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.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know as well as I do that if you went to Belfast a few years ago, as I did many times, you saw a derelict shipyard with nothing there. Now, you see investment going into Harland & Wolff and orders being placed there for the building of ships. It is a great credit to the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Belfast that this is happening. The Government are investing in shipbuilding.

On skills, which the noble Lord mentioned, he will know that Northern Ireland was given a growth deal, which can be used for skills. He will also know that just a couple of days ago, Queen’s University Belfast became part of the Defence Universities Alliance, which will also help with that. The blunt reality is that we need to invest money in our shipyards across the UK. We are doing that in Belfast, as well as other areas in the country.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, we have more ships tied up than at sea. That was witnessed by the lack of a ship in the Med at the start of this recent conflict and the delay in mobilising HMS “Dragon”. Where is the urgency in covering that gap? Also, with no replacement for our destroyers, how are we going to protect ourselves against the growing threat of ballistic missiles?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

One of the things we are doing was announced yesterday by my colleague from the other place in Faslane: £26 billion of investment over the next 10 years into naval bases across the whole UK, so that we can improve the availability of our ships. We also need investment in our shipyards, which is taking place. That is one of the ways we are seeking to do this. We will improve availability, but it will take some time. On the Type 45 destroyers and their replacement, we are looking to the Navy of the future, which will have air defence and ways of dealing with the threats we face—but in a different way from simply replacing our existing warships.

Russian Shadow Fleet

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

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

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

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the comments that they have made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness for her thanks—and I know it is a sentiment shared by us all—to our Armed Forces for the work that they did. It is important that we recognise that, as well as the military, specialist officers from the National Crime Agency were involved. I know that noble Lords will join me in thanking them for the work that they did as well.

I will share a factual update which may be of use to the House, before I come to the questions that have been posed by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. One Indian national who was the captain of the ship has been arrested and is currently at Bournemouth police station. There were a further 24 Georgian and Indian crew on the vessel. The ship has been seized and is currently off Weymouth, and all those 24 members of the crew remain on the ship. The ship, having been seized, is now under the control of the Department for Transport. Many noble Lords will be aware of some of those facts, but they are worth repeating for the awareness of noble Lords, and there may be questions that will come from them.

I am not sure that I am going to do a lot better than my right honourable friend in the other place—I am not sure that the noble Baroness expects me to—but the situation is that the Prime Minister made the statement about acting when all the circumstances aligned, and when preparations were made. It was based on the briefing from the military and others that this was the right time to act, and it was a time when we could act. In the way that it was conducted, no shots were fired, and nobody was injured or hurt, but it was the right time to act, and that is why we did. That is the answer to the noble Baroness’s question; I am not sure that she will be totally satisfied, but that is the answer.

As far as I am aware, there has been no problem with respect to the law or being held back because of the law. The Government have always said we will act in accordance with the law, and there has been no barrier to action with respect to that. This operation was conducted totally in accordance with the law.

In answer to the noble Baroness’s question about whether this was a one-off, no, it was not a one-off. This was a purely UK personnel operation, and we will take action at any point, should it be appropriate. If the advice that we receive from our military and others is that it is appropriate, of course we will act.

The noble Baroness is right to say that the action was a deterrent. Some ships were immediately rerouted, with some veering off around the English Channel past Cornwall. It is my understanding, as she is right to point out, that other ships moved around the top of Scotland. We keep under consideration any other activity that we may wish to undertake.

I stress the importance of the noble Baroness’s point that we must show that we will act. It is important for others to hear that from this Chamber. We will act when all the circumstances are right, when all the legalities are in place, when the military capability is there and when the military advice that we receive says that it is appropriate to do so. None the less, the noble Baroness’s point about deterrence is really important, so I say again that this should not be seen as a one-off. The Government will act, with the support of everyone, where that action is appropriate.

More generally, on the noble Lord’s point, we have sanctioned 570 ships and we assess that some 200 of them have been restrained to port—in other words, they have become non-operational. I am aware of the actions to which the noble Lord referred, but sanctioning ships is also important.

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, of course we always work with others. We liaised with others on this operation, but it was led by the UK. He will know of other operations off our own coast, where we supported the Americans, and recently in the Mediterranean, where we supported the French. There is a lot of work going on, in which we act in the way that the noble Lord suggests.

We work hard to ensure that we do all we can to impact Russia economically. In this respect, it is oil, but there are other ways to ensure that we undermine Russia economically to have an impact on the war in Ukraine and to ensure the defence of our own country. What happens to the oil will be considered by the Department for Transport, which will no doubt have heard the noble Lord’s point on that.

The noble Baroness made a point at the end of her question about resources. I cannot add a lot to what I have already said on that, other than to repeat a point that I often make: the defence budget has gone up. From memory, it was approximately £60 billion in 2024-25, and it will be £73 billion in 2028-29. That is before we get the uplift from whatever happens with the DIP and, following the Prime Minister’s comments to the BBC, the spending review in 2027, when defence will be the number one priority.

We should be under no illusion about the actions that we have seen recently and the many others that we have seen in the Middle East and the north Atlantic, and the various other operations that take place. Notwithstanding the debate about resources and their adequacy or not, it is important to recognise, as I know your Lordships do, the significant amount of activity that our Armed Forces conduct on our behalf, in Europe and around the world. It is important to recognise that, notwithstanding the present challenges.

Defence Investment Plan

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to increase defence spending to 3% by 2030 and to 3.5% by 2035. But what is required, and is chaotically missing, is a clear timeline that would enable the MoD and the defence industry to budget, plan and procure. Even if the DIP is published, as promised, before the NATO summit, it will not end the uncertainty. Holding out unspecified prospects for future spending does not really cut it. So when will the Government make a clear medium-term to long-term decision and remove damaging uncertainty for our defence industry and for other departments, which fear cuts, in order to fund what they do not know is happening?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Money for defence is already increasing, notwithstanding what happens in the DIP, which will further increase defence spending. In answer to various questions yesterday about defence spending going forward, I simply referred to what the Prime Minister told the BBC on Friday afternoon. The Prime Minister laid out that defence will be the number one priority in every spending review, including the next one, which, I remind the noble Lord and the House, will be in 2027. There is the additional commitment, which I made at NATO last year, to get to 3.5% by 2035. The commitment laid out by the Prime Minister to the BBC and Chris Mason was important.

Civil Preparedness for War

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Grand Committee

[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

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Defence Spending

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?