Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the committee for producing an excellent report that has contributed to this being such a stimulating debate. Clearly, there are other, slightly more recent factors that have contributed to it being even more timely and interesting than it might have been, and I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, that it would have been preferable if the debate could have been held in the main Chamber.

We are just over three years after the start of the current operations in eastern Ukraine. I put it like that because today we have really talked only about the situation since February 2022, yet the situation in Crimea since 2014, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, and the situation in Georgia in 2008 remind us that Russian expansionism is not new.

Although the title of the report, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call, is very telling, it is also important for us to remember that for too long, this country, like our NATO allies, tended to turn something of a blind eye. We do not talk about the fact that 20% of Georgian territory is still occupied by Russia. We do not talk very much about Crimea because we seem vaguely to have assumed that it is now just Russian, so we talk about Ukraine of the borders of February 2022, but until two weeks ago, we had at least assumed that we were on the same page as our transatlantic allies.

We are on the same page as Canada. Indeed, Donald Trump and JD Vance have done the most extraordinary thing: they have united Canada and have persuaded the Québécois that they are Canadian after all. Donald Trump appears to be doing something that his friends in the Reform Party probably would not like, which is reuniting Europe, not in terms of European institutions—I am not going to get into any technicalities about the UK-EU security relationship in terms of a bilateral relationship that is signed and sealed as a treaty—so much as the very clear fact that European states need to work together.

There has been a wake-up call, which we began to see at the time that this report was written, but it has become ever greater. At the same time, President Putin has managed to catalyse NATO by ensuring that Finland and Sweden have finally decided that they should be NATO members rather than outside it, so there are a lot of unintended consequences. As noble Lords have pointed out, this report was completed six months ago. By House of Lords standards, debating it within six months is quite quick. The fact that the Government have already responded is excellent but, obviously, nobody could quite have predicted what has happened in the six weeks since President Trump was inaugurated for the second time.

We are in a very different situation where our American allies perhaps cannot be relied on as in the past. As my noble friend Lady Harris pointed out in her trenchant and powerful speech, the US vice-president’s comments were, quite frankly, unacceptable. To suggest that the United Kingdom is “some random country” that maybe fought some war 30 or 40 years ago is absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible. The transatlantic relationship might not be a special relationship in US eyes in the way that it has sometimes been in British rhetoric. As the former UK ambassador to the US, Dame Karen Pierce, pointed out yesterday to the International Relations and Defence Committee, the Americans do not see it in a sentimental way, and they never have. As several noble Lords have pointed out, it is quite reasonable that the United States, particularly, but not only, under Donald Trump, in many ways sees the transatlantic relationship through a transactional lens.

One wake-up call we need to understand is that whoever is the American President, we cannot simply assume that NATO will go back to the alliance it was during the Cold War. We need to be aware of that but, equally, we need to be able to trust our allies. We cannot have the vice-president of one of our allies rubbishing the United Kingdom or denigrating the President of Ukraine. It is utterly unacceptable.

I absolutely agree with the many noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who pointed out that the Prime Minister has been very effective over the past few week in working with both the US and our European partners. However, we also need to make sure that we are not only standing up with Ukraine against Putin but standing firm against the United States when it is not acting as a reliable partner.

Various issues arise from that. It will surprise noble Lords that I agreed with a couple of points made by the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Skidelsky. On the question of our relationship with the United States, at a meeting yesterday, it was pointed out to me that we should not just assume that we go back to old-fashioned business as usual. However, the UK’s relations with the United States are qualitatively different from those of our European partners: we are part of the Five Eyes, we have various defence capabilities that our European partners do not, and we clearly have the nuclear deterrent. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, the French nuclear deterrent is independent, but ours is closely tied to the United States. Is the Minister able to confirm that we can use our deterrent independently? It is clearly important because our deterrent is the NATO nuclear deterrent and France’s is not. That is my first question.

Various noble Lords have mentioned the incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has talked about the UK and France sharing their nuclear deterrent. To what extent are we able to do that beyond saying that NATO offers a nuclear umbrella? There are questions about the non-proliferation treaty, which is not frequently talked about anymore, but there may be issues there, so it would be interesting if the Minister could comment.

Defence expenditure is one of the issues that has been partially overtaken by events in the past two weeks. We now have a timetable to get to 2.5% and several noble Lords talked about moving to 3%. That is my party’s policy, and we believe we should do it quickly, but not on the back of development. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a valid point that we might say that we need to increase defence and there might be various niche capabilities that the noble Lord, Lord West, would want if he were in the Room, but we need to be clear about what we would be spending that 3% on.

Defence procurement is clearly one of the issues. The questions raised about our defence industrial base are hugely important. My noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield was one of the Peers who mentioned that we need to strengthen our defence industrial base and to work with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those that have found that the uncertainty pending the SDR has created issues with their balance sheets and cash flow. Will the Minister tell the Committee what work is being done with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those that have dual-use capabilities? Equally, we need to be working with our European partners. As several noble Lords mentioned, interoperability is vital. Defence spending of 3% may or may not be enough. We need to make sure that we have the right capabilities, in the right place, at the right time, not just as the United Kingdom but with our NATO partners and allies.

My final question is on the size of the Armed Forces. For years, these Benches have been saying that we need to restore the 10,000 cut to the Army. We also strongly believe that we need to strengthen the reserves, but the other important point that was raised is about total defence or civilian defence.

Taking the lessons of our Finnish and Swedish partners is important. What are His Majesty’s Government doing not only to think about civilian capabilities but to talk to the United Kingdom? At the moment, we are, to an extent, talking to ourselves. We will have people watching online. There will be people from the Armed Forces or veterans listening in. There might be people from the Russian embassy or the American embassy listening in; maybe even the Chinese embassy has an interest. What we really need, however, is to be saying things that reach out to the ordinary citizens—in particular, not people of our generation, because most of us will be over the average age of the UK population. The noble Baroness, Lady Fall, pointed out that she lives with some Gen Z people. We need to be reaching out to them, to schools, to universities and to our young people to explain why defence and security matter.

This is not just about the past; it is about the present. It is about the defence of democracy and standing up not just for Ukraine but for what it stands for. We are doing it for Europe and for a future that is for Gen Z, their children and grandchildren.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a long and interesting debate. This is the only contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I crave your Lordships’ indulgence if I appear to go back to the start of the debate to express these Benches’ support for, thanks to and tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As a country, we owe the Armed Forces a considerable debt of gratitude; that is something that we do not say sufficiently often, including to the public. It is very important that this debate is happening now, in the context of the geopolitical challenges that we face on a daily basis.

The Bill may play a small part in thinking about the welfare of and recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, is right that we need to be very clear that we should not put too much emphasis on one Bill to rectify many of the issues associated with the Armed Forces, but this manifesto commitment from the Government is a welcome one and the Liberal Democrats, in the other place and here, welcome the Bill and wish it well. We inevitably have some questions and will raise some issues this evening and table some amendments in Committee.

The Bill is obviously intended to promote the welfare of service personnel and their family members, which is very welcome. That is important, and clearly goes beyond the scope of the current ombudsman, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, talked about. How much further does it go from the existing role? In theory, it would appear to be helpful by going beyond service complaints to a wider remit for service personnel and their families to bring cases. However, like other noble Lords, I will press the Minister on how the Government envisage defining a family, because it can be understood in a variety of ways. In particular, there are questions about kinship carers and the families of deceased members. Here, there is a slight gap in the legislation as it is currently proposed. The Minister was very clear that it is about current service personnel, but if somebody has been killed in action, would their relevant family members be able to have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner under the envisaged proposals or would there be a separate arrangement for them? It would be helpful to understand that a little bit more.

Like other noble Lords, I will raise the question of commissioner’s independence, but also the independence of the appointments process. How do His Majesty’s Government envisage engaging in the recruitment of the commissioner? Will it be an open call? I assume they are not going to recruit Capita to engage in the recruitment of the commissioner, but how else might they do it? Was the noble Lord, Lord Russell, thinking, since the German commissioner is a former MP, that perhaps a former Member of your Lordships’ House might be able to put themselves forward to be a commissioner, if the hereditary Peers Bill passes unamended?

It would be helpful to understand this. The legislation says that the commissioner will not be a civil servant or current service personnel, but it does not say that it cannot be a retired civil servant or former service personnel. The Minister is nodding. If the commissioner is a retired general, say, what provisions can be put in place to ensure that serving personnel would not feel inhibited about bringing cases? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, talked about having provisions for whistleblowing. If the independent commissioner had a services background they would inevitably have connections to the services. In many ways that would be very useful as they would understand the cases that are brought to them, but a very junior member of the Armed Forces might feel inhibited about bringing a case. It is important to understand how independent the commissioner will be.

That also relates to the commissioner’s budget. The figure of £4.5 million to £5 million has been talked about. How fixed is that figure? How great is the commissioner’s scope to put forward proposals to say, “This isn’t going to enough for the role that I have been asked to undertake”?

There is also a question of scope. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, talked about two very different types of cases: the very broad issue of accommodation—I will come back to that in a moment—and the very specific case of the RAF fatalities. Would something like that be within the commissioner’s scope, or would they not be able to look at it because, presumably, there would be formal inquiry? It would be useful to know how far there will be clear lines of demarcation between legal investigations and what the commissioner might do.

Finally, on Armed Forces accommodation, if we are concerned about the welfare of our Armed Forces and retention, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, retention is about families. Having brought the homes back into public ownership, will His Majesty’s Government invest in ensuring that the homes and their maintenance are fit for purpose, so that one key aspect of welfare will not take up the majority of the commissioner’s time? It is surely important that the Government make it clear that they are going to deal with the accommodation issue. While we are about it, might the Government think about committing to the decent homes standard for Armed Forces accommodation? If it is right for renters in civilian life, we should surely demand at least as much for our Armed Forces personnel and their families.

Finally, is there any scope for looking at frivolous and vexatious cases? Clearly, we want the commissioner to be able to look at important, relevant cases, but just occasionally, cases might be put forward that are frivolous and vexatious. Will there be some screening process to make sure that the commissioner is able to focus on meaningful cases and not get caught up with anything that might be unnecessarily bureaucratic?

We wish this Bill well. We will perhaps bring forward a few amendments in Committee, but we look forward to the Minister’s response.

UK Defence: Hypersonic Missiles

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend knows that this Government, like the previous Government, fully support the nuclear deterrent as an important way of deterring our adversaries at the most serious and strategic level. We are currently developing the successor programme to upgrade and renew that nuclear capability. This Government and previous Governments have consistently said that the nuclear deterrent is right at the heart of our defence posture and will remain so.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned the need for relying on other allies, perhaps not just the United States. In his initial Answer, the Minister referred to AUKUS. When His Majesty’s Government took office last year, they very quickly reaffirmed their support for AUKUS. Does the Minister believe that the United States is equally committed? If not, what should we be doing?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do believe that the United States—let us say again, we have a special relationship with the United States—is a really important ally for this country, if not the most important. We should state that now and we should state that as we go forward. In terms of AUKUS, we remain totally confident with respect to both pillar 1 and pillar 2, along with Australia. Australia, the UK and the US will develop AUKUS and that too, in terms of hypersonic capability in pillar 2, remains an important part of the work we are doing to defend our country and our freedoms, and democracy across the world.

Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument, which makes, as he said, a small change to the existing system. However, the fact that this statutory instrument comes before your Lordships’ Committee today provokes me to rise with a single question for the Minister: does not the fact that this small change is being brought here today mean that the Government are prepared to look at bigger changes in future and are looking at the entire system of military justice?

I ask that specific question because, earlier today, I was at an event with the Child Rights International Network, the Centre for Military Justice and Salute Her UK. The Child Rights International Network was expressing great concern about events at the Army Foundation College and the level of offences, particularly sexual offences, there. More broadly, there was a sense at the meeting that the service complaints and justice systems in the military are broken; that units are marking their own homework; and that there are serious problems with the investigation of rape and sexual assault cases, as well as with the experiences of black and racially minoritised personnel.

I have no objection to the statutory instrument before us but, at that meeting, something was said that I found very disturbing. A representative of female personnel serving in the military and veterans said that they felt as though they had gone back to 2015 in terms of the attitude of military justice, particularly towards female victims of potential abuses in the military. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are prepared to, and will, look much more broadly at the whole system?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, when we get to questions of military justice, I normally rely on my good friend, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, to speak on these matters because he is far more expert than me. So, I am grateful that the Minister gave us the background to this case. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that we accept this amendment as it stands, clearly, but I have a couple of questions, one of which is quite close to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Is there a danger that officers of a certain rank will feel unable to act as robustly as they might otherwise do if the officer at the court martial is senior to them?

There is a real question around whether service justice is doing what it needs to do. Clearly, the person facing the court martial needs to be treated fairly, but the Armed Forces still have questions to answer. If we look back to the Atherton report in the previous Parliament, when Sarah Atherton serving personnel and former personnel to come and give evidence—very much with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—we see that that was important. If courts martial are being populated by serving personnel, will people feel that they can really act as judge and jury in the way they need to be able to do?

I have another related question. It is noted, in the Explanatory Notes, that part of the issue is a lack of senior officers. As His Majesty’s Armed Forces shrink—the size of the Army, in particular, has shrunk—will the problem get worse rather than better? Do we need to think about how to reform military justice, in a wider sense, to ensure that the best practices are in place?

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Question referred to fiscal policy, and although there may not have been a change in the relationship with the United States, there has been an impact on His Majesty’s Armed Forces. Such children are being sent to private school not through the parental choice that might be made in the civilian sector, but to ensure they can have a secure education while their parents are serving. The cost of education has just gone up through VAT. Is that not a problem? Could the MoD not talk to the Treasury about it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On VAT on school fees and the impact on military families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, just pointed out, the Government have increased the continuity of education allowance, which now meets some 90% of the increase in fees that military families will face as a consequence of the VAT rise. That allowance is there to support military families in the way she said, and the VAT increase has been met in a way that is consistent with that policy, through the uplift in the allowance to 90%.

Major Defence Contracts

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As many noble Lords have heard me say, the war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call not only for this country but for the alliances across the world. We need to be able to scale up our industry and do so quickly, and to reflect on the sovereign capability we need, so that we have that as well. It will require apprenticeships and investment in all areas of the country.

My noble friend also makes the point that we have to know what we wish to spend our money on. Whatever billions we end up spending, it will be important to spend money on the sorts of defence equipment and capabilities we need to meet the threats of the future, not those of the past.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the SDR suggests that the defence sector is important for growth, yet a couple of weeks ago the House magazine pointed out that many SMEs in the defence sector are struggling, and some are thinking of moving out of defence. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of this and what are they doing to support SMEs in the defence sector, which is so vital?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are supporting the SME sector by spending billions of pounds on defence. The noble Baroness makes an important point about the importance of small and medium-sized industries. We often talk about the primes—the really big companies— but they are often supported by small and medium-sized businesses, which are extremely important, along with ensuring we get investment across the country.

I will tell noble Lords the other thing that needs to be done. For decades in this country we have had a shortage of skilled workers and skilled apprenticeships, and certainly small and medium-sized businesses need help to recruit the skilled labour they need to deliver the products that they have on offer.

The final point I will make is that, clearly, we are now in a period of transition from pre Ukraine to post Ukraine. That obviously results in looking at who we are buying from and the sorts of things we are purchasing, and the defence review will deal with some of that as well.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, Russian maritime activity has increasingly been a matter of concern, and I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for his timely update on the UK response, through the agency of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Equally welcome is the candour that has been deployed. It is important for Parliament to understand what the response is, but the detail that the Secretary of State has been willing to disclose is unexpected and certainly helpful and reassuring. It sends a clear message to President Putin that we know what he is up to, and his covert and menacing activity is being closely monitored, with an appropriate Royal Navy intervention.

These Benches support the Government’s response to this brazen maritime activity. We commend the Secretary of State on changing the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement, and his robust attitude towards this provocative intrusion by a Russian spy ship deserves praise.

It is clear from the Statement that the Government are also cognisant of the wider Russian threat and helpfully lists both the RAF and Royal Fleet Auxiliary response, together with our contribution to NATO and JEF activity. All of that has the support of these Benches, as does the Government’s continuing support for Ukraine. But all of this comes at a cost, and if our UK defence capability is to continue to operate at a level necessary to meet these continuing threats, we have to know how the Government intend to resource that new level of response.

In anticipating the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to the SDR report, which we are led to believe is expected in March, I gently remind him that by then the Government will have put defence funding into the deep freeze for nine months. Given the news stories now swirling around, with the financial challenges hitting the Chancellor head on, is 2.5% of GDP for defence by 2030, regardless of what the SDR comes up with, off the agenda?

Given President Trump’s very robust approach to defence spend, believing 5% to be necessary, what are the repercussions for the special relationship if the UK fails to make 2.5% by 2030? In particular, what are the implications for our mutual defence engagement?

Against this backdrop of defence funding fog, what types of MoD orders are currently in limbo? What preparations are in hand to adapt to the new and harsh reality of cutting our defence coat according to the Government’s visibly reduced and increasingly threadbare cloth?

In conclusion, there is a patent irony that the Chancellor can find £9 billion to hand over to Mauritius, thereby reducing our national security, while slapping inheritance tax on to our Armed Forces personnel, who fight for our security, and at the same time exempting US armed forces personnel from paying VAT on private school fees in this country while clobbering our own Armed Forces with VAT on school fees.

Will the Minister, who I know is a champion of defence and the Armed Forces, convey to the Chancellor, in his own unvarnished language, which I know he is more than capable of using, how illogical, how unfair and how unacceptable this is?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I associate myself with the first remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in supporting His Majesty’s Government in their response to the Russian ship, and thanking the Minister for being here today to answer questions, as well as the Secretary of State for his Statement last week. It is clearly important that parliamentarians have the opportunity to understand what is happening: equally, we understand the Secretary of State’s point that there is a limit to how much operational information can be given.

We support the Government’s action, but I have a series of questions. The Minister will probably be quite relieved that, for once, they relate not to defence expenditure but to defence posture and practice. We are looking in our own waters at the North Atlantic area —the Euro Atlantic area—which is the most important for our security. We are, in many ways, benefiting from the fact that NATO has two new members, Sweden and Finland. They are both committed to serious defence and Finland, in particular, is committed to national resilience. At the end of the Secretary of State’s Statement is a point about securing the UK’s borders and our own security. What are His Majesty’s Government doing in terms of United Kingdom resilience? Are we considering giving further information to ordinary civilians about the security concerns that we are aware of but perhaps they are not thinking about?

That is not necessarily to go as far on civilian training as Finland does—I am certainly not calling for conscription—but are we at least thinking about widening the discussion with society to include the threats in not just traditional hard military concerns but cyber? Are we thinking about the need for us all to be vigilant and to be aware that we need to think about the threats coming from Russia as a whole society? At the moment, there is a reluctance to understand that we need to devote more time and resource to defence. This is a plea not for a percentage of defence expenditure but about the need to talk to citizens about the threats we all face.

There have been clear threats in our waters, but we have also seen threats in recent days in the Baltic states and a potential threat to Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty. To what extent are His Majesty’s Government willing and able to speak truth to power, in the form of the President of the United States? The idea that the United States somehow requires a sovereign territory for its own security is wholly unacceptable. For it essentially to threaten the sovereignty of a fellow NATO member state is also unconscionable. While I do not expect the Minister to tell us what the Prime Minister and the President spoke about recently, will he at least suggest to the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we need to ensure that NATO is fit for purpose and that the whole edifice is not in danger of coming down? After all, NATO has kept us secure for over 70 years.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their tone and their remarks. They both asked perfectly legitimate questions, but I should start with the statement that I always make—as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, always used to—that all of us want to see the defence and security of our country and that we stand together to ensure, as far as we can, that we and our interests abroad, with our allies, are kept secure.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about support for maritime activity. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, behind her, because I said in an Answer to a Written Question from him on the important point behind her question that the UK Government, either on their own or with their allies, will take action to deal with any potential threats. The noble Baroness referred to the rules of engagement, which are particularly important and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. She congratulated the Secretary of State on his candour. It is important to reflect that he said that to ensure that the message went out we will take appropriate action. Changing the rules of engagement to allow our ships, where appropriate, to get closer and carry out closer observation is important.

The really significant point, as the Defence Secretary laid out in the other place last week, was in response to the November activities of the “Yantar”, when a submarine surfaced. He outlined to Parliament that he authorised that submarine to surface. The noble Baroness is right to point out how important it was for him to say that, both as a reassurance to us and our allies that we will take the necessary action and as a message to others. She was right to highlight that and I thank her for doing so.

In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about some of the other activities that the Government have taken both to support us and our allies and to defend undersea structures and shipping in the Baltic, the North Sea, the southwest approaches, the channel and so on, there are a number of things to say. Noble Lords will have seen the activity rate. On HMS “Somerset,” the crew were recalled on Christmas Day, and we pay tribute to them for that. Two days later, they were at sail because of the concern about ships that were going through the English Channel. That shows, again, our resolution to do that.

The noble Baronesses will also know that, with respect to the High North and to the JEF, we have recently seen the establishment of the Nordic Warden operation, which is particularly important. With Nordic Warden, we see the use of artificial intelligence, based at Northwood, to track shipping, using the various signals and other data to inform either ourselves or our allies where potential harm could be done. Again, that was outlined in the other place. Noble Lords can read it online. Nordic Warden is another example, through the JEF, which the noble Baroness asked about, of projects that are UK-led, where we are acting to ensure that the appropriate action is taken there.

The noble Baronesses will also know, with respect to NATO, that Baltic Sentry has been announced recently. Again, that is where maritime assets have been laid out by some countries to ensure the protection of undersea cables and that other laws are maintained. They will have also seen the Defence Secretary lay out for us that Rivet Joints and P8s have been used as a contribution to Baltic Sentry. In many areas, therefore, we are seeing the deployment of UK military assets with our allies to defend our underwater structures and to take action where necessary with respect to all of this. That is a really important statement.

I turn to the point about spending. It is particularly important to lay out that, notwithstanding the debate about what we should be doing, it is vital that this country has the assets—and I have laid out some of the specifics—to take considerable action to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm in the ways that I have outlined. Similarly, with respect to Ukraine, which both noble Baronesses mentioned, our resolve remains steadfast. We thank them and all noble Lords for the support they give to withstanding the illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is particularly important at this time for us to continue to reiterate that.

On spending, the noble Baroness will know the position of the Government, and I hear the point that she makes about my unvarnished language, which I would have said is pretty varnished in here. Having said that, I take the point. The noble Baroness will know that there is £3 billion additional spending in the 2025-26 budget, and the Government’s position remains the same, that in the spring we will set out our pathway to spending 2.5%. I was rather taken aback when the noble Baroness mentioned £9 billion. I thought for a moment that she was going to praise the Government for the £9 billion investment in Rolls-Royce for the development of the nuclear-powered submarines that we are going to see with respect to AUKUS. There we go: I shall do that instead. Notwithstanding the debate about spending, there are considerable investments being made.

I take the point that the noble Baroness made about homeland security. We are going to have to consider more carefully the information that we give to the public, as well as what is the most appropriate and sensible way of doing it and how much information we can give people. I am of the view that we should share as much information as we can, where it is sensible to do so and it does not compromise operations or the security of our country and our personnel. We should always think about how we might do that and what more we can do.

On threats to homeland security, a couple of weeks ago I made the point that we are not in the situation we were a few years ago, given that we now face threats to underwater cables, cyberattacks, and concerns about critical national infrastructure and others, such as unauthorised drone activity—although it is unconfirmed exactly what the causes of that were around certain places. All of these things raise issues for us. It is extremely important we have a public understanding of that. We need to ensure we have the resources to deal with these things properly when there are other calls on the public purse. The defence of our country is important—sometimes the most important—even when set against some of the other priorities that people quite naturally want to see money spent on.

On the new President of the United States, it is important to recognise that the relationship between the US and the UK is key to the defence and security of the values and freedoms not only of our own country but of our alliances across Europe and the globe. They underpin NATO and many of our other alliances and interests. It is important we reiterate that, time and again, to the new President. I see many comments and much speculation, but, for the defence and security of our country, the most helpful thing to say is that we look forward to continuing to work with the United States and the President. It is in the United States’ interests and our interests, and the interests that our two great countries have always stood for: freedom, democracy and human rights across the globe. That relationship remains as important now as it ever was.

I hear what the noble Baroness said about the questions the President has raised about this or that country or region. I think the President and others are thinking about the security challenges in those areas. The Arctic, for example, is opening up in a way that climate change is making possible—that would not have been possible a few years ago. That raises security challenges for us all, and responding necessarily means discussing those. Russia is reopening Cold War bases in that region and China is looking to exploit that. Somehow, we have to work together to understand those new threats and challenges, and to consider how we face them. We are trying to do so through the defence review, which will look at many of the challenges that we face. My noble friend Lord West has raised a number of times the importance of the maritime capabilities that will be needed and the differences within that, which will be something that the defence review will have to address.

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and to all noble Lords across the House for the sometimes challenging questions they quite rightly demand of the Government. Those watching or reading this should know that this House, as with the other place, remains united in the defence of the freedoms and values that this country has always stood for. There will be difficulties and challenges, but no one should doubt our resolve to continue in the defence of the freedoms that we have always stood for.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. Of course, I always discuss with the Treasury questions asked by noble Lords and Baronesses. The position remains exactly the same. The defence review will be published, it will lay out the threats we face, and at a future fiscal event the Government will then determine the pathway to spending 2.5%. This is our real commitment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is a suggestion that NATO, at its summit in The Hague next June, is going to look at a 3% target. Are His Majesty’s Government willing to think about this? If not, are they going to reject what might seem a very necessary change in the light of the global situation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have been very clear about NATO. Irrespective of the outcome of the American presidential election, European countries would have had to spend more on defence. As a first step towards that, all NATO countries need to meet the 2% target, which 23 out of 32 currently do. Our next step is to reach 2.5% and to set a pathway towards that. That will result in billions of pounds of this country’s money, as well as multi-billions of pounds across Europe, being spent on defence. That is the first step we need to take.

Defence Programmes Developments

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the marvellous men and women in our Armed Forces, and the civilian cohort who support defence in such an extraordinary manner and help to keep our country safe. Sometimes, in our political badinage, we are inclined to forget that. I know that noble Lords entirely support what defence is doing in our name and for us. I also pay tribute to the Government’s clear resolve to continue supporting Ukraine. I know, again, that this enjoys universal support in the House.

Prompted by the Statement, there are so many questions that I could ask that I am going to try to keep this simple. Looking at the recent antics of the Government, you might think that the pantomime season had arrived early: an embattled Prime Minister and his Chancellor telling business and farmers, “We’re on your side”, to be met with a chorus of, “Oh no you’re not”; an isolated Secretary State for Defra being told, “Look behind you” as the Prime Minister and his Chancellor hover above British farmers with a guillotine.

On defence, the Government’s approach is clearly predicated on the premise that ignorance is bliss. Defence spend will rise to 2.5% of GDP, but we do not know when. Will that decision, when it is known, inform the strategic defence review? We do not know. Will the strategic defence review inform the fiscal imperative of pinning down a date for 2.5% of GDP? We do not know. What impact is the imposition of VAT on school fees going to have on our Armed Forces? We do not know. Is it going to impact on recruitment? We do not know.

What do we know? We know that any significant question asked of the Government about capability—GCAP, the progress of AUKUS, the development of drones—is met with, “Wait for the strategic defence review report next year”. That response might be disappointing to inquisitive nuisances like me but, in fairness, it is a sustainable position if consistently adhered to by the Government—but it is not, because without awaiting any SDR outcome, the Defence Secretary announced in the other place last week that we are scrapping ships, including HMS “Albion” and HMS “Bulwark”, and helicopters. Given the Government’s steadfast fallback on the SDR to explain their reluctance to talk about anything, this is an odd aberration.

Let me explain, however, what makes it even odder. Earlier this year Luke Pollard, now the Armed Forces Minister, said that HMS “Albion” and HMS “Bulwark”,

“play a key role in the Royal Navy’s ability to project power and deploy Royal Marines at scale”.

He even criticised the Conservatives for not ruling out the mothballing of the two amphibious assault ships, which he said in January

“are important for the Royal Navy and should be retained”.

He also said on Twitter in January—this has been reported to me, because I have nothing to do with Twitter—that:

“Mothballing HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark when they still have a decade of planned active service ahead is bad for Plymouth and bad for the Royal Navy”.


I put the following questions to the Minister—or should that be Prince Charming? He is certainly one of the more acceptable faces of the Government. If his honourable colleague Mr Pollard was so right in January, how is he so wrong now? If, as he identified, these ships are a classic illustration of a capability that is not going to be used every day but must be held in readiness, to what extent is the operational mobility of the Marines compromised by this decision? Does the Minister anticipate, ahead of the strategic defence review report, more precipitate announcements about assets being scrapped and decommissioned? Lastly and in particular, will he reassure the House that there are no plans to mothball either of the carriers?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not plan to engage in any pantomime discussions, which we are getting perhaps because we are slightly close to Christmas, because it is important that we remember the significance of defence. Something that is appreciated, not just in your Lordships’ House and the other place but by our Armed Forces, is the extent to which the political parties are united in the tributes that we pay to them, and the fact that we recognise their commitment to our country. We also owe them a duty to ensure that defence expenditure means that the equipment for our Armed Forces is the best appropriate and that we are putting the right resources into defence.

We have a strategic defence review where we understand that there is a cap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, we do not know at this point when the 2.5% is going to be introduced, so that is an uncertainty. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State brought forward a Statement on defence programmes and that the Minister is in his place today to answer questions on it, because a lot of questions that require further probing.

The Statement from the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the answer to a lot of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is, “We didn’t know the state of either the Budget or our Armed Forces when we took office”, and that is why the issues about decommissioning are being brought forward now. Could the Minister say whether the decommissioning of equipment is being done now because the Secretary of State has discovered that the time has come and in fact it would cost more to keep these ships and other pieces of kit operational? How much is the decommissioning going to cost? Has that been taken into consideration? Are the further pieces of equipment part of an ongoing review programme? It is important for us to understand what the Secretary of State and the chiefs are actually looking at.

Beyond that, what scope is there for the Secretary of State, and the Minister of State in your Lordships’ House, to tell us what is planned for defence procurement? In the Statement, the Secretary of State made the repeated point that the Treasury has understood the importance of defence for growth. We agree, yet the Budget increased expenses for the defence industry, like every other business, because of employers’ national insurance. The Minister has reassured me, both in Grand Committee and in private discussion, that the national insurance increase will not impact on the cost of the Armed Forces. We accept that, and it is very welcome. However, presumably the defence industrial base will pay the increased national insurance costs. While the primes might be able to take that as relatively small change, is that true of the sub-primes? What impact will it have on the small and medium-sized enterprises so vital for the defence industry?

I turn to something that could be either a vicious circle or a virtuous circle. If defence is indeed able to contribute to the growth of UK plc and we see our economy grow, that will, by definition, also help with defence expenditure if the 2.5% is part of a growing GDP. But if the defence sector and the economy as a whole go into decline—and there have been suggestions that the Budget might lead to a decline in our national GDP—what impact is that going to have on our defence expenditure? These are some clear questions that we need to understand. They are not intended to be unhelpful, but simply to ask whether we are really giving the support needed to the defence industrial base.

Finally, one of the things we heard across the Chamber in discussions about the G20 and COP summits was the importance of internationalism. The Secretary of State mentioned the Trinity House agreement on British-German defence co-operation. What are we expecting in terms of a Lancaster House refresh? Also, what is His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the reports in today’s Financial Times that France has begun to step back from its attempts to veto non-EU countries such as the UK being part of the European defence investment programme? That, presumably, will assist the UK in strengthening our defence relations not just with France but with the European Union.

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

I want to start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their comments and by reiterating that defence is an issue that unites us across this Chamber: we all want the best for our country and for our Armed Forces, and here there is no division between us. I also thank the noble Baronesses for their ongoing support in respect of Ukraine, just as we supported the previous Government when we were in opposition. Again, this House is united in that regard, and I am grateful that reiteration.

I hope the House will bear with me while I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who gave his valedictory speech a few days ago, when I was unable to be in attendance. We all know of the noble Lord’s work on defence, and I want to put my personal thanks to him on record and to wish him well for the future.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, paid tribute to our Armed Forces across the globe and they were right to do so. Not everyone in the Chamber will agree with everything I will say today, but there is no division between us on our respect for our Armed Forces and the work they have done, are doing and will do. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was particularly right to remind us of that, and perhaps we should start every debate by saying it, because I know that many members of the Armed Forces read such debates.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the 2.5%. As I have said, the pathway to the 2.5% will be laid out at a future fiscal event in the spring. She asked about the sequencing with respect to the SDR. The SDR will come prior to the 2.5%. I hope that clarifies that point.

The noble Baroness mentioned my honourable friend Luke Pollard MP, who campaigned hard for clarity on the landing platform docks to which she referred. He fully supports the Government’s publicising and making it clear that, following the mothballing introduced by the previous Government, neither ship had been to sea since 2023—indeed, HMS “Bulwark” had not since 2017. On current planning, neither ship was due to go to sea again before their planned out-of-service dates of 2033 and 2034. In a sense, the previous Government had effectively got rid of those two platforms themselves, while all this Government have done is to announce something that had already happened.

I would also point out that, as the noble Baroness will know, we have three Bay- class landing ships, “Lyme Bay”, “Mounts Bay” and “Cardigan Bay”, and a further RFA “Argus”, which will do virtually the same for us as the two ships that have been decommissioned. As the defence review will no doubt point out—I see that my noble friend Lord Robertson has walked in—the Royal Marines will play a full and proper part in the future defence of this country, as they have done already this year without the use of those two landing platform docks. They have been in Australia, in Gaza and all over the world, conducting their various activities. As the noble Baroness says, we should be proud of the fact that they have done that—and they have done it with two landing platform docks mothballed in Plymouth.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, what the Government are trying to do is to get rid of outdated equipment that is no longer being used. All of this has been backed by all the chiefs in the Ministry of Defence, who have supported every single thing laid out in these proposals. If noble Lords object to it, they are objecting to something the professionals have told us they support. They support the decommissioning of the landing platform docks and of HMS “Northumberland”, which is beyond repair. We are trying to accelerate the replacement of the Type 23 frigates with eight of the world’s most advanced, Type 26 anti-submarine ships.

The Wave-class tankers are being got rid of because we do not need them any more. Instead of having two that were last at sea in 2017 and 2022, we will have four RFA Wave-class tankers that will provide the same commitment and resource to the Royal Navy as the two that are being decommissioned. I would have thought that was a sensible thing to do.

We are getting rid of Watchkeeper because that system has been in service since 2010 and, according to all the military chiefs, is out of date. The Ukraine war has shown that we need to replace it with something else. The Chinook helicopters are going—14 out-of-date helicopters that have been in service for more than 35 years. They are to be replaced with new, state-of-the-art helicopters. The contract for the Pumas is not being extended and they will have to be renewed in due course.

These pieces of equipment are all currently on the books, and we believe they can be decommissioned and that new equipment can replace them, so that the Armed Forces of this country have the modern equipment they need to prosecute the conflicts we send them to work in on our behalf. I would have thought that all noble Lords could support that. If we do not support such decommissioning, we will have equipment that is 50, 60 or even 80 years old. That is ridiculous. You have to move on and, at times, take difficult decisions because that is the way to ensure that we move forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the continuity education allowance with respect to providing for the education of the military. The CEA will be increased to be consistent with the current policy of meeting the increase in VAT fees. She will know, as will the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that, notwithstanding the defence review, the Government have made a clear commitment that the nuclear deterrent and AUKUS will be protected. There might be better ways of doing both, and we would always search for savings within them, but it will not be at the cost of the ability of those systems.

The noble Baroness asked me about the carriers. The thing to point out for this country is that next year the “Prince of Wales” will lead a carrier strike group into the Indo-Pacific with our allies, with ships all around it, taking hard power from this nation with our alliances, to show that we support the international rules-based order, the rule of law and the freedom of navigation on the seas. That is where the carrier the “Prince Wales” will be next year, and I think that is something we should be singing about and talking about. Not only will that be demonstrating hard power, but defence diplomacy will go on all around the world to reassure our allies that this country, along with America and everyone else, stands up for the rules-based order that seems to be threatened by others who seek to undermine it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about procurement. Defence procurement will be at the heart of everything we do. Noble Lords can see the point we are making about new equipment. We hope that much of it will be built within the UK, across the whole of the UK, benefiting all the regions and nations.

On national insurance, the noble Baroness will also know—again to confirm the point I made—the Armed Forces will not pay or will not have a cost, though there may be accounting issues. Of course, national insurance will have an impact on other firms as it will for all firms.

The defence equipment plan before us seeks to decommission equipment that we believe is out of date. New equipment can be better placed to meet the threats we face, and it is those new threats that we need to face: it is the wars of the future we need to fight, not the wars of the past.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I do not agree with that caricature of what is happening. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said at the weekend, and it has been repeated since, that we will reach 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. The defence review is looking at what capabilities we need and we will then set that in the context of the 2.5% as we move forward. That sequencing is the proper way for us to go ahead. As it stands, no major projects are being disrupted as a result of the review.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The Minister’s answer was very clear, but at the weekend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggested that the Government were waiting for the SDR to report. However, one of the provisions of the terms of reference of the SDR is that there is a cap of 2.5%. Who is setting the agenda—the SDR or the Treasury—and should we be worried?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course the Treasury sets the context of the budget within which defence operates. The 2.5% commitment is cast-iron; the discussion is about the timeframe. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced at the weekend that the 2.5% will be announced at a future fiscal event in the spring. The sequencing is everything. If we decided to spend billions of pounds on a project now and the defence review suggested that that was not the best use of money to meet future threats, the noble Baroness would be asking me why we had spent the money before knowing what those threats were.