Future Capability of the Armed Forces

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I join everybody in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for introducing this debate and for the non-political way in which he did so. Across the whole debate and from all sides, we have recognised that the threat is real and our preparedness is inadequate—that is the message we are getting across.

In the fourth century AD, Vegetius said,

“si vis pacem, para bellum”—

if you want peace, prepare for war. That is precisely the point of deterrence. Our Armed Forces, as everybody has said, are highly professional and a credit to our nation. However, the peace dividend has left us seriously depleted in numbers and capability. As a number of Members have noted, the Government have talked about starting a national conversation, as did the strategic defence review—but where is it and what is it? Denmark has established a Ministry of Resilience and Preparedness and, as the noble Lord opposite said, other countries have engaged in preparing something like this. We have talked about it but we are not doing it, so can the Minister give us an indication of exactly when this will happen?

Preparing the public requires engagement. Recent YouGov polling showed that three-quarters of Britons consider it “important” to strengthen both the UK’s hard and soft power, including approximately four in 10 who rate it “very important”. However, only a minority favour tax increases or spending cuts to fund greater spending on the British Armed Forces. That is what we need to engage in. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his excellent speech—we shall certainly miss him—and for raising the issue of soft power, which is absolutely relevant.

The International Relations and Defence Committee—of which I am a member alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson—had an evidence session yesterday, in which I raised the issue of the cuts not just to soft power but to our diplomatic presence, in the wake of our aid cuts. I suggested that removing our diplomatic presence from across the world is not the way to protect our interests, which is what we are actually doing. Sir Matthew Rycroft, a former British ambassador and a former Permanent Secretary, was one of our witnesses. He said that

“diplomacy is more cost-effective than development, and development is more cost-effective than defence. One of the reasons why the aid cuts are so short-sighted is that they will end up costing us a lot more in the long run”.

Other witnesses echoed that and said that we have emerging powers around the world with which we need to engage. This is one way to reduce our defence risk and to engage support.

A helpful briefing from the Library has indicated the problem we have with strengthening our Armed Forces. That was an important point that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, raised. The Baltic and Scandinavian countries have got the balance right in a way that we have not: they have strengthened their reserves. A point has been made to me, although I am not a technical expert, that suggests, ironically, that the great sophistication of modern defence technology makes it much easier to operate—there is a black hole in there that you may not understand, but you can press the right buttons and you get results. That suggests that we can train many more people as reservists in ways that would be effective, which seems to be a real priority, as well as building civilian capacity for other crises. Russia will target our infrastructure—it is probably already doing so—and we need to have people across the country who know how to respond to that. That is a very important point that we need to address.

If you take the hardcore of the Budget, a huge chunk of it is going on updating our nuclear capacity—as the noble Baroness pointed out—on the AUKUS submarine project and on the Global Combat Air Programme. All those things are important, but they are very expensive, and that is squeezing out money that could go to other sectors. We need more warships, drone capacity, ammunition, missiles and ballistic missile defence. The question is to what extent we can deliver all those things. Yesterday, I asked: if we are going to phase out our warships, battleships and destroyers, what is our line of defence against ballistic missiles? That is the only defence we have at the moment, and “We’ll think of something” is not a good enough response—we need to know. The British public assume that we have such a defence, but the reality is that we will not if we do not replace the destroyers or find some other way of doing it.

I want to be positive. I know that the Minister will say what we are doing, and I will not dispute it: “We are building frigates, drone support ships and amphibious vessels”. All of that is good and essential. I do not want to suggest to the Government that we do not recognise that they are doing things, but, nevertheless, we need to deliver a lot of things very quickly. We cannot assume that we will not come under direct attack, as Russia probably regards the UK as its number one enemy and will exploit any perceived vulnerability. A debate such as this is a clear advert that we are vulnerable.

Everybody is saying that we could face an attack within three years. Is anything we are doing now equipping us to be able to counter such an attack? At the moment, I think the House feels fairly insecure that that is the case. The outcome of the Ukraine war is crucial, but how that will affect the UK needs to be assessed and countered. What key developments of home defence do we need to develop, as well as supporting NATO? As long as Ukraine is holding out, it is holding Russia back from other adventures that it would like to have.

A few weeks ago, I took part in an IPU visit to Lithuania. We were left in no doubt about the determination of the people of Lithuania, and of all the Baltic and Scandinavian states, to defend their freedom. They took us to the former KGB prison in Vilnius to show us the horrors they suffered under 50 years of Soviet occupation and their resolve never to suffer again. They have a defence budget of 5.5%. They know what the threat is and they are determined to maintain their freedom—but they know they need our support too.

We went to the Belarusian border and saw the fence erected not for defence but to counter Belarus’s actions. It is taking immigrants, whom it is recruiting from central Asia and Africa, to the border and forcing them across in order to disrupt society in democratic states. It is a ploy. It is advertising cheap flights to come to Russia or Belarus from wherever you are and have a good life. That good life consists of being put at gunpoint in a truck and forced over the border into the EU, where the immigrants will be deported. That is a pretty shocking situation and is, in effect, a state of war.

Knowing what we do of Russian activity around our shores and its hybrid and other interventions in our territory, it is clear that our deterrent and effective strength need to be increased. The question to the Government is: how fast can we move? How do we engage the public in a way that enables us to take decisions and take them with us? Will the Government consider defence bonds—this idea came from the Liberal Democrats, but has now gone wider—as one way of raising short-term funding? I completely accept that bonds are still borrowing, but if they are ring-fenced and targeted, it might be done in a way that the markets find acceptable and release money that might not otherwise come into the public sector. That seems a legitimate matter for consideration.

The Government will change on Monday. The new Prime Minister will have a whole raft of stuff on his doorstep. I was also at the meeting with Middle Eastern ambassadors—I think the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was there too—who expressed their concern that our new Prime Minister seemed to be highly focused on domestic issues and not terribly engaged in international issues. The honest truth is that we do not know, but they were concerned that this was an indication of an inward-turning UK, reinforced by our diplomatic retreat, soft power cuts and Brexit. All those things are giving the impression that the UK is not serious about our international relations.

I am not suggesting that the Minister, or the other Ministers who engage in this, are not serious, but when you look at what we are doing, it does not stack up as a credible strategy for a country of our standing. We have had respect in the world and we have influence, but we are not using or playing to them very well and there is a lot more we could do. NATO is the pivot of our alliance, but we need to explain to people not only that we are here to respond to an attack on NATO but that we have the capacity to defend ourselves, with or without NATO, from the attacks that we are told we will face in two or three years’ time. In his response, the Minister needs to give us an indication of how the Government will address this, take the public with them and ensure that we get where we need to be as fast as necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is a great privilege to respond to this debate. I thank everyone for taking part and I will try to respond to many of their points. I start by declaring an interest: my son-in-law is currently mobilised as a reserve, so I just make your Lordships aware of that.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on introducing this debate, on the way he did it and on his own service. We all recognise the importance of that. He made the point that the Armed Forces, the defence of our country and our work with allies and friends is not a party-political matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, demonstrate. It is about how we challenge each other to deliver the best defence that the country needs. That is an extremely important point for all of us, and I am very grateful that it is the attitude across the Chamber.

I will answer some of the specific points from the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, then move to some other matters. It is important to say at the start that, although much of this debate has been about the future capabilities laid out in the defence investment plan—we can debate and discuss whether it has all the right measures in it to develop our future capabilities and the spending that we will need for them—the concern expressed by many in this debate is about the capabilities that we have now and how we will develop them. That is an interesting debate. I am going to commission the Ministry of Defence to produce a paper that demonstrates what we are doing now and what we intend to do over the next two or three years, and I will put a copy of that in the Library. That will help, because it is important for us to have concrete examples of the sorts of things that are being done now and the sorts of capabilities that the MoD and the Government are saying we will have in the next year, the next two years and so on—not only that but some of the changes that we need to make and things we need to do. That shows that this debate is making a positive contribution to the sorts of things that we are seeking.

I will point to many of the things that are happening, for those who watch and listen to our debates. A number of people have asked what we are doing about Russia at the moment. We have an aircraft carrier in the north Atlantic with F35s all over it and other things around it, deterring the Russians with our NATO friends and allies. What are we doing in the Middle East? RFA “Lyme Bay” is there with a Type 45 destroyer, preparing itself for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, I hope. A noble Lord mentioned the Baltic states, and we currently have troops in Estonia. Others mentioned the nuclear deterrent. It is quite rightly being modernised at the present time, which is costing billions of pounds, but is a deterrent not only in Europe but across the world and it contributes to peace. All those things are going on at the current time.

We have Typhoons on quick-reaction alert, in case of incursions or threats to our airspace. It is quite right to challenge what needs to be done now and what should happen in the future. All I say in defence—this will be the only time that I am defensive about this—is that we ought to say to our adversaries alongside this, “We have capabilities that we are using at the present time to deter and to defend our people”. I know that that is accepted, and that there is a belief that we need to do more, but that is the challenge for the Government now and in the future. I hope that the paper that I will commission, a copy of which I will put in the Library, will help.

I come specifically to two or three of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. He asked about the £4.7 billion gap, as I think he described it. The Treasury clearly confirmed to me, in preparing for this debate, that a further £4.7 billion will be confirmed in the 2026 Budget in a fair and balanced way. That is the information that I have had from the Treasury.

On the question of the ambition for the reserves, the noble Lord knows what is in the Armed Forces Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House. Investment is going into the infrastructure, training and equipment needed to support the reserves, and we recognise the importance of that.

I have answered the point about what we are going to do about current priorities. I think the paper will be of interest not only to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, but to all of us more generally, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as the Front-Bench spokespeople for their respective parties. As the shadow Defence Minister for His Majesty’s Opposition, the noble Baroness I think will find it very helpful.

I fundamentally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that you prevent war by preparing for it. I do not like thinking that, but it is a crucial point. A national conversation is important, as a number of noble Lords have said, and soft power is crucial. I wrote the defence diplomacy strategy in the Defence Investment Plan, along with my department, and I shared it with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, just before publication. It talks about the importance of soft power and developing those relationships with other countries, as well as hard power, of course. The idea that it is a choice—that you have one or the other—is nonsense. You have to have both alongside each other.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I appreciate that, and the Minister and other Ministers frequently say that, but the reality is that the British Council is nearly bankrupt, the BBC is struggling and our diplomatic forces are being reduced. On that particular point, can he feed back to the Government that, if we do not have diplomats on the ground, we are not able to influence the world?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will feed that back to the department. All I am saying is that there is now a much more co-ordinated, effective diplomatic strategy that links the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence together to deliver the objectives that the noble Lord wants.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made the point about immediate threats. I hope that putting a paper together and putting in the Library will answer the particular questions she asked about what we are doing about those immediate threats, as well as future threats. I say to her that there are difficult decisions to be made. She made difficult decisions when she was in government. This Government made the really difficult decision to replace the Type 83 and Type 32 with the common combat vessel. That will help develop the hybrid Navy that we will need, rather than continuing with vessels that we were advised by the military advisers will not meet the threat in 10 or 15 years’ time. To have a warship that can deliver drone capability, above the surface, on the surface and below, increases the mass available to tackle the threats we face. That is the hybrid Navy concept.

We had the debate and we said, “We’re going to get criticised, you know? They’re going to say, ‘There you go, you’re cutting ships. You’ve taken away this capability and that capability’”. All I would say is that, if I have to take some criticism by doing that with others, because we believe that opens up the opportunity to create the Navy we need, I am willing to take that criticism.

However, I fundamentally agree with the point the noble Baroness made that drones are not the only answer. Of course you need warships, fighter planes and land vehicles—all those things are fundamental—but, alongside that, you need the increased capacity of drones.

On being optimistic, I know that a number of noble Lords were at the retirement of Pedro Serrano, the brilliant EU ambassador to the UK, who said:

“The United Kingdom is one of the most important military powers in Europe with a very important defence industry. If we’re going to be successful, we will be successful together”.


I spotted that when I read the Financial Times, as I normally do in the morning, and I thought, “I’m going to use that”. I am not being sarcastic. In the article, he points to the fact that the UK has joined the €60 billion EU defence loan scheme for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, asked me what the Government were doing to open up opportunities with respect to Ukraine. There is one example that I hope specifically answers the question the noble Lord raised.

I thank my noble friend Lady Carberry for her points about the importance of the defence industry, Rolls-Royce and SMEs. She is absolutely right.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a crucial point about RDEL and CEDL. He has made this point to me before. We made this point in the defence investment plan. I have the figures here. In 2026-27, RDEL was increased by £2.1 billion and CEDL was increased by £0.7 billion, so there was a significant uplift of RDEL rather than CEDL. Next year, it will be £1.6 billion compared to £1.2 billion. We absolutely accept the point about RDEL and CEDL, the necessity to focus not just on capital projects and the importance of resource allocation.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, about partnering more with private capital to try to do that—the defence bond argument—alternative financial mechanisms to support what we do are crucial.

I wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark well for the future. In his valedictory speech, he reminded us of the importance of international humanitarian law. That is important to our country and our democracy. We understand the need to use force sometimes, but we question ourselves about whether we have the legal basis to do so, and I think we should commend ourselves for trying to act, sometimes with force, in a legal way. I wish him well for the future. We all struggle with moral dilemmas, so I look forward to him struggling with that and trying to help others with respect to that when he preaches.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who spoke about the importance of soft and hard power. He and I have talked long and hard about that. Soft power is crucial, but it is not, as I said before, a choice, as he agrees, between soft and hard power. I totally agree with him about the speed of procurement and trying to deliver things much more quickly. I hope the paper that I am going to ask to be put in the Library will help answer some of the points on that. He asked about the defence readiness Bill. It will be in this Parliament, and it is being worked on as we speak.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about complementary groups under NATO. NATO is the crucial umbrella, but underneath that you can have other organisations, such as JEF or whatever, as long as it complements NATO—I think that is particularly important. The role of the US remains crucial. That is the only point I would say. We have to retain the strategic alliance with the US.