Civil Preparedness for War
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(3 days, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I echo the gratitude that everybody has expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for this debate. The interest in it suggests that we need more time, and I suggest that government time should be made available to extend it properly.
The Government talk about a whole-of-society approach, but where is it? The helpful Library briefing suggests that little progress has been made since the Commons Defence Committee report said that the UK “lacks a plan” on homeland defence. It said that cross-government working on homeland defence and resilience was
“nowhere near where it needs to be”.
Websites like Prepare and Ready Scotland focus on disasters such as flooding, fire, storm damage and power cuts and they provide useful checklists, but they give no guidance on where people should turn to in a war scenario.
Technology has changed mightily since the last war, but people know that we had the Home Guard, civil defence, the Royal Observer Corps and many volunteer organisations engaging citizens across the piece. Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that this is irrelevant in a nuclear war, but we are hoping that something short of that would be the worst scenario. By common consent, we are already in a war situation, with deniable threats to our critical infrastructure, including arson attacks, digital disruption, other cyber invasions, hybrid attacks and misinformation. But citizens surely need to know how they can deal with these, share information and help to prevent them—or at least secure a quick recovery. Russian submarines, ships and planes are already invading our air and sea spaces, and not with benign interest. Breaching a major pipeline or severing cables would cause major and sustained disruption to daily life. People need to know how they should act.
I am pleased that this House has established the Select Committee on National Resilience, which echoes one around five years ago and which I hope will advance the agenda. Just today, as has already been mentioned, a cross-party group of MPs led by Lib Dem Michael Martin announced an advertising campaign to highlight our lack of military preparedness for war. But, according to a poll, the majority of citizens do not believe that the UK is prepared for a major conflict and, perhaps understandably, do not want services to be cut in order to boost defence. There is the dilemma.
We need cross-party, all-of-society engagement to confront the real and growing threats and to ensure that we can build the necessary military and civilian response before it is too late. I plead with the Minister: it really is time for the Government to launch this; to engage citizens fully; to reach out across all parties and all aspects of society, including the public and private sectors; and to build not just awareness but real resilience so that the country is prepared because, currently, it is not.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On the Chagos deal, the direct answer, fairly obviously, is that priorities across government are always being assessed and reassessed as policy develops or changes, but predicting that is very difficult. I cannot give a direct answer to what the noble Baroness has asked—as I expect she thought I would not be able to. On warship maintenance, the First Sea Lord is working extremely hard to improve the maintenance of warships to see how we can get them all ready and operational more quickly. It is not just warships but the whole of the Navy. He is working hard, as the noble Baroness knows, with respect to a hybrid Navy. He is also working extremely hard to improve submarine availability.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, first, is the delay in the defence investment plan partly due to the Government having to make cuts to existing programmes to provide for programmes that meet new and increasing challenges? How does that sit with the claim to be funding increased defence spending? Secondly, given that the SDR called for a “whole-of-society approach” to defence and security, when will the Government seek to engage the public and all political parties in a debate on the threats we face, how they are escalating and how we need to respond? At the moment, the public are not so convinced that increased defence spending is justified. Most of us know that it is, but we need to ensure that the public are carried with it. Will the Government take such an initiative?
Defence Industrial Strategy 2025: Economic Growth and Job Creation
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, of course we welcome the decision to award the helicopter contracts for Yeovil, which the local MP, Adam Dance, has been campaigning for, and we are glad that it has been signed. But the reality is that without this investment plan, there are jobs and investment on hold in defence installations right across the UK. They desperately need to know when the orders are going to flow and when the money is going to come through. We also need to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses have a real stake in building up our high-tech capacity and in filling in our munitions requirements.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the last point, of course munitions are important, as we see particularly at the moment. That is why the Government are investing £1.5 billion in six new munitions sites. Thirteen sites have been identified, they are being reviewed, and we will come forward with those munitions sites so that we have them available. Again, that is money being invested. We are also talking about small and medium-sized businesses. We know that the future is not just in the big primes but in small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have set up within the Ministry of Defence an organisation to drive that growth. Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial, and we will develop those as well.
Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government explain it by using the figures I have just outlined. There is billions of pounds of additional money. You cannot alter the fact that it is going from the figure I just gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young, to the figure it will be. The noble and gallant Lord knows far better than me that choices have to be made within that budget about what capabilities you will spend it upon. One of the choices that confronts us is what lessons we learn from Ukraine, and what capabilities we need to ensure that we fight the war of the future and not the war of the past. That is part of the discussion that is going on at present.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Is not the reality that the defence investment plan has been delayed because of concerns inside government and the Cabinet about its affordability, especially given the commitment to increase our own sovereign capacity? In that context, is not the reality that cuts will have to be made to achieve that, and simply to fulfil the current budget? Will the Government recognise that we need to have a much clearer and honest declaration of exactly what is needed? The public need to know what the threat is and why we need to spend more on it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the last point about making sure that the public have greater awareness of the threats faced, and the national conversation. The noble Lord has asked me about that before, and we are seeking to do something about it.
Within the current budgets, we have signed more than 1,000 defence contracts since July 2024, 86% with British-based businesses, and spent more than £31 billion with UK industry. If the noble Lord were Secretary of State for Defence, he would have a budget and would have to make choices about which capabilities he believed were necessary to bring the country to the war-fighting readiness we need. Those are the discussions at the present time. I know there is frustration about the delay to the defence investment plan, but I would rather have a plan that is affordable and meets the needs of our Armed Forces and defence industry, so that we can fight the wars of the future.
Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
A key point for all of us in this House, our nation and our alliances is that it is a continuous at-sea deterrent, and I reassure everyone that we maintain that. The noble Lord is right that it has been the foundation of our alliance’s peace and security for decades under all Governments, and long may it continue.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister say how many of these submarines are operational at any one time? Many have been out of service quite frequently. Given the constraints, are we sure that we can maintain the programme that he has outlined and deliver AUKUS on time and on budget?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am confident about that. I will not go into the number of submarines that are operational for obvious reasons, but the noble Lord will have heard the First Sea Lord outlining the submarine recovery plan a couple of months ago, which was about doing more to ensure that our docking and maintenance facilities are of the standard that we want. That will also help us ensure that we get the availability that we want.
Defence Spending
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with much of what my noble friend says about the threat that we face and the need for us to respond appropriately. All I would say is that we are increasing defence spending. My noble friend asked about the chiefs, and I will quote directly from the speech the Chief of the Defence Staff gave just a few weeks ago, in December. He said that he was looking at the greatest “sustained” rise
“in defence spending since the … Cold War”.
That is enormously positive. We are trying to respond to the threats that we face today, and there will be debates about how much we spend. My noble friend refers to the defence investment plan. It was due to be published by the end of the year, not six months ago, and we are looking to publish it as soon as we can. We want to make sure that the investment choices that we make within it are the right choices for ensuring that we have the capabilities we need now, as well as in the future.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, can I press the Minister on why the investment plan has been delayed for so long? Is it because there is disagreement within the Government about its affordability and how we can develop our capacity if we were to reduce dependence on Americans and yet have walked away from joint procurement with the EU, which Canada has joined, and we have rejected?
Lithuania: Balloon Incursions
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are contributing to a whole range of efforts to deter Belarus’s activity, or Belarus acting as a Russian proxy. Lithuania and a number of other states have requested a NATO counter-hybrid support team from us. In the next couple of weeks it will work with Lithuania to assess what is going on there and what needs to be done, and to support Lithuania and others, if necessary, in order to deter this activity and respond appropriately.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, in a normal world, Belarus would be offering co-operation to stop this smuggling, rather than sneering and saying that Lithuania has to solve it. Lithuania has offered €1 million to anybody who can work out how to deal with these balloons. What are we doing, in co-operation with NATO’s centres of excellence in Tallinn and in Helsinki for countering hybrid and cyber threats, to ensure that we can find ways of dealing with the balloons? They represent a threat to the whole of NATO.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the threat that they represent, and the destabilisation and disruption that they cause. We are doing exactly what Lithuania has asked us to do. It has asked us, with NATO, to send a counter-hybrid team to Lithuania to work with it and establish what it needs to do to deal with the threat from the balloons, and the drone incursions, and find the most appropriate way forward. We are doing exactly what Lithuania is asking us to do within the auspices of NATO.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference 2026
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I first thank the noble Lord for the comments that he made and his association with my remarks about the tragic death. It is appreciated by everyone in this House and beyond. The noble Lord will know that there is no difference between us all. We support the work of the IAEA in ensuring that Iran’s nuclear technology is not used for the making or establishment of a nuclear weapons facility; we take action with respect to that. The noble Lord will have seen the action that others have chosen to take. The UK takes this very seriously, and we continue to press Iran to ensure that it abides by the provisions of the NPT.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the challenge of the review next year is to prevent the escalation, never mind the reduction, of nuclear weapons, and to ensure that there is no worrying escalation by America, China or Russia of their threats to test nuclear weapons, for example. How can we be sure that we put the process into reverse rather than see it escalate?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The establishment and existence of the NPT, which involves 191 countries, including all the countries—Russia, China and the United States—that the noble Lord has mentioned, provides a conference and a venue in which much of this can be discussed. All I am saying is that the NPT has been a successful vehicle. We need to continue to support it to try to take this forward.
The noble Lord mentions the comprehensive test-ban treaty; that has been another success. I know the point that he is making about the apparent re-establishment—according to President Trump—of that. That is a matter for America. This country has not tested a nuclear weapon since the early 1990s. We adhere to the provisions of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and to the provisions of the NPT. We ask and call on other countries to do exactly the same.
President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point. With all the questions and my comments so far, it is extremely important that we do not let rhetoric cause a problem. The question that the noble Lord has posed is important. As I have said in my answers so far, it is important that we talk about the success of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We have not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1991. The United States and others have conformed to that as well. People must be really careful in the use of rhetoric in whatever circumstance. Our debates and discussions on these matters are looked at and pored over. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously. We need to be very careful in how we discuss these matters while having the right to discuss them.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
In a conflict-beset world, a credible nuclear deterrent is unarguable, but macho posturing by the leaders of the United States and Russia is an alarming development that undermines the non-proliferation treaty. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will the Government take a lead to encourage or persuade India, Pakistan and Israel to sign that treaty, reaffirm it, strengthen it and make it clear exactly what has been said? A nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We encourage all states to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has been a huge vehicle by which we have worked together to keep the world safe. This Government accept, as previous Governments have done and as do many Governments across the world, that the nuclear deterrent is part of the security architecture of the world. Part of having a nuclear deterrent is to deter from war, deter from aggression. The restatement of the deterrent policy is consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, under which the noble Lord will know that the UK is allowed to have weapons.
Caribbean: US Military Action
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. At the end of the day, of course we must act according to the UN charter and international law. The UK Government do that. This is nothing new across the world, let alone between the US and the UK. We are always sensitive about intelligence sharing and about how much we discuss that.
My noble friend has highlighted the fact that the UK, along with our friends in the Caribbean and with the alliance with the US, acting in accordance with those principles of the UN Charter, has stopped hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of drugs coming out of that area of the world and into the US or Europe. Sometimes we should talk about that as much as we talk about other things.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, there is no doubt that the regime in Venezuela is authoritarian, represses dissidents and is probably involved in drug trafficking. Does that justify extrajudicial killing without evidence by our ally? If the Government have withheld intelligence, as the press reports say, we on these Benches welcome that, but can he clarify? Does he not recognise that when an ally loses trust or changes a relationship of trust to one of transaction, transactional decisions can go both ways?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
What I am saying to the noble Lord is a really important point. The lawfulness of the actions of the US is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, we act in that region in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. By doing that, we protect many people’s lives, in the United States, the rest of America and in Europe. That is something we ought to celebrate as well.