughout the election and all the way to the NATO summit, all we heard was that the commitment was going to be 2.7%, and then 3% when the financial circumstances allowed. The current wording of the SDR reflects that, and the review team were told to assume 2.5%; that was in the remit. As I understand it, the review team pointed out that more money was needed. However, the NATO commitment to 3.5% of GDP on hard defence expenditure and 1.5% on critical infrastructure and resilience suddenly changes the dynamics to some extent.

As we have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, there is the question of what we do with the money—how we plan to spend it and when. The numbers are one thing, but the commitment is important. That sends certain signals, not just to our allies and adversaries but potentially to the defence-industrial base, the primes and the subprimes that they may need to ready themselves to build and increase production. Unless there is certainty in terms of letting the contracts and some clarity about what is happening between now and 2035, those companies are not going to start building up their production. For the subprimes and the very small companies in particular, new innovation is going to be very difficult. Can the Minister explain to the House a little bit about the Treasury’s and the MoD’s vision on expenditure?

Several noble and noble and gallant Lords have talked about resilience. The “whole-of-society approach” would indeed be vital. The review talks particularly about the importance of having a national conversation. Do His Majesty’s Government have any idea about how that national conversation should be initiated? We have heard today that it needs to be led from the top—from the Prime Minister. Maybe I have not been listening. Maybe, a bit like waiting for the third speaker in the gap, who did not exist, I have just been missing the Prime Minister when he has been trying to initiate the conversation. Have people in Paddington, the patch of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, been hearing the Prime Minister saying it is vital that we begin to look at our own critical infrastructure, rebuild defence and spend money on defence? In his very welcome return, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, pointed out that Denis Healey had made the point that if you cut defence expenditure too far, there are no houses, hospitals or schools. I have not heard either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State saying that—are we going to?

In terms of examples, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, was beginning to give some ideas of encouraging children and young people to find out about defence. We have heard from various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, about cadets. Cadets are part of the way in to recruiting young people, although, obviously, it is not supposed to be a direct move from being in the cadets to full-time military service or being a reservist. Yet has not funding for the cadet forces been cut? Are His Majesty’s Government delivering what they are promising and what is needed in terms of thinking through the position of the cadets and, in particular, the commitment to the reserves? As my noble friend Lord Wallace pointed out, the phrasing in the SDR says that we need to increase the size of the reserves by 20% but immediately says “when funding allows”. So far, the commitments, apart from the commitment at the NATO summit, are still incremental. Increasing the size of the reserves in the 2030s does not suggest any real sense of urgency. Are the Government really committed to increasing the size of the reserves but also to doing what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, pointed out—making sure that there is equality of treatment for the reserves and that they have the same kit and training as the regulars?

In terms of parity of esteem and equality, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned that next year we will have a new Armed Forces Bill in the five-year cycle. Given that the SDR is talking about the need to have much more interoperability between the three services, will we see that reflected in policy, but also through the Armed Forces Bill, or is there some other way in which His Majesty’s Government are envisaging making sure that that interoperability will come about?

Linking to wider aspects of interoperability, “NATO first” is a very clear message, and it is always followed up by Ministers of Defence saying, “NATO first, but not only”. The moves to co-operation and bilateral defence agreements with Germany and France have been extremely welcome. My noble friend Lord Wallace did not like the term “minilateralism”, but for many of us it explains precisely what this Government seem to want to do. Will it be done in a joined-up way as part of a strategy, reflecting the language used by the noble Lord, Lord McCabe, in his very welcome maiden speech, when he talked about the importance of joined-up policy? Are bilateralism and minilateralism intended to be part of a joined-up strategy to enable the UK to play a role as part of the E3, but also to ensure that we have a really effective arm of NATO? While I do not expect the Minister to say anything other than that the relationship with the United States as close as it has ever been and as close as it needs to be, are we making sure that we are strengthening the European arm of NATO—whether the United States is with us or whether we are having to act alone?

I will make two very short final points. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones could not be with us today, so he sent me many questions and said, “Maybe you would like to ask one of these”. I do not propose to ask too many of them. The questions were about autonomous weapons. One specific question is: what thinking have His Majesty’s Government done about ensuring that, if we have autonomous weapons systems, there is always a human in the chain?

Finally, several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, talked about the non-proliferation treaty. We on these Benches are committed to having a nuclear deterrent, but it is also right that this country does everything it can to look to de-escalation and moving down the ladder of nuclear capabilities. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that in 2026 this country plays a key role in the non-proliferation treaty review?

Afghanistan

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to speak with me extensively before the Statement. I thank him and his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place, for the tone they have adopted. I join the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge in their apology, on behalf of the British Government, to all those impacted by the data leak. It was a wholly unacceptable breach of data protection protocols and should never have happened.

This is a story of human error, an error of magnitude with profoundly grave and potentially tragic consequences, that was perpetrated by an MoD official and came to light only some 18 months or so after it occurred. Although as a Defence Minister I had no involvement in the issue, at that point in August 2023 the priority was to take all necessary steps as a matter of urgency to mitigate risk to life, hence the court’s involvement that culminated in the grant of a super-injunction. It was the political judgment of the last Government to seek the court’s intervention, and the decision of the court to grant a super-injunction clearly reflected how gravely the court regarded the risk to life. A court injunction is neither a cover-up nor political suppression of information; it is a court order.

No one should be under any misunderstanding about the potential consequence of this leak. If the Government had not sought the injunction, that data could have been disseminated globally through the media. This could have put the lives of countless Afghans at risk—people who helped Britain in our fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who saved the lives of British troops and who are incredibly brave, selfless and committed individuals who put everything at risk, including their families, to help us. If the Government had not sought to prevent the information being disseminated, those Afghans, who gave so much, could have been captured, tortured and murdered. The previous Government would have abnegated their responsibilities if we had left these Afghans to suffer the consequences of this data breach. That is why it was right to seek the injunction and resettle those affected in the UK.

I might observe that, regardless of what Government were in power at the time, these measures were the correct ones to take in the circumstances existing at the time. Indeed, on taking office, the current Government did not seek to have the super-injunction lifted.

Although this was human error and not a political mistake, the political responsibility is to keep the situation under review. It was right that this Government should seek expert advice on whether it was now appropriate to seek to lift the super-injunction and, if so advised, to make the necessary application to the court. In that, the Government have the full support of these Benches.

I understand that the Minister will be limited in what he can say, but I have a few questions for him. Is he in a position to give the House any more details on how the leak happened? I would have thought that there would have been digital safeguards within the MoD that prevented an email with a sensitive attachment being sent to a random person outside the department. What processes were in place to prevent this happening, and why were they not effective? Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the repercussions were for the official who inadvertently sent the data outside formal channels? Finally, what systems have the Government now put in place to learn from this regrettable episode and ensure that everything has been done to prevent a recurrence? As ever, I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I once again thank him for the manner in which he has approached this matter to date.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for a briefing yesterday. It meant that, temporarily, I was under a super-injunction. I was a little surprised when I was summoned to the MoD. On Monday afternoon I received a message asking me to come in for a confidential briefing. I had no idea what to expect, or of the magnitude of what we would hear in the Statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday.

It is a matter of extreme seriousness for a variety of reasons—the risk into which an official and the MoD placed Afghans who were already vulnerable, but also the fact that Parliament was entirely unable to scrutinise His Majesty’s Government on this issue for almost two years. The media reported immediately after the super-injunction was raised yesterday at midday; they had spent the last 22 months gathering evidence that, of course, they could not publish. There is a whole set of questions that are probably beyond the remit of the Minister who is responding today on behalf of the MoD, including what scrutiny Parliament is able to do and what the Government feel is appropriate regarding the media. Were the media being suppressed?

Lest anyone think that I am being cavalier about the lives of Afghans, it was absolutely clear that the United Kingdom had a duty to those Afghans who worked alongside His Majesty’s Armed Forces, including the interpreters and those who worked for the British Council. In light of that, the ARAP and ACRS schemes, which we all knew about, were the right approach. Yet we already knew, from open source material and cases that were brought to this House and the other place, that breaches of data had caused fines to be paid.

At the time of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, it was clear that many people were left behind, and that the helplines were not necessarily fit for purpose. The hotline for parliamentarians and their staff did not necessarily act as a hotline at all. I certainly left messages about cases and received no follow-up or reply. I was not alone in that and, although I believe that I was not part of this data breach, some parliamentarians were.

We began to acknowledge our debt to some of the Afghans, but not all. Then a data breach, about which we knew nothing, happened over three years ago. That in itself is shocking. Has anybody in His Majesty’s Government taken responsibility for that? We understand from the Statement that it was reported to the Metropolitan Police, which believed that there was no criminal activity. Has anybody taken responsibility for this catastrophic data breach that potentially put many tens of thousands of lives in Afghanistan at risk and caused considerable concern to Afghans who were already in the UK, having come over as part of the ARAP scheme?

The former Secretary of State, Sir Ben Wallace, has said that the super-injunction was not a cover-up, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Yet Mr Justice Chamberlain, who finally lifted the super-injunction yesterday, said in November 2023 that a super-injunction

“is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court’s processes are being used for the purposes of censorship … This is corrosive of the public’s trust in Government”.

Does the Minister agree? Can he confirm that this Government would not seek to use a super-injunction or, in the event that it was felt that a super-injunction was an appropriate course of action, that it would not last for more than 600 days but could be for a very limited amount of time while a particular, specific policy needed to be undertaken? The substantive policy change that was brought in—the Afghanistan response route—seems to have been very sensible. Had it been brought to your Lordships’ House and the other place, parliamentarians may well have thought that it was the right policy and been happy to endorse it—but we were never asked, because of the super-injunction. We knew nothing about it.

Could the Minister tell us whether, in future, the Intelligence and Security Committee might be briefed in camera? What role would Parliament and the media be allowed to play? If the courts, Parliament and the media are not deployed appropriately, that raises questions about our own democracy that need to be considered.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their comments and their words about the way in which the Government tried to inform His Majesty’s Opposition and the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. We tried to ensure that as many Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as other people in the other place, were informed as appropriate. I apologise if that did not happen with everybody who may have expected to have been informed, but we tried to ensure that everybody was consulted and spoken to.

I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, in the apologies that His Majesty’s Government, through me, again make today for what happened, which was totally unacceptable.

Before I answer the specific questions, I shall make a couple of opening remarks. The whole House will agree that the UK owes a huge debt of gratitude to all those Afghans who fought alongside us and supported our efforts in Afghanistan. Although I appreciate that there is significant parliamentary and media concern around these issues, and rightly so, let us not also forget that we are talking about human lives.

As noble Lords will know, a major data loss occurred in February 2022, involving the dissemination of a spreadsheet containing names of applicants to the ARAP scheme. The previous Government responded by setting up a new assessment route—the Afghanistan response route—to protect the most at-risk individuals whose data was disseminated. The data, and the lives that sit behind them, were protected by an unprecedented super-injunction, which was granted by the High Court, based on the threat posed to those individuals. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made: it is the court that grants an injunction, and when the Government asked for an injunction they were granted a super-injunction.

It is our view that the previous Government acted in good faith to protect lives. However, when this Government took office, Ministers felt deeply uncomfortable —to go to some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made—with the limits that the super-injunction placed on freedom of the press and parliamentary scrutiny. As a result, we therefore commissioned a reassessment of the situation, led by a former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, Paul Rimmer. Mr Rimmer, following a comprehensive review, found that it is

“unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting”

by the Taliban. He also found that there was no evidence pointing to Taliban possession of the dataset. We have therefore decided, as have the courts, that the risks have reduced, and that the existence of the scheme and its associated costs should be brought into the public and parliamentary realms for the appropriate scrutiny. Therefore, we expect and invite parliamentary scrutiny for these decisions.

I will deal with a couple of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me how this happened. I do not normally do this, as noble Lords know, but I will read out from my brief so that I get it factually right. In February 2022, under the previous Government, a spreadsheet with names of individual applicants for ARAP—the resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan—was emailed outside of official government systems. This was mistakenly thought to contain the names of a small number of applicants, but in fact the email contained personal information linked to 18,700 applicants of ARAP and its predecessor, the ex-gratia scheme, or EGS. The data related to applications made on or before 7 January 2022. A small section of this spreadsheet appeared online on 14 August 2023, which is when the then Government first became aware that the MoD’s ARAP casework and spreadsheet had been mistakenly included with the original email. The previous Government investigated that and a report was sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I repeat that the Government reported this to the Metropolitan Police, which found that there was no malicious or malign intent by the individual responsible.

The noble Baroness asked whether we believe that the systems have now been adequately changed. In a statement yesterday, the Information Commissioner’s Office said:

“We’re reassured that the MoD’s investigation has resulted in taking necessary steps and minimised the risk of this happening again”.


I hope that will begin to reassure the noble Baroness with respect to her point about how the leak happened, the measures that have been taken and the way it has been looked at and investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has now reported in a statement yesterday that it believes the MoD has, as far as it possibly can, taken the necessary action to prevent such a terrible and unfortunate incident happening again.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of course it is of great concern that parliamentary and media scrutiny had, essentially, to be stopped. Parliament and the press have not been able to scrutinise the activity and decisions in the way that they should. When we came into office, we were, fairly obviously, uncomfortable with that. We looked at the facts and the situation and, in January this year, as the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State asked Mr Rimmer, a former senior officer at Defence Intelligence, to investigate.

Noble Lords will have seen Mr Rimmer’s report. There are a number of important facts in its key conclusions, including that:

“No evidence points clearly to Taleban possession of the dataset”,


and the fact that the policy

“appears an extremely significant intervention, with not inconsiderable risk to HMG and the UK, to address the potentially limited net additional risk the incident likely presents”.

In other words, with where we are now, after the passage of time and the various assessments of the risk in Afghanistan, Mr Rimmer now believes that it is appropriate for the Government to apply to the court to lift the injunction. With the evidence provided in the Government’s presentation, it was lifted at Noon yesterday. The Government have decided that the time is right to make a Statement about what has happened, put as much of that evidence as possible into the public domain, and invite public, media and parliamentary scrutiny of it. That is the right thing to do.

At the end, in government, there is always a balance between making decisions about how to protect lives in a particular situation and recognising that you must have parliamentary and media scrutiny. The previous Government acted in good faith. We have looked at that again and believe that now is the right time for us to come forward, to publicise what happened and to invite comment from everyone. I hope noble Lords will accept that explanation.