Russian Shadow Fleet

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. He is right to point out that this is an important action by the Government, but it has to be seen alongside all the various other actions that were taken, which I know are supported by all noble Lords in this House. I agree with him about looking at any loopholes that might exist, as well as at what further sanctions we might take. The Government and the Prime Minister are keen to do that. It is important to say that, notwithstanding what is happening in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, our determination to continue to stand with Ukraine in defence of its territory against the illegal invasion by Putin—I know this is a sentiment shared by all—remains absolute. That is a really important point.

Let me also just say this, because I think it is sometimes not forgotten but overlooked. Putin did not expect to be fighting a war in Ukraine in 2026 after his illegal invasion. His policy objective, and what he believed would happen, was that within three or four days he would have taken Kyiv and established a puppet regime there to act as a barrier between NATO and Russia. He has failed in that objective, and we will continue to do all we can to support the Ukrainians in their fight, which is a fight for our democracy and our freedom, as well as a fight within Ukraine for their democracy and their freedom.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The Minister has several times failed to give any clear answer to the question of what is going to be done with the oil and the ship. He dodges that and, for some peculiar reason, the Department for Transport is now considering these important matters. Do I take it that this very skilful military operation was carried out with nobody having any idea of what they were going to do with the ship and the oil once they seized it? If they do not know what to do with it, will they consider the very sensible suggestion that, as this whole military operation is for the benefit of Ukraine, they should be sold and the proceeds given to the Ukrainians?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry to have been such a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. I cannot really do any better. It is the law and the way the country has operated for many decades, including when the noble Lord was a senior Minister. The Department for Transport retains responsibility for these actions, and it remains responsible for what happens to the oil and the ship.

I say to the noble Lord that the most important consideration, in deterring Russia and in taking action against Russia, is for them to understand that they cannot sail around the world with impunity and that we will take action against them where it is appropriate, where we can, to interdict these ships. Alongside that, we have sanctioned 550 vessels—that is alongside what other countries have done—and stopped Russia having more than 200 vessels available because they have been kept in port. I take the point the noble Lord is making, and no doubt the Department for Transport will hear that, but the action we have taken will have a deterrent effect on Russia, and that is what is important.

Future Defence Capability

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. The fundamental thrust of the Government’s policy is the “NATO first” policy, which obviously deals with the threat from Russia but also our security. We have seen that not only our own country but many countries across Europe are now stepping up their defence spending to provide the security assistance that may be needed, in the short term with respect to Ukraine and in the longer term across the whole of Europe. The important point is that the “NATO first” policy does not mean “NATO only”; it means that we will also accept the responsibilities we have elsewhere. The defence review seeks to balance that and see what capabilities we will need to do so.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government now agree with the opinion that President Macron has held for some years, that the European arm of NATO must be made stronger and credible, and eventually an equal partner with the US in the NATO alliance? It will take at least until the 2030s for us to achieve that desirable aim. Meanwhile, we are being excluded from the arrangements in Europe for defence procurement, and we are not fully aligned with them. No one voted for Brexit because they wanted us to cease to have defence and security alliances with our European neighbours. Will the Government press hard for the closest possible integration of our defence policy with that of our European allies, so we can tell the Americans there really is a self-sufficient, credible European armed alliance?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, the US-UK relationship is absolutely fundamental to the future security of Europe and across the globe, and we look to maintain it. As far as Europe is concerned, we are looking to reset the EU-UK relationship in terms of defence and security, and work is ongoing. Specifically with respect to industry, of course we are looking for greater collaboration and co-operation across Europe with respect to a European defence industrial strategy, and those negotiations continue. In many respects, both at European and bilateral levels, we are seeing increased co-operation, and that is essential for our European security and to demonstrate to the Americans that Europe is taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Clarke of Nottingham and Lord Coaker

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, makes the point for himself, and I absolutely support what he has just said.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The noble Lord is of course quite right that if there is a conflict between the two Houses of Parliament, the elected House must prevail. But there is a power, rarely invoked, for the Lords to block a Bill in a single Parliament and a process under the Parliament Act whereby the elected Government can repeat their legislation, whereupon, quite rightly, we have to concede. I share the suspicion of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the Labour Party—like every other party contemplating power, and no doubt my own in the past—is hesitant to see the influence of the House of Lords grow at this stage, in case it starts exercising its influence on the successor Government.

If it is announced that we are not going to use our full powers, and if the Government know that they are not remotely going to be expected to rely on the Parliament Act, they are going to listen less to amendments to a Bill of this kind that is regarded as being of electoral importance for some sections of the population by both political parties. Given that we have just been discussing the rules-based international order, our obligations under international law and parliamentary sovereignty being used to sweep away what used to be regarded as our approach to international law, do the Opposition rule out altogether the idea of using the full powers of this House if the Government simply fail to listen at all, and actually blocking the Bill?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have said quite clearly all along that we will not block the Bill. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that there have been occasions in the past—he probably remembers better than I do—when the Parliament Act has been used. But with respect to this piece of legislation, we have said we will not block the Bill. I say to the Government that the constitutional quid pro quo for that is that they do not turn around, carte blanche, and say they will simply ignore what the House of Lords says.

I challenge the Government. They have challenged me and my party, our Leader in the Lords and our Chief Whip, constantly in the papers. We have been told that the Labour Lords, even though we do not have a majority, are going to block the Bill—that is the accusation—even though we have been clear time after time. Even on Monday, when we debated the Rwanda Bill in this Chamber, we had an article from the Home Secretary saying that those who sought to block the Bill were encouraging right-wing extremists. How is that the action of a responsible Government? How is that the action of a Government respecting the constitutional conventions of our country?

This is not just challenging His Majesty’s Opposition in the House of Lords; it is challenging His Majesty’s Government to respect the conventions and constitution of this country. That is what I object to. Why are we arguing about what His Majesty’s Opposition are doing all the time? Why are we not demanding that the Government, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary respect and obey the constitutional proprieties and conventions of the country? It is they who are driving a coach and horses through it. It is they who are challenging us all the time—the unelected Lords, the people who have no right to say to the elected Parliament, “You’ve got this wrong; you need to think again”—and just dismissing us as a set of trendy, left-wing, out-of-touch lawyers defying the will of the people, when I think every noble Lord in this House is trying to stand up for this House of Lords and say that even though there are differences in this House, there is a majority who think this is wrong.