Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment
Lord Coaker Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s continuing dithering on when the Government will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence has caused stasis in the MoD, which does not know what it can spend and when, a stagnation of the order book and disgruntled industry partners. What orders are currently being withheld, what is their value and to what extent are other customers overtaking the United Kingdom in the queue for supplies?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I do not agree with that caricature of what is happening. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said at the weekend, and it has been repeated since, that we will reach 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. The defence review is looking at what capabilities we need and we will then set that in the context of the 2.5% as we move forward. That sequencing is the proper way for us to go ahead. As it stands, no major projects are being disrupted as a result of the review.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The Minister’s answer was very clear, but at the weekend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggested that the Government were waiting for the SDR to report. However, one of the provisions of the terms of reference of the SDR is that there is a cap of 2.5%. Who is setting the agenda—the SDR or the Treasury—and should we be worried?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course the Treasury sets the context of the budget within which defence operates. The 2.5% commitment is cast-iron; the discussion is about the timeframe. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced at the weekend that the 2.5% will be announced at a future fiscal event in the spring. The sequencing is everything. If we decided to spend billions of pounds on a project now and the defence review suggested that that was not the best use of money to meet future threats, the noble Baroness would be asking me why we had spent the money before knowing what those threats were.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister knows that defence requires 2.5% of GDP now if it is to avoid cuts in capability and will require even higher spending in future. When the men and women of our seriously underresourced Armed Forces are required to confront the increasingly perilous situation in Europe and beyond over the next decade and their lives are on the line, how much consolation does he think they will take from repeated protestations about a £22 billion black hole?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises a serious point. The Government have given a cast-iron guarantee to reach the cap of 2.5%. As he knows, I meet the forces all the time, and I would give them the reassurance that we are seeking to ensure that they have the capability they need to meet the future threats that will be identified by the defence review. We make that commitment.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the elevation of the President-elect of the United States, who, among his many unpredictabilities, has at least one predictability—that he will insist that Europe pays more towards the defence of the West than it has done hitherto—makes it only more important that we take the lead in Europe by implementing the 2.5% at a minimum? Would that not also help us in our relationship with the incoming presidential Administration of the United States in, to put it crudely, a transactional manner?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. As he knows, we can say to the President of the United States that we will meet the cast-iron 2.5% commitment and will set that out in due course. We understand that European countries need to increase their defence spending; 23 of the NATO nations are now spending 2.5%, so that is a very real commitment. The American President will also be pleased to hear that this country is leading a carrier strike group into the Indo-Pacific—as we know, China is of particular interest to the incoming President as well as the current one. We will work with them to deliver that capability.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, there is already a bloody war being waged on the continent of Europe. Putin is waging war on us through cyberattacks and Litvinenko, the Skripals, et cetera. Does the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, agree that 2.5% is not enough?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government have made a commitment to 2.5%; the previous Government made a commitment to 2.5% by 2030. We will see what happens, but we commit to look at the 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. We also want to ensure that we have the capability to meet the threats we face. Let us be clear about this: the UK is the leading nation in Europe, along with the United States and our European allies, standing up against Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The message needs to come from this Chamber that this country will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to deter Russian aggression.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, even in advance of the strategic defence review, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has made it clear that we face a deadly quartet of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Yesterday we discussed with representatives of the Republic of Korea who were in London the opportunity of reaching some of the 10,000 North Korean soldiers now in Europe to fight in Putin’s war. Will we redouble our efforts to reach over the heads of the despotic leaders in North Korea to break the information blockade and encourage those soldiers to walk to freedom in the West?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. I was in the Republic of Korea recently to talk about the importance of hybrid warfare and information wars. We must consider that fully when we get the defence review and ensure that our hybrid capability is a match for anybody’s. That involves trying to influence others opposing us at the present time.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, according to the OBR, if the Government were to meet their ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the Parliament, they would break their new debt rule. Which is more important: the 2.5% target or the debt rule?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not a Treasury Minister, but I know as a Defence Minister that 2.5% of GDP is an absolute commitment. I hope the Treasury is successful, because if we get the growth in the economy that we want, that 2.5% will be of a much larger amount.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the defence review is due to report early in the new year. If that is the case, it will report before the figures on the years affected by the 2.5% increase are announced. Does that not make the whole defence review unbelievable, because it will not have the figures to hand?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. As I suggested in an earlier answer, the sequencing of all of this is extremely important. Of course, we need the defence review, which is taking place within the context of the 2.5% budget figure that the Treasury has set. As I said, we will make an announcement about the pathway to that and how we intend to reach that point at a future fiscal event in the spring. The noble and gallant Lord is right to point out the importance of sequencing.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, were any instructions or guidance given to the SDR team on guarantees about the financing of what will inevitably be the findings of the SDR?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The SDR team know the context within which they are working, which is the 2.5% envelope. There will be choices in that, and they will lay out those choices. It will then be a matter for consideration and decision following that. Laying out the threats for us to properly consider what they are and how we meet them is an important function of the SDR.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1935 we were spending less than 3% on defence? We failed to either deter or appease Hitler. Is he further aware that, in 1939, when the war had broken out, our defence spending rose to 19% and in 1940, when we were fighting for our lives, it was 46%? That is the disastrous cost of fighting a war. Does he agree that we must do all we can to prevent history repeating itself?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I completely agree. The noble Lord will know that at various conferences and in various decisions I have made I have talked about the importance of deterrence. That has to be at the forefront of our minds as well.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister answer more clearly the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, about sequencing? It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, cannot conduct his strategic defence review if he does not know the date by which 2.5% will be available to him. The Minister also said that we are second to the United States as a spender in support of NATO. However, this year Germany will spend £30 billion more than the United Kingdom on defence.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
What I meant about the UK’s position is that, when I visit European countries and go around the world, the UK is seen as one of the foremost leaders with respect to the military. The noble Viscount may point to Germany and its spending, but I am just saying that, in terms of leadership on Ukraine and the deterrent effect we provide, the UK is at the forefront.
I have answered the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others. The defence review team know the context in which they are working. The review will identify the threats and choices we have. As a consequence, at a fiscal event that we expect in the spring, we can then make decisions about the choices before us.
Let me finish with this: nobody should be in any doubt, as the noble Viscount knows, over this country’s determination to ensure that our Armed Forces are supported and given the equipment that they need to both deter those who seek to undermine us and be there to fight where necessary.
Defence Policy: Deterrence
Lord Coaker Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I shall deal with a couple of the important questions that have been posed and then lay on the table some of the Government’s position on deterrence.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for bringing forward this important debate. The issue of deterring those who would do us harm is of real significance. The discussion about how you do that, from conventional forces right through to the effect of a continuous at-sea deterrence, is an important question for us all. The noble Lord deserves a lot of praise for bringing this forward.
I shall deal with a couple of issues that are of huge significance to this country, to our alliances and to our position in the world. A number of noble Lords have raised the nuclear deterrent. We as a new Government are 100% committed to the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. We are committed to it with respect to the continuous at-sea deterrent, with the four new Dreadnought submarines. In answer to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the transition from Vanguard to Dreadnought, there are significant training programmes and work going on about how that transition is best done. I reassure him that considerable work is going on with respect to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, raised the point about the Falkland Islands. The British Government remain absolutely committed to the right of self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands. These are hugely significant and important questions that were raised by a number of noble Lords and the position needs to be stated at the outset. There is no policy change in respect of that.
The noble Lord asked about the forces commitments there. I visited the Falkland Islands. As the noble Lord will know, there is a huge military presence there of British forces. I think other noble Lords speaking in this debate will have visited that base. There are Typhoon fighters there. There are air defence systems and numbers of troops, as well as regular naval patrols, to reassure the Falkland islanders and to make a statement about the desire and intent of His Majesty’s Government to ensure that that right is protected.
The ladder of escalation was mentioned. It is always difficult to say, as you move from one rung of the ladder to another, exactly which rung you reach is the point at which something should happen. It is particularly difficult to lay that out and say specifically when something should happen, as many others who have taken defence decisions will have found. But you can lay out general principles, and they are laid out in various treaties.
That is why we are defending and doing what we are doing with respect to Ukraine. That is why we have talked, in no uncertain terms, about our determination to work to maintain the law of the sea. That is why we have said that Article 5 of NATO remains a key component. That is why we have said that territorial integrity remains important. When a country seeks to undermine or flout that, your exact immediate response and where you draw the line will sometimes depend on the particular circumstances.
However—this is the point of deterrence, and I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—it must be known that this country, with its allies, will not stand aside and watch international law or rules be flouted. That is the important statement. That is why, as noble Lords will have heard me say and will have said themselves, what we are doing in Ukraine is so important. We are saying that we will not stand to see those laws flouted. When the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was in my position, that is exactly what she said, quite correctly; that is what the then Government said, quite correctly. Those statements are important.
My noble friend Lord Harris was right to raise the issues of cyberwarfare, information and disinformation and the resilience of the population, which are all important matters. They are new aspects of war, especially cyberwarfare He will have visited, as I have, numerous places where we are trying to put defences in place and build resilience into computer systems, datasets and so on to resist those who would attack us. With his knowledge of local government, my noble friend has much more experience than me in the resilience of the population and in civil emergencies and defence, which we will have to address. I will just say that, when I look back in history, I see that the resilience of the British people has been immense when they have had to resist the threat of attack or have indeed been attacked. The whole area of cyberwarfare and information is important, as my noble friend said.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for his remarks about the importance of identifying the threats that we face and trying to configure the Armed Forces in order to meet those future threats. That is important and it is part of what the defence review seeks to do. Indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I have often discussed, it is important that you know what you are seeking to do in order to configure your Armed Forces to meet a particular threat, which can sometimes be quite difficult. We have heard from numerous noble Lords about the importance of cyberwarfare, so that will be an increasing demand and it will be important for us all to work, across government, on that aspect.
We face other issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, pointed out. We talk about the threat of China as though China is thousands upon thousands of miles away; with climate change, it is now thousands of miles nearer and, indeed, is seeking to exploit the High North through the opening up of sea passages that were not available even a couple of decades ago. I know that, if you talk to Norway, Iceland and many other countries such as the Baltic states—I mentioned Finland—they are all increasingly concerned about not only Russia, of course, but the implications with respect to China.
The noble Lord can be reassured that, like the work that has happened previously, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will have been involved with, we are seeking to extend and develop our relationships with those countries. The Joint Expeditionary Force is a classic example of countries coming together to try to see how they meet common threats.
I cannot remember whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, or the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who mentioned the importance of the Arctic Council. Going back to the point by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, we are seeking to reinvigorate that and work to ensure that it maintains the rule of law according to treaties that most nations of this world have signed. We will enforce those laws and expect them to be adhered to. Countries should know that there are consequences if they do not adhere to them. That is part of what we seek to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, will also be reassured that on Monday I am speaking to a conference of Norwegian military and parliamentarians about the High North. Again, it is one of those areas that, even a few years ago, we would perhaps not have thought of in the way that we do now. Many of these things are extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, also mentioned the nuclear deterrent. He heard the answer that I gave and will hopefully be reassured.
On the point by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, we are looking seriously at cognitive warfare, and it will have to be an increasing priority for government. It is a capability that we will need to look at to see how we develop it. I thank him very much for raising that point.
On some of the broader points made, let me say this. We talk about hard power. On deterrence, we have a NATO-first policy as a Government. The carrier strike group sailing around the Mediterranean into the Indo-Pacific, whatever route it takes in the end, visiting numerous countries there as an international alliance, says this to countries across the world: we are sailing our carrier strike group, led by the “Prince of Wales” carrier, with aircraft on it, with allies, to assert the freedom of navigation and the rule of the law of the sea, and we expect other countries to adhere to that. That is why we bothered to do that. That is why we have a nuclear deterrent.
There is an issue in the debate about what sort of Armed Forces we will need to ensure that they can fight the battles of the future. The strategic review that we have at the moment is seeking to deal with that. I will tell noble Lords one thing I heard. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her remarks; we will debate the points about money by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, more fully in the next debate, and I thank her for her remarks as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will have heard the CDS make what I thought was a very good speech at the dinner. He said that one of the things Britain should do more than it does—and I totally agree—is to rediscover its own confidence in the things it can do and the things it does to deter others from taking actions that they might. We should all reflect on that. We sometimes look at the challenges we face, which is quite right, but alongside that we should look at the things that we do and do well. This country should have pride and confidence in what it does, not only in this continent but across the globe.
Defence Spending
Lord Coaker Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for that ringing endorsement. My colleagues always read your Lordships’ debates with intense interest and scrutiny, so they will no doubt look at that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the way in which she puts her remarks strongly but also in a proper and challenging way—I appreciate that.
I will come on to some of the specifics about the 2.5% but before I forget, I want to take on the point the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made, and I will put my head above the parapet on this one. My understanding of employer national insurance is that the public sector does not pay it. I think that answers her question. I have given that answer out of my own knowledge and professional experience of these matters, plus the fact that I heard Kate McCann on Times Radio yesterday. The question was asked about the impact of employer national insurance on the National Health Service, to which the reply was that the National Health Service does not pay employer national insurance because it is a public sector body. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Baroness and to every other member of the Committee, but I think I am right. If I am not, I will correct the record, because it is an important question, but I do not think that the Armed Forces pay it.
I will answer the specific questions of noble Lords, but the position of the Government is as was laid out in the Budget, and it is on the various pages in the Autumn Budget report, which noble Lords will have read. There is not a scintilla of difference between any of us about the desire to protect our nation, to have the Armed Forces that we need and to meet all those threats. There is a discussion and a debate about how we get to 2.5% and when we should do that. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, raised, as well as the noble Lord, whose name escapes me—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Yes. They talked about 3% and beyond. I have even heard people then start to talk about 3.5% or 4% or whatever. So, there will be a debate on what one considers to be right, but the Government have said that we have seen what the policy is and 2.5% will be at a future fiscal event. That will be laid out, and the additional £2.9 billion for next year will be laid out with that.
Of course, alongside that, the defence review is looking at various issues. A number of your Lordships —the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others—talked about the fact that how we actually spend that money is as important as the actual amount. What are the threats that we need to face in the future? With those few introductory remarks, that is the position of the Government, and that is where we are, so let me turn to some of the specifics raised in the debate. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will be disappointed, but that is the position of the Government, which I am reiterating to the Committee.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, very much for ensuring that we have this debate. He was very fortunate that it came the day after the Budget—I might have preferred it the day before the Budget, but there we go. The serious point is that he has brought forward an important debate, he made the points about the Budget and I responded in the way I have by laying out the Government’s position.
I want to go through some of the questions that were raised, alongside the whole issue of the Budget. The noble Viscount is absolutely right about AUKUS and the importance of that within the defence review, and it is protected within that. There will be a debate and a discussion about the best way of delivering that. It was started under the last Government—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was involved. That is protected within the overall strategy of the defence review, although there will be a discussion about the best way of delivering it, and the noble Viscount would expect nothing else.
The noble Viscount is a firm and stout defender of the Indo-Pacific. He will know that, notwithstanding the Government’s NATO-first policy, we also understand the importance of the Indo-Pacific. He will know that when I have been there, I have talked about the indivisibility of conflict: that what happens in the Indo-Pacific impacts on Europe, and what happens in Europe impacts on the Indo-Pacific, on the south of our globe and on the High North. All those things are interrelated. The challenge of the future and of funding for the future, not just for our country but for others, is how we establish that global alliance of free, democratic nations in response to the threat from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. There will be debate and discussion about how we do that, but it is very important.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about the sixth-generation global combat aircraft. Last week I was at the Italian embassy, and the week before at the Japanese embassy. He will know that, time and again, I go and discuss with them the sixth-generation fighter and its importance within the defence review, which will come to its own conclusions. He will also know that we have just signed the treaty allowing the governance of that project, and we continue to make progress.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will be disappointed by my remarks about the Government’s position, but that is our position and it is an absolute commitment. Our Treasury Minister is here, who will also have heard it. The 2.5% commitment will absolutely be delivered. At present, we cannot give a timeline, but we are determined to deliver it and will do so when we are able. We all know how much the noble Lord has helped Ukraine, not just with military support but with the medical and other support that he has given. He is to be much congratulated on that work.
I cannot predict the outcome of the American presidential election. It is not for me to discuss that or say who we would want to win, but I will say that the importance of the US-Europe relationship is crucial to the defence of democracy and the free world. We will have to ensure that, whatever the outcome, we work with our American colleagues and friends, and the American system, to deliver that. I believe that the American system, founded on one of the greatest declarations of independence and the establishment of freedom, will not forget its roots.
The noble Lord and the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Smith, mentioned the problem of recruitment and retention. A review is ongoing on that; it has not yet reported but it will look at many of the matters that noble Lords have mentioned, including the inability to recruit the numbers that we need, skilled labour shortages, retention and the important point about accommodation and welfare. All of those will be looked at as a package. We are starting to try to invest the money in housing, some of which is not acceptable.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but is that review independent of the MoD?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
No; it is being conducted within the MoD. I am pleased that the review is taking place, and it is being done without fear or favour. We want it to come forward with proposals on those very real problems, and I have great confidence in that being done.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned the crucial question of the defence industrial base. There is no doubt that we and our allies have not looked at how we ensure that we have the defence industry capability that we need to prosecute a war of some length. That has caused all of us to reflect on what we do about it. Our response has been to appoint a National Armaments Director—I believe we have already done so but, if not, we will—who will look at how we ensure that we have the armaments we need. One of the most distressing things about Ukraine—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, would have witnessed it; it might have happened when she was the Minister—was to read about Ukrainian troops having to retreat because they did not have sufficient ammunition or shells. That is not acceptable to us. Everyone is looking at what we do there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a point about procurement. We absolutely need to look at that. She heard what I had to say about the National Armaments Director. She was right to make the point about economic growth: of course, 2.5% of a growing economy is more than 2.5% of a declining one. One of the arguments that might be made about the Government’s economic strategy is that, in the short term, they are making difficult choices to allow the economy to grow in a way it might not otherwise do; that will be of benefit, notwithstanding the short-term discomfort it may cause some of us.
I have, I think, dealt with most of the major points made. I finish on something said by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, because it is a really important point that I want to make sure is heard by our allies and friends. It is important for us in these debates—in this Committee, in the Chamber and in the Commons—to have the confidence to let our allies know that, notwithstanding our debates and discussions on the right configuration of our Armed Forces and the right amount to spend on them, we as a country are determined, alongside our allies, to defend freedom and democracy wherever they are threatened across the world. That is the message Putin should hear and understand.
We will not relent or step back in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This country has never stepped back when it has faced an adversary in this way; that is the message we should take forward. The fact that we can discuss what we are debating today in a democracy, without fear or favour—even if our opinions are unpopular—is something that we have fought for long and hard. Whatever our disagreements about the Budget, that is the message that Putin, China, as one noble Lord mentioned, Russia, Iran and North Korea should hear. This country has always stood up for democracy and always will.
Ukraine
Lord Coaker Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to Corporal Christopher Gill, who lost his life in a training exercise a few days ago. He made an enormous contribution to defence, including to Operation Interflex. Our thoughts are with his family.
We are fast approaching the third winter of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. There is no weaking of the resolve of everyone in this Parliament, across all parties, and of the British people to see this through with our allies. It will be the third winter in which the extraordinary Ukrainian people are fighting to defend their homes and families and fighting for the right to exist as a free and sovereign nation. It will be the third winter of war that Putin did not plan for when he attacked Kyiv two and a half years ago. His blitzkrieg offence, which quickly turned into a retreat, has evolved into a deadly and dystopian meat-grinder tactic, where 20th century trenches meet 21st century drones and a medieval mentality.
On average, more than 1,100 Russians have been killed or wounded each day since May, many from poor, provincial backgrounds. In total, there are likely to have been around 675,000 Russian casualties, either killed or injured. Confidential payment records obtained by the BBC show that 17,000 Russian prisoners died in the assaults on Bakhmut over a 12-month period. Putin’s tactics demonstrate his complete disregard for human life, whether Ukrainian or Russian. His war of imperial aggression was launched on the back of decades of internal repression that failed to stem a Russian brain drain, with hundreds of thousands of educated Russians heading into exile since the full-scale invasion.
In the other direction, it is now highly likely that the transfer and deployment of hundreds of combat troops from North Korea to Russia has begun. This return of big-state warfare in Europe has been a twin attack on the Ukrainian people and on the global, rules-based international system. Ukrainians have endured rape and pillage, bombardment and occupation, death and destruction, as Russian forces have abducted thousands of Ukrainian children and cynically targeted civilian infrastructure to use the winter as a weapon of war.
Putin’s war is also a sustained attack on the UN charter and the rules and norms that underpin our security and prosperity. That is why Russia must lose and be seen to lose, because global security is indivisible. What happens in Ukraine has an impact around the world, in the same way as what happens in the Indo-Pacific has an impact on global security. It is in no one’s interests to let a violation of territorial integrity stand, and that is why the front line in Ukraine is also the front line of UK and European security.
That is also why we—all of us—will continue to do everything we can to help Ukraine prevail. Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated great ingenuity to stay in this long war: the miliary ingenuity to hit supply lines deep in Russia, with its next-generation drone capabilities; the ingenuity to stake out a buffer zone in Kursk, which might yet prove to be an act of great diplomatic ingenuity; the ingenuity to force the Russian fleet out of the western Black Sea, although, regretfully, as noble Lords will have seen, Russian missiles have struck several commercial vessels this month; and the miliary ingenuity not only to push the much larger Russian force out of more than half the land it originally seized but largely to hold that line ever since. While Russia’s advances are generally measured in metres rather than miles, I do not seek to downplay the strain on Ukraine’s front-line forces or the military challenges it faces, particularly as Russia’s recruitment gets more desperate and its forces now openly admit to using riot control agents, a chemical weapon, on the battlefield.
Alongside Ukraine’s military ingenuity, President Zelensky has also shown great diplomatic skill and statecraft, repeatedly rallying western allies into giving the support that his country and forces need to stay in the fight. Most recently, he toured US and European capitals to outline his victory plan. He has had no greater ally than this Government, both now and in the past. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister welcomed President Zelensky back to No. 10 to discuss the vital support that his nation needs to make his victory plan a reality. The Prime Minister discussed that with President Biden, President Macron and Chancellor Scholz in Germany last week.
That was but the latest conversation in a summer of diplomacy, stretching from the Washington NATO summit and the meeting of the European Political Community in Blenheim Palace in July to countless visits to European capitals. That culminated last week in the meetings of NATO and G7 Defence Ministers and the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg, which was the first time in more than two years that the UK has had a presence in that conversation. These are the latest steps of a crucial diplomatic marathon to give Ukraine the support and military assets that it needs, with the provision of multiple weapons and weapon systems provided as quickly as we can. We are learning lessons about the need for stockpiles and the future of miliary tactics, to strengthen us against the various diplomatic, military, intelligence and industrial threats that make up this tapestry of European security.
That is important, because regardless of who wins the US election, it is pretty clear that a new US President will be looking towards European NATO allies to step up and to take greater responsibility for European security, and for giving Ukraine more of the military capabilities it needs to defeat Russia.
We all know how grave the costs can be when aggression is met by hesitation. Only this year, we were reminded of that when we marked 80 years since Europeans faced down Hitler’s imperial tyranny. It was Clement Attlee who forged NATO from the shrapnel of that attack on European values to deliver ironclad deterrence for generations to come. Today, that defensive alliance, through all Governments since that time, remains the cornerstone of European and global security. It has been bolstered by the accession of Sweden and Finland, which represents a huge strategic own goal by Putin. The Prime Minister recently met with the new NATO Secretary-General to reaffirm the Government’s NATO-first approach and outline how we are stepping up military aid to Ukraine.
On Tuesday, the Chancellor announced an innovative and significant new funding stream. We are committing more than £2.25 billion under the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine scheme, which is money generated from the interest on seized Russian assets and part of a larger £50 billion loan package from G7 countries for Ukraine’s war effort, economy and reconstruction.
On top of this, the Prime Minister has committed to President Zelensky that the UK will provide £3 billion of military support every year for as long as it is necessary. On day two in office, the Defence Secretary travelled to Ukraine to speed up the delivery of that support. Since the election, we have gifted a range of equipment to strengthen Ukraine’s air defences and boost its fighting power, from tens of millions of rounds of ammunition, anti-armour Brimstone missiles and lightweight multi-role air defence missiles, to demining vehicles and AS90 artillery guns.
At the ministerial meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group in Ramstein in September, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK would extend Operation Interflex until at least the end of 2025, the UK-based multinational training programme that has already trained more than 48,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Over the course of its full-scale invasion, Russia has launched over 1,000 attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. In response, we have provided over £370 million to bolster Ukraine’s energy security and resilience through grant-in-kind support and loan guarantees, which includes £40 million for essential repairs and equipment this year alone, which will help the Ukrainians through the winter and beyond. We should pay tribute at this point to the steadfastness of the Ukrainian population in the face of what they have suffered.
In the spring, we saw the impacts of US military support getting bogged down on Capitol Hill. Stagnation in supplies and delivery serves only Russian interests. So, as Ukraine works to ramp up its indigenous production capacity, we are doing all we can to ensure that the UK defence industrial sector plays a prominent role, with the Defence Secretary hosting a meeting between President Zelensky and UK industry leaders in July and signing a defence industrial support treaty with the Ukrainian Defence Minister worth £3.5 billion, and with the Minister for Armed Forces speaking at the International Defence Industries Forum in Ukraine earlier this month.
In addition to our military, political and industrial support, the Government are determined to use sanctions to impose a heavy price on Putin and his enablers for his war, and we are determined to give existing sanctions greater bite. At the Blenheim Palace meeting in the summer, over 40 European leaders signed our call to action, agreeing—importantly—to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers that transport Russian oil to third countries in order to undermine sanctions. The UK has since sanctioned 43 oil tankers, disrupting their freedom to operate, barring them from UK ports and leaving them unable to access British maritime services. Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary also sanctioned Russian soldiers and officials behind the use of chemical weapons.
Cross-party parliamentary support, the work of previous Ministers and the previous Government, as well as ourselves, which continues, has led to the UK imposing some of the toughest sanctions ever seen on Russia—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Before the Minister finishes his excellent speech, will he tell us the Government’s policy on allowing long-range missiles for strikes further inside Russia?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The policy with respect to Storm Shadow remains the same. Russia knows that Ukraine has a right to self-defence, and that is within that principle and conforms to international humanitarian law. That is the policy as it stands, and there has been no change to that policy as we speak in this debate.
As I was saying, cross-party parliamentary support has been important and has led to the UK imposing some of the toughest sanctions ever seen on Russia. With more than 1,800 individuals and entities sanctioned since the full-scale invasion, locking over $400 billion away from the Russian state, the equivalent of four years more funding for their illegal invasion. To give those sanctions sharper teeth, the Government recently launched a new unit to enhance compliance and punish companies and individuals that fail to comply.
Noble Lords will know that Putin is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He is facing charges from the International Criminal Court for war crimes, and his forces have committed many atrocities that shake the soul of our shared humanity. Putin’s willingness to lower the bar, from hitting hospitals and homes and targeting energy infrastructure, to the mass deportation of Ukrainian children and the use of chemical weapons, makes Ukraine’s resolve all the more remarkable. The UK will do everything we can to ensure that Ukraine’s allies mirror that resolve. There will be discussions, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says, but let us remember that we remain united in our resolve to tackle the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
As economists warn that Putin’s prolonged campaign and increasingly hungry wartime economy are unsustainable and will increasingly hurt Russia’s poorest people, democracies must recommit to thwarting Putin’s plans in order to outline our collective interest and resolve. If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop there. If autocratic states are allowed to redraw international boundaries by force, the sovereignty and security of all nations is undermined.
That is why we are maintaining the constant drum beat of international diplomacy and military aid in support of Ukraine. It is why any just and sustainable peace for Ukraine needs to reflect the principles of the UN charter—principles to which the international community has signed up and which even the BRICS Kazan Summit declaration called to be upheld. It is why we are getting behind Ukraine’s victory plan, and working with our European, NATO and other democratic allies to ensure that they get behind it too. This winter, the values and freedoms that the Ukrainians are fighting for are the ones that underpin every democracy. The security that Ukraine is fighting for underpins the security of our entire continent and that of the rules-based order across the world.
Freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are at stake. They are worth standing up for, as they always have been, and as this country has always done. This country, with our allies across Europe and beyond, will be at the forefront of that struggle for as long as it takes. I beg to move.
Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines
Lord Coaker Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bryan of Partick
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines there are in Scotland; and how many years it will take to safely dismantle them.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, there are seven decommissioned and defueled nuclear power submarines in Rosyth Royal Dockyard, Scotland. “Swiftsure”, the first vessel being disposed of, is being used as a demonstrator to refine the dismantling process under the Ministry of Defence’s submarine dismantling project. Learning from “Swiftsure” will provide more certainty about the schedule for dismantling the remaining decommissioned Royal Navy submarines. The full dismantling of “Swiftsure” is due to be complete in 2026, achieving the commitment given to the Public Accounts Committee in 2019.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. My Question happily coincided with information that was released last week, but there remains real concern that not one of these submarines has yet been dismantled. Bearing in mind that one Dreadnought submarine in Rosyth has been out of service since 1980, it will take decades to dismantle the boats remaining in both Scotland and Devonport. Can the Minister say whether there has been any progress in finding a site for the radioactive waste disposal facility which will be essential to progressing this work?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On all the things that my noble friend mentions there is progress and ongoing discussions, including the waste disposal site, but we are trying to speed up the submarine dismantling programme. Seven submarines at Rosyth are decommissioned. All have been defueled. “Swiftsure” is now in dry dock. That will be fully dismantled by the end of 2026. There are 15 such submarines at Devonport. Four of those have been defueled. However, my noble friend is quite right; we need to speed up the process and we are certainly looking at every way in which we can do that.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the time taken to dismantle the retired submarines. How long will it take to get the new ones?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to ask about dismantling. As I said to my noble friend, we are seeking to speed up that process. On the new submarines, if he is referring to the Astute class submarines, seven were ordered, six are already in the water and one is now under construction in Barrow. If he means the successor to the Vanguard class, we expect the first to be in service in the early 2030s. We are making considerable progress, and I hope that answers his question.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness’s follow-up question pointed out, there is an accumulation of nuclear submarines that have been decommissioned but are still in Rosyth or Devonport. Are His Majesty’s Government sure that they are safe? Can the Minister commit to ensuring that freedom of information requests are responded to? Apparently, the MoD has not been responding to safety questions.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On freedom of information requests, if the noble Baroness has any examples that she would like me to look into, she only has to ask and I will certainly do so. Freedom of information requests should be responded to within the timeframe laid down, so I will look at that. As I said, we are looking to accelerate the dismantling programme. I am confident that the processes that we are seeking to put in place will speed that up and that they are safe.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, mentioned the disposal of nuclear material as and when it is eventually removed from the submarines. Can the Minister confirm, perhaps by letter, whether the establishment of a new disposal site—which has been debated for many years and is still no nearer, as far I can tell—will require primary legislation to be enacted? If not, how would the planning process be developed for the future disposal of that nuclear material?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I may need to write to the noble Lord. I usually like to be able to respond directly to questions, but I do not want to get the planning process wrong or give the wrong answer on whether primary or secondary legislation is needed. I will respond to him with a letter to make sure that I am accurate and will place a copy in the Library so that it is available to all noble Lords.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, on 20 May 2021, the Conservative Government published an update on the submarine dismantling project, stating that 90% of the decommissioned submarine materials could be recycled. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that his Government are committed to retaining that target? On the experience of decommissioning HMS “Swiftsure”, which is very well advanced, can he also indicate whether there is any proposal to secure an engineering impact assessment to understand how the process for future submarines might be expedited?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness did to try to speed up some of these processes. She asked two very pertinent questions. For “Swiftsure”, we retained the 90% recycling target. She will know that once a decommissioned submarine such as “Swiftsure” is defueled, there is an initial phase that takes the nuclear material out. Then there is an intermediate phase, which is followed by dry-docking—which is where “Swiftsure” is—for the rest of the submarine to be recycled. We expect 90% of that to be recycled. The whole point of “Swiftsure” is that it acts as a demonstrator project so that we can learn from how that was done—what worked and what perhaps could have been improved—and then apply that to all the other submarines that have been decommissioned.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Does the Minister recall the late, great Sir John Houghton, who identified the dangers of global warming several decades ago? As an eminent scientist, he identified the potential to generate electricity by reworking some of the nuclear waste that comes from not only submarines but other parts of the Armed Forces. Are the Government investigating that aspect?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
No, we are not investigating that for nuclear submarines. The MoD takes climate change very seriously, and I have recently signed off a submission about fuel and its better economic use with respect to climate change. Right across the MoD, climate change is taken seriously, but on the noble Lord’s specific question about decommissioning nuclear submarines, there is no intention to use them, for example, to go into the grid.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, are the older submarines more difficult to recycle than the Swiftsure class?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We will understand that more fully once we have finished the demonstrator project with HMS “Swiftsure”.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says—it is not his fault—that the new nuclear submarines will not be delivered for another six years, yet the current length of patrols for the Astute class is getting longer. The crews have to cope with long periods of being away from their families and their homes. There is also stress around the recruitment of those crews. How do we square the circle over the next five or six years when, because of the maintenance of the current fleet, the length of patrols is likely to get even longer?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me just say to the noble Lord that everything that happens is now my responsibility. If I gave the impression that it was not my responsibility, that certainly was not my intention. I will not evade responsibility for anything.
On the noble Lord’s question, I am not going to go into the operations of our submarine fleet in great detail on the Floor of this House, for obvious reasons. However, the noble Lord makes a point, as he has done here previously, about the welfare of submariners—indeed, the welfare of all our Armed Forces. That is something we take very seriously. We are looking to do all we can to support them and ensure that they are supported in the way they should be. In a few months’ time, or a year’s time, perhaps the noble Lord can ask the same question, and we will see whether we have made the progress we should have done; that will be my responsibility.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, with no disrespect to the important Question asked by my noble friend Lady Bryan, should we not be even more worried about Russian nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines in the Atlantic and elsewhere? Can the Minister give us a complete assurance that we have all the capability to keep an eye on them to make sure that our danger is minimised?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He refers to our continuous at-sea deterrent. Under every Government, that continuous at-sea deterrent has been maintained. It is a crucial part of our defence of our democracy, of our freedom and against Russian aggression. That policy has been the same whatever the colour of the Government. The previous Government dealt with that and wanted to modernise the deterrent. We will carry on with that. It is an important part of our deterrent posture. Our adversaries should know that, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year, our at-sea deterrent will continue for as long as is necessary.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Minister said that the MoD is not considering how it could use the material from decommissioned nuclear submarines for generation. Can he say whether that is for technical reasons—that is, limitations of technology—or for other reasons?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I suspect that it is for safety reasons and that it is not the best way of using that material. I am not a nuclear physicist nor an expert on nuclear material, but I suspect that it will be something to do with it being too expensive, not safe or simply not appropriate to do it in that way. Obviously, all that will have been considered and decisions made as a consequence.
Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024
Lord Coaker Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the draft Order laid before the House on 20 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 22 October
Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024
Lord Coaker Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in force for another year the legislation that governs the Armed Forces Act 2006. That body of legislation provides the legal framework for our brave service personnel to continue to operate throughout the world wherever they are needed. The act of yearly renewal reflects the constitutional requirement, which stretches back to the Bill of Rights 1689, that His Majesty’s Armed Forces may not be maintained without Parliament’s consent. Further, there is a five-yearly renewal by Act of Parliament, which is the primary purpose of the Armed Forces Acts. The latest Armed Forces Act was in 2021 and the next is required by the end of 2026.
However, between these Acts there must be an annual renewal by Order in Council. This is the purpose of today’s draft order, which is necessary for the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2021, to remain in force until the end of 2025. If the Order in Council is not made before the close of 14 December 2024, the 2006 Act will automatically expire, effectively ending the powers and provisions to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies.
As a reminder to noble Lords—and as many noble and gallant Members of your Lordships’ House will already know—those serving in His Majesty’s Armed Forces do not have contracts of employment and, therefore, have no duties as employees. Instead, service- persons have an obligation as members of the Armed Forces to obey lawful orders as set out in the 2006 Act, which provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the Armed Forces of command, discipline and justice.
If the Act were not renewed, commanding officers and the court martial would no longer have the power to punish or discipline servicepersons for infractions of the rules, irrespective of how minor or serious the matter might be. Discipline is fundamental to the operational effectiveness and efficiency of any professional military force. It ensures team cohesiveness and effectiveness, efficiency in executing orders and confidence in the chain of command, while encouraging and reinforcing self-discipline. Such qualities have proved vital in underpinning the professionalism and capabilities of our Armed Forces.
I acknowledge that, as of today, we inhabit a world that is more dangerous than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, witnessing as it has the return of great power politics. However, that is not to say that we are less safe. After all, we have seen the growth and strengthening of the Euro-Atlantic alliance, with new and powerful NATO members welcomed into its ranks, while we continue to support, equip and train Ukraine in its fight against Russia, which has witnessed Putin fail in every one of his strategic aims in that country.
In the Middle East, we continue to work closely with allies and partners on aid deliveries to Gaza, supporting the Lebanese army, training the Iraqi security forces and ensuring freedom of navigation. In the Indo-Pacific, we have AUKUS and GCAP working alongside our allies to ensure stability in that region and provide a strong deterrence to would-be aggressors.
No Government can do this without the men and women of our Armed Forces and the civilian staff who support them. We also cannot do it without Armed Forces’ families, who sacrifice so much and move so often to support our national security. We should also remember our veterans. As a Government, we have committed to strengthen the nation’s contract with those who serve, their families and, as I said, veterans, including by putting the Armed Forces covenant fully into law and by appointing an Armed Forces commissioner to be a strong, independent champion for serving personnel and their families.
Therefore, we ask that His Majesty’s Armed Forces receive the full support of this Committee with approval of this draft continuation order. This will provide a sound legal basis for our Armed Forces to continue to afford us their indispensable protection. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords—oh, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith; I am so eager.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that invitation. I shall start with a general welcome for the points that the noble Baronesses made about the professionalism and dedication of our Armed Forces. The cross-party unanimity in support of that will have been heard. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was right to highlight some of the achievements over the past year. No doubt there will be achievements and special events over the next year. I am grateful to her for doing that and I know the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will be too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned HMS “Prince of Wales”. I was on that carrier yesterday and saw for myself the preparations for it to attain full operational capability. HMS “Dauntless” and other ships were around it. F35Bs demonstrated taking off to a cross-section of us who went to visit the ship. Yesterday morning, we flew out by Merlin helicopter from RAF Northolt to the carrier and flew back. It was a hugely impressive demonstration of UK hard power, and we know that when the carrier strike group goes to the Indo-Pacific next year, it will be with various allies. The co-operation with other carrier groups across NATO now and when it goes to the Indo-Pacific with further carrier groups is a credit to our nation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know, the building of those two carriers was ordered under Gordon Brown’s Government, but their development and continuation was carried through under the previous Government and will continue under this Government.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that when we ask whether we have done well by our Armed Forces, there are no doubt examples to which we can point of where we could have done better with equipment, the delivery of certain things or decisions that were made but, alongside that, we should do more to set out and praise the sort of things that I saw yesterday, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned in her opening remarks and which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will have seen as well.
Yesterday’s demonstration was impressive in front of the ambassador of Iceland, our French allies, the Norwegian ambassador and others. On the carrier, there were multiple nationalities. The ability of that strike group to go to the Indo-Pacific next year will be as a result of our international alliances. That is not a sign of weakness that says that we cannot do it, but a sign that this country can do it and wants to work with international allies to deliver the hard power projection that we want alongside soft power activity.
We should sometimes remember the things that we can do and perhaps highlight those a little more, alongside the challenges that we face. The reminder of this by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is not new. It has happened over our history, as mentioned by the commemoration of Operation Market Garden. I, too, went to watch that commemoration in Holland. The gratitude of the Dutch people for what happened there, involving our soldiers, the American soldiers and Polish soldiers, including paratroopers, was properly commemorated. It was a fantastic example of the sacrifice made in the past. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, played a part by visiting many of those events, including the D-Day commemoration a few months ago. It is important to remember that, not to dwell on the past but as a reminder that our freedoms today have been built on the sacrifices of those who came before, including —perhaps I may say, because it is appropriate—my uncle, who was killed on D-Day. I am named after him. He lies in a grave in Ranville war cemetery near Caen. Those points are important.
On funding, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know that the Government have committed to attain 2.5% of GDP spending as soon as possible. I will resist the political point that could be made alongside that. It is a long time since spending has been at 2.5% but, as the new Government, we will achieve that as soon as we can.
However, the overall tenor of her remarks and the support for the order from her and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were points well made. The noble Baroness mentioned the small number of Peers here for this continuation order. That may be the case but a significant number of Peers are speaking in the debate on the US-UK mutual defence agreement tomorrow. Huge numbers of Peers are speaking on Friday in the Ukraine debate, and there will no doubt be many others for the Question tomorrow afternoon about the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. There may not be many attending this debate but there is knowledge, experience and interest, including that of my noble friend Lady Anderson next to me, who has taken a keen interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. Huge numbers of our colleagues in the House of Lords take an interest and contribute to the debate and our awareness of these things. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, but that should not be seen as reflective of the interest that your Lordships’ House takes. The only thing I can say about 1688 and now is that we are in different times and we act in a way that is appropriate legislatively.
On the point made by the noble Baroness about not being in a state of war and her asking what this says about this continuation order, someone—it was not me—said that the way the way not to be in a state of war is to prepare for war. There is the issue of deterrence and ensuring that people recognise that there will be a reaction as a result of anybody taking unilateral action. Ukraine is an example of where NATO was supposed to crumble in the face of the Russian assault, whereas in fact it was strengthened, with Sweden and Finland joining the alliance. Far from it being weakened, it was strengthened by what has happened. That is an example of our situation. Our Armed Forces travel all over the world in support of our allies, the defence of freedom, international human rights and the rule of law. All are things that we can be proud of.
We will search for the best way to do those things. We will discuss and debate what they mean and how we can do them. We have a “NATO first” policy; that is the priority for the Government, but it also means that we will take an interest in the Indo-Pacific. As I say, the GCAP is happening; the AUKUS alliance and the carrier strike group going there are really important.
What do we do about the High North, the global South and Africa? I will be going to South America in a couple of weeks. All these sorts of places are of interest to us all and will be debated in due course.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about the service justice system. It is an important issue. If the noble Baroness does not mind, I will read out a few paragraphs because it is important for us all to hear about that. An MoD spokesperson said:
“The experiences set out”
in the various reports looking at the subject of women in the Armed Forces, for example, are truly awful and
“totally unacceptable. No-one should be subjected to these incidents and any form of sexual assault, bullying, harassment, or discrimination will not be tolerated”.
We have done a great deal of work to raise awareness of sexual offending; the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was a real champion of that when she had responsibility for it. The MoD said:
“All of this has been implemented alongside work to raise awareness of sexual offending, reporting mechanisms and implications to ensure that service personnel know that they will be believed and that we will act upon any allegation of an offence”.
That is not completely right yet, but it is the direction we will take.
A new tri-service investigative capability for all serious offending was launched in December 2022. Improvements in victim and witness care followed in March 2023 with the creation of an independent specialist unit. All of us would welcome an increase in reporting rates if it was indicative that our strategies were working in terms of raising awareness and improving willingness to report. A new statutory process for handling complaints about the service police was launched in June 2023, overseen by the Police Complaints Commissioner; consideration is being given to what further changes and improvements might be made with respect to that. In direct answer to the question, “Are we where we should be?”, I say no. However, is progress being made? I think we can all say that it is; we just want it to be faster.
I think I have answered or commented on the various points that noble Lords have made, but let me finish by saying again that nobody in this Room—whether it be the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s spokesman or the Government; indeed, whether it be any of us, here or in the other place—does anything but fully support our Armed Forces. There are discussions and debates around that, but we are proud of our Armed Forces. They do an outstanding job, not only in Europe but across the world. We are very proud of them.
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
Lord Coaker Excerpts(1 month, 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)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made yesterday in another place by the Minister for the Armed Forces. The Statement is as follows:
“Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the ongoing review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme applications from former members of Afghan specialist units, including former members of Commando Force 333 and Afghan Task Force 444, commonly known as the Triples. These Afghans worked alongside UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan, fighting valiantly, with some dying alongside our troops. It is for this reason I know that former Triples have the support of veterans of the conflict and the British public, as well as all Members of the House.
The Defence Secretary and I, along with my honourable friend the Minister for Security, as well as many sitting and former Members of the House, advocated for a review of decisions made on ARAP applications from the Triples. I pay tribute to my honourable friend, the Security Minister, Members of this House and others outside this House for their advocacy on this matter. I am keenly aware that an update on the Triples review is long overdue, so I thank colleagues for their patience. Although the review, which should not have been necessary in the first place, has taken longer than initially intended, I can confirm today that key issues have been identified and resolved, and the Government are now making important progress, with eligible former Triples and their families now being invited to relocate to the UK.
The Triples review was announced by the previous Government on 1 February in response to my Urgent Question, after they accepted that inconsistencies existed in how decisions on ARAP applications from members of the Triples were being made. For clarity, officials are currently reviewing a cohort of ineligible decisions taken on applications that contain credible evidence of links to former Afghan specialist units and where MoD caseworkers previously referred cases to officers in other parts of the MoD, to other departments and to governmental bodies under category 4 of the ARAP scheme, and which may have been affected by that inconsistent approach. The review is being carried out by staff who have not previously worked on those applications, including independent caseworkers. Approximately 2,000 such applications are within scope of the review, and I can report that more than three-quarters have been reassessed.
The previous Government committed to conclude the review within 12 weeks of launch, which was at the end of March 2024. The review should have reported before the general election, but clearly it did not. Given the perilous situation in which many former Triples still find themselves, this is a source of deep regret and concern for me that I know everyone will share. I have investigated the reasons for the delay, which include the emergence of additional information in HMG’s archives that officials undertaking the review discovered and which required careful consideration.
The nature of the relationship between the UK Government and the Triples evolved over the almost 20 years of UK military involvement in Afghanistan. This has led to a complex set of historical records held by different government departments. It has taken time to piece the information together to give a fuller and more accurate picture. I am now able to provide a provisional update on what we have learned from the review. Officials have now confirmed that there is evidence of payments from the UK Government to members of Afghan specialist units, including CF333 and ATF444, and that, for some individuals, this demonstrates a direct employment relationship. The evidence goes beyond previously identified top-up payments and reimbursements for operational expenses, which do not demonstrate such an employment relationship. This, of course, runs contrary to the position reported to Parliament by the previous Government that no such evidence existed.
My officials have advised that some record analysis that is to be carried out should give us a more confident picture of the task at hand. I am satisfied, however, that what has come to light is sufficient to move forward with decision-making without delay under ARAP categories 1 and 2, as well as under category 4 where appropriate. The review is progressing and each application is considered on its own merits. But, on the available information, we are expecting an overturn rate of approximately 25%.
For the benefit of the House, these categories permit ARAP eligibility to persons including those who were directly employed in Afghanistan by a UK government department, or who worked in Afghanistan alongside a UK government department—in partnership with or closely supporting and assisting that department —and who are at risk because of this work. Like me, Members will be understandably anxious about the impact that the delay has had on the pace by which we are getting as many of those eligible for relocation removed to safety.
Many Members will have concerns for the welfare of former Triples who might be ARAP eligible and remain at risk. Despite sharing their deep frustrations, I hope that it is of some comfort to colleagues across this House that, if a decision is overturned as part of the review, applicants are informed immediately and the relocations process can then start. I have already begun signing eligible decisions to relocate former Triples to the UK. Furthermore, once they arrive in Pakistan and are confirmed as ARAP eligible, we can offer them protection from deportation back to Afghanistan thanks to the UK’s ongoing and constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan.
Confirming that we have found evidence of direct employment for some of the Triples cohort is the opposite of the last Government’s position that no such direct employment existed. I would like to state that I have seen no evidence suggesting a conscious effort by the previous Administration or Ministers to cause delay or indeed to mislead the House or the public on this matter. When Ministers in the previous Government provided Statements to the House on the Triples, I believe that they did so in good faith, based on the known information under consideration at that time. Record-keeping in the context of a long multinational operation is notoriously challenging, but that is no excuse. It is of course critical that we understand how and why the error occurred.
It is clear to me that a failure to access and share the right digital records and challenges with information flows across departmental lines have all led to this significant body of information being overlooked, with huge real-world implications. Where corporate memory failed, so did processes. As is too often the case, it was those who needed help the most who suffered. I am clear that this sort of systems failure is not good enough. Under my direction, officials will now review and renew efforts to improve information flows and processes to ensure that this never happens again.
While I do not consider there to be malicious intent in this case, this is an example of the problems that dogged Afghan resettlement under the previous Government. The Triples review should not have been needed in the first place. It should not have taken this long, and the system in place at the time that the initial decisions were made should have been led with more competence and grip to ensure that those mistakes were caught and managed more quickly.
Today, it is with some relief that I and this new Government can assure Members that we have unblocked progress and that eligible former Triples and their families will now rightfully receive the sanctuary that their work in support of our troops in Afghanistan deserves. I am confident that we will be able to relocate those eligible to safety and so that they can start a new life here in the UK. I will keep pushing this work forward at pace so that we can close this chapter in our history, knowing that we did right by those who stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK Armed Forces.
I recognise the strong sense of feeling and support across all in this House on this matter and on Afghan resettlement in general. The Defence Secretary and I will keep the House updated on our approach to Afghan resettlement. Given the seriousness with which we take the Triples review in the MoD, I aim to report to the House when the review is complete”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I welcome it in principle. When I was chair of the International Development Committee, I visited Afghanistan on two occasions—not just Kabul but Balkh and the Panjshir Valley. Other members of the committee went to Helmand. We saw for ourselves the engagement between the occupying forces and Afghan organisations and troops of all kinds—very much committed to the future. I also have experience, as I am sure have other Members of the House, of having to take up a case of an Afghan who was trapped because he could not get the necessary papers out. It was eventually resolved, but it was an awfully long and convoluted process, so I think noble Lords can understand how we got to this position.
The reality is that many of these people—Afghans who were working in Afghanistan—were looking for a free, tolerant and inclusive Afghanistan. They did not expect a sudden and chaotic evacuation, which amounted to a betrayal of their bravery and loyalty. They believed they would be protected for their commitment—what we have just heard about the Triples is dramatic proof of this fact. Let us be clear, the UK did not take the decision to evacuate Afghanistan; we had no choice but to follow the lead, but it was a dreadful decision carried out in an appallingly incompetent way which left many Afghans at continuing risk. In that situation, it is absolutely right that we demonstrate now our commitment to help those who have the right to come to this country.
The Minister has already indicated that the applications are being processed, many have been resolved, and papers have been signed. How quickly does he believe the process can be completed?
Many of the people affected are probably in hiding somewhere in Afghanistan. What steps are being taken to help them out safely? The Minister said that when they are in Pakistan they will be supported, but getting to Pakistan might be a high-risk process. What can the British Government do to try to help them get there so that they can be brought to safety?
The Minister mentioned families. It would be good to hear exactly what the status of their families will be, what definition of “family” will apply, and how they too will be given freedom. Although the Statement is specific to the Triples—I accept that, and it is a welcome outcome that a review started by the previous Government, which has probably taken too long, is now coming to fruition—does the Minister nevertheless accept that there are other Afghan nationals who loyally served the UK and may still be at risk and who still have the problem of not being able to entirely prove what their relationship was? I think your Lordships all know that for many of them there was a genuine and deep relationship, and they are entitled to believe that the UK will look after them if it can.
I understand the point that you cannot just have freeloaders—there must be real evidence—but will the Minister acknowledge that the Triples might not be the only people who have fallen foul of this lack of information and data? The case that I was involved in was precisely that—I am sure that other noble Lords had similar cases. He knew for certain and was fortunate enough that there was a British citizen who had worked with him and was ultimately able to provide the evidence that enabled him to leave Afghanistan. Without that evidence, he might still be languishing in hiding with his family—fortunately, that is not the case.
I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Government are doing the right thing; we just ask that they do it as speedily as possible. It would also be good to acknowledge that this might not be entirely the end of the road.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Bruce, for their contributions. This is a very serious Statement, as we all acknowledge; we can tell that by the tone of the House. I also thank both noble Lords for their acknowledgement of the heroism of those who worked with us and our need to ensure that we do all we can to stand with those who stood with us. For those who read or watch our deliberations, I make the important point that there is no party division on defending our country and standing up for our country. There are questions of any Government that people will sometimes want to ask, and that is quite right, but both noble Lords made the point that this is not a party-political issue. This is about His Majesty’s Government, of whatever party, trying to do the right thing by those who stood with us in conflict. There is no division between us on that, and that is an important starting point for us all.
I reiterate the point that has just been made: there is no suggestion that any Minister in the previous Government did anything other than use the information they had given to them in order to provide information to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, asked me to acknowledge the steps the previous Government took to instigate the review, and I do so. As a consequence of the review, the various things we are discussing today have come to light. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the MoD is working across government, including, where necessary, with the Home Office. That is how some of these things have come to light, but there will be others.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about adequate housing. We are working with the Home Office and local authorities to ensure that those who are resettled here through the Triples process are adequately housed. As part of that, arrangements are being made for permanent accommodation for them. As mentioned in the Statement made by my colleague Luke Pollard MP yesterday, existing transitional arrangements are having to be used which we had hoped would have ended by now. Indeed, the previous Government’s and this Government’s hope and expectation was that they would have ended, but we hope to see them end as soon as possible. Adequate housing, including some military housing, is being made available for some individuals and their families.
I was asked about the figures. We estimate that 2,000 applicants are eligible under this review. Some three-quarters have already been reviewed, and of those, approximately 25% have been found to be eligible because of the direct employment records we have uncovered. Some of the remaining 500 or so are the more complex or difficult cases, so I cannot say to your Lordships exactly when the review will be finished, but we intend to complete it as soon as we can, and we will keep the House updated.
As soon as a decision is made, applicants are informed immediately. They are not informed that their case is under review, but they are informed immediately that their case has been looked at again and they will be subject to that. I think the noble Lord asked how they are got out of Afghanistan. I think everybody will understand why I cannot explain how, but they are moved as quickly as possible out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
We are working really closely with the Pakistan Government, who have been very co-operative in this respect. My understanding is that nobody who is eligible under the ARAP scheme has been deported back to Afghanistan. We also know that, subject to certain checks being made, they are moved from Pakistan to this country as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord asked about family members. There is a difference between immediate family members and eligible family members: the usual terminology applies to “immediate family”—for example, dependent children, spouse—“eligible family” means the wider family. People are obviously free to make applications in respect of eligible family members and others, and they will be adjudicated in the appropriate way.
The noble Lord asked about other asylum routes. Of course, there are other asylum routes that people from Afghanistan can apply for—I see the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in his place. The noble Lord mentioned the figure; I think it is nearly 13,000 people now. There are those routes, but they are asylum claims; here, we are dealing with the Triples.
In answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, other special units may be in scope, but we have not looked at those yet. We will have to do so. As I say, other routes are available, but they concern asylum claims. Other special units, if that is what the noble Lord was referring to, may well be in scope of the review, but we have not looked at them. We will do so in due course.
Before I take questions from Back-Benchers, I reiterate that we will of course keep the House fully updated on progress on all of this. I hope the House appreciates why we thought it important to come forward with this as soon as we were able to. There is new information, which the Government are now working on. Above all, we are now taking decisions, changing some of the decisions that were made based on past available information. I think it highly appropriate in those circumstances that we come to the House to explain that.
The noble Lord mentioned individual cases. If noble Lords let me know of any individual cases, I will take them to Minister Pollard to see whether they are eligible and can be taken forward. Clearly, the case the noble Lord mentioned needed to be looked at.
With that, I welcome the Statement. It is an important step forward and I thank both the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench for their support for the Statement, and for their questions.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the review of unsuccessful claims under the ARAP scheme was meant to cover all cases, not just the Triples. Can the Minister please tell the House how many interpreters who worked with our Armed Forces and how many British Council staff have also had the decision on their claim for relocation reversed as a result of this review?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This review dealt with the Triples; interpreters and others were outside its scope. For people who are making or have made asylum claims, there are opportunities for them to claim asylum through those processes, and there are appeals processes within that. The interpreters and others that the noble Baroness mentioned were not within scope of this review.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this review and pay tribute to my ex-right honourable friend James Heappey for initiating it. The FCDO and the MoD worked very closely together with the Home Office on all resettlement schemes. May I ask the Minister specifically about the role of Pakistan? While I have heard the reassurance and we have a good working relationship on the ground, one of the challenges the previous Government faced on the ACRS, which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, alluded to for interpreters, was that a visa was issued to those eligible for resettlement by the Pakistan Government, but there is a time limit on it. That was to ensure that we have British officials on the ground in Pakistan to verify the process, so that those getting nearer to the time deadline are not then returned to Afghanistan. I welcome the tone and the substance of this Statement.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for the work he did on this, and for his general welcome and question. If noble Lords will forgive me, because it is such an important question I am going to read an answer, which is unusual for me. It is important that this is accurate with respect to Pakistan and the question from the noble Baroness. I apologise for this, but it is important that we get this right.
We are in regular contact with the Government of Pakistan and we are very grateful for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans who have completed their security checks will not be deported. If an individual in scope of the review has their decision overturned, they should be offered the same level of protection from deportation from Pakistan. We are engaged in ongoing constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan over the ARAP scheme.
We have explored every avenue to try to extend protection from deportation enjoyed by Afghans in Pakistan. We have confirmed eligibility and completed security checks for those in scope of the review while it is under way. While we have not been able to find a mechanism for achieving this on the UK side, we are grateful to the Pakistan authorities for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans will not be deported. Indeed, to my knowledge, no Afghan with confirmed ARAP eligibility has been deported from Pakistan. We look forward to their ongoing support as we relocate Afghans to begin their new lives in the UK.
I apologise for reading that, but it is important to be completely accurate.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. If any of the groups or individuals who supported the British forces in Afghanistan deserve proper treatment, it is the Triples, who supported our special forces in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In welcoming the content of the lengthy Statement, I am pleased that there is no party-political issue.
Would the Minister agree with me on two things? First, Mr James Heappey and the former Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs Mr Johnny Mercer played a significant role in this, at some risk to their personal integrity. Secondly, would he agree that 25% is an interesting figure? Could the Government err on the side of generosity and allow more than 25% and, where the circumstances are that the decision is in the balance, act in favour of the individuals? As I said, they are extraordinarily deserving. We have to be very careful of our national and international reputation when we operate in faraway places.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord is completely right that we need to remember our obligations to those who supported and helped us, and our international reputation. He is also right to point out that the review and the Statement have identified the need to do the right thing by the Triples. Many individuals, including the noble Lord, helped with respect to this, and I acknowledge all the contributions that people have made.
I will also say that 25% is a rounded and approximate figure, which came to light with the first 1,500 reviews of the approximately 2,000 people we regard as eligible. I am sure that people will have noted the noble Lord’s comment. I also thank him for everything he did during his time in service.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s repeat of the Statement. It raises issues of which we must not lose sight. Although he has already answered the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, by saying that interpreters are not covered by the Statement, I nevertheless know of a case where interpreters put their lives at risk just as much as anybody else. I have in mind the case of Mr Mirwais Adil, whose family was unable to be rescued at the time of Operation Pitting. I would like the advice of my noble friend as to whom to write to in order to raise an individual case of an interpreter and his family who have not been reunited.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The short answer is that, if I were my noble friend, I would write to me, and I will pass it on to the appropriate Minister and ensure that it is properly looked at. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, if noble Lords write to me on individual cases, I will ensure that, if neither I nor the appropriate Minister in the Ministry of Defence is dealing with it, it goes to the appropriate Minister to ensure that there is a proper response.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome this Statement and am pleased that the right thing has been done for a significant number of these brave men who supported us in Afghanistan. However, I cannot help but reflect that, had the previous Government had their way, some of them may not have been in a position to take advantage of this because they would have been in Rwanda.
On this specific issue about evidence of employment, on 12 December 2023, in the context of a repeat of a UQ from the other place, I asked the following question, which I will read in short, in the interest of time:
“My Lords, in responding to a question about specific individuals in the other place, the Armed Forces Minister told the House that His Majesty’s Government ‘do not have the employment records of the Afghan special forces’”—
that was a quotation from the Commons Official Report. I went on to say:
“Today, I was informed by a very reliable source that, until at least August 2021, our embassy in Kabul held nominal records for members of CF333 and ATF444, for the purposes of … pay”. —[Official Report, 12/12/23; col. 1817.]
In response, the then Minister undertook to search for these records that he said he had no knowledge existed. When were these records recovered? If these are not the records that have caused this dramatic development in the ability of these reviews to produce the sort of results that we have, where in this Government were the records that justify the refusal of the relocation of these brave men until they were discovered? When were they discovered, and why were they kept back? There could not have been any part of the Government that did not know that they needed to be brought forward to a review that was announced two months later.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his interesting question. On the basis of the information I have and the briefings we have had, I can tell him that the information became available after the start of the review on 1 February 2024. In the context of the weeks and months after that review, that was when the evidence of direct employment records became available. There was a failure of different government systems in different government departments to share information —the digital records were not shared, and different government departments were not talking to each other. I do not have the exact date for when that was discovered, but it was after 1 February. If further information should be made available to my noble friend in consequence of his question, I will write to him and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister in this House, and the Minister in the other House, encouraging Members to come forward with any information they may have on individual cases. I return to the units where we discovered that there was an employment relationship and the suggestion that there may be other specialist units where such a relationship has existed. The Minister in the other place made reference to that. Can the Minister explain a bit more about what he expects to find?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There will be other special units, which I do not wish to discuss on the Floor of the House, for reasons that the noble Baroness would understand, but they are within scope of this review and they will be looked at as soon as possible. That is why I want that reassurance. Others have asked about other special units that have direct employment with the UK Government, and we will be looking at that and dealing with it in due course.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the phrase “debt of honour” has sometimes been used as a cliché, but I cannot think of any other case which more aptly suits that phrase than the support for those who were prepared to support our service men and women, to the risk of their own life. The Minister has been generous with his accolades for everyone, but all of us know that, had it not been for the campaigning that took place across parties, led by people like himself—and in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, behind us—we might not have reached this stage.
I have two brief questions for the Minister. The first is whether there has been an assessment for those specialist troops, particularly the Triples—444 and 333—who are remaining in Afghanistan. Do we have any assessment of their safety? The second is on those from groups who have previously applied and been refused entry under the ARAP scheme. Is there some manner of letting them know that their case is being reviewed, or are they expected just to learn from the generality of publicity around this?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In answer to the noble Lord’s last question, we have not informed people directly that their case is being reviewed. We think that the best way to support those who may have their claim reassessed and allowed is to follow that course of action. In terms of the assessment of their safety, again we believe in not informing a generality that there is a reassessment going on, although people can of course read the newspapers. Not informing people directly that their case is being reassessed will mean that there is not a whole wave of speculation taking place, which could unsettle individuals and their families.
To reassure the noble Lord, as soon as a change is made, the individual is informed immediately and arrangements are put in place very swiftly for them to be taken out of the country and into Pakistan. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is right to mention all of those who have made possible the review and the outcomes we have seen. He was also quite right to mention our noble friend Lord Browne for all he has done with respect to this, and it was remiss of me not to do so in the first place.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister has just said, but I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has unfairly maligned the previous Government. He will know that we did exempt eligible Afghans from the Rwanda policy. That was read into the record twice on the last day of debate. Having said that, I also 100% congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on making us do it, and I appreciate that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have nothing further to add to that but, on a slightly lighter note, I say to noble Lords that my days of talking about Rwanda have hopefully passed.
Relations with Europe
Lord Coaker Excerpts(1 month, 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)
My Lords, I welcome the many positive and challenging contributions on this topic, all said in a way that seeks to improve public policy to do what it can with respect to the UK-Europe relationship. People come from different perspectives, but we all want the best for our own country.
I will endeavour to answer many of the points; whether I attribute them to the right noble Lord remains to be seen, and I apologise if I get it wrong. If I miss something that was directly asked of me, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. A number of points were made relating to numerous government departments. I accept that I am answering for the Government, so I will go through Hansard and make sure that the various points made to different government departments are sent to the relevant Government Ministers so that they can take the appropriate action.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on an excellent topic for debate, and the way in which it has contributed towards encouraging numerous noble Lords to stay through a Thursday afternoon into the early evening. That shows the importance of this debate. I also thank her for the way in which she introduced the debate and raised many of the important issues, some of which I will deal with as I respond to the debate. It is a particularly appropriate time for us to debate this.
I will spend a little while congratulating my noble friend Lady Hodge on her wonderful maiden speech. I will not go into all the years that we have known each other, and the various ups and downs now and again—mainly ups. On a personal note, I think all of us have found her an inspiration in the way that she has dealt with some of the difficulties she has faced with respect to anti-Semitism. One of the great tributes to her as a person is that she has never become cynical or negative about that. She has seen anti-Semitism as the issue and fought it but recognised that, for the vast majority of people in this country, anti-Semitism is as abhorrent as she feels it is. We are very pleased that she is with us.
I also say to my noble friend that economic crime, which I know has been close to her heart, is really important. Dirty money is something that all of us in this Chamber have debated through many Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has been with me on various committees where we certainly pressurised the then Government. We should continue to say to our own Government that, from our perspective, we need to do as much as we can to tackle Russian dirty money. Indeed, we should see any economic crime as the priority that it is. I make that point to her.
It is really important to see the context within which this debate takes place. There will be disagreements with and disappointments about individual policies that the Government may pursue and the ways in which they will pursue some of the challenges that they face; I will come to one or two of those. But have no doubt about it: there is now a Government in this country who seek a positive relationship with Europe in its widest sense, and want to establish better relationships with EU Governments and wider European Governments, at the collective level and at an individual bilateral level.
We will work to reset the relationship with our European friends, to strengthen ties, to secure a broad-based security pact and to tackle barriers to trade. We will build stronger and wider co-operation in a whole range of areas. We will look forward, not backwards, by improving our trade and investment relationship with the EU and Europe more generally, while recognising that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. This is about turning the page, reinvigorating alliances and forging new partnerships with our European friends, rather than reopening the divisions of the past.
We will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade and strengthening co-operation to keep our people safe. This should not come as a surprise, as the previous Government frequently acknowledged that there was still much work to do to improve UK-EU and UK-European relations. There is more we can do to minimise friction with our major trading partners, by reducing barriers for professionals to do business across the channel, as well as strengthening co-operation on the security threats that we face.
As I say, this is not about renegotiating or relitigating Brexit but about looking forward and realising the potential of the UK-Europe relationship. We have been clear that these trading relationships can be improved, including through the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and in areas such as helping touring artists. This is about not just the EU, as I say, but Europe as a whole. A new era for these relationships is what we seek to achieve, culturally and diplomatically, and from a defence and security point as well—bilaterally and collectively too.
Your Lordships will recall that the Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, hosted 46 leaders from across Europe, including President Zelensky, at Blenheim Palace just before the Summer Recess. Others will recall the marked increase in engagements in the past few months, not only by the Prime Minister but by the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and many other Ministers, with their respective counterparts.
These relationships are not only at a political level. As many noble Lords have made clear in this debate, they include but are not limited to improving our relationship with the European Union. Many noble Lords have spoken about the people-to-people relationships. We are aware of the British support for the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. There is the upcoming co-hosting of the UEFA championships with Ireland in 2028. There are also renewed commitments to the UK-France Lancaster House treaties and His Majesty’s Government’s ongoing work to develop a friendship treaty with Germany. We are doing all we can to reset the relationship and improve it.
That is the context in which this debate takes place. We have no hesitation as a new Government in saying that we want to have a better relationship with Europe, and we want to establish it. I say this to noble Lords: in the discussions I have had with Ministers from across the European Union and beyond, I felt that they too believe that there is a reset and that we now have a Government who do not see Europe somehow as almost the enemy of this country. It is an important step forward to have that trust and that relationship. The ability to recognise that we now work from a position of mutual respect and trust is really important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke about the bilateral strengthening of our security relationship and mentioned Poland. I was in Poland recently at the Warsaw Security Forum. The UK is seen as a valuable partner there—not just an add-on, but right at the centre of the demands of Poland, the Baltic states, Romania and all the countries there, as well as the more traditional European countries. They want us at the heart of things, working with them on a new EU security pact, our commitment to NATO, and their defence against the Russian threat. We have been talking to Germany and have a new agreement. We are refreshing the Lancaster House agreement, and we are talking to Ireland as well. As I have said, many visits have been made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out the importance of NATO, which will remain the foremost military alliance we have, but the UK-EU security pact gives us the opportunity to reflect on where there are other things we can do. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we may use that relationship or that vehicle on migration and some other matters involving security while NATO remains the fundamental part of our military alliance.
I look forward to meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, before I go to Bosnia in a couple of weeks’ time and hearing her experience and knowledge. I say to her, and to the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Howell, that we understand the difficulties in the west Balkans and we will look at what more we can do to support the work that has been going on there. To be fair, some of that was under the previous Government, but we will look to see whether there is more that we can do. We understand the deepening concerns in that area, which is one of the reasons why I am going to go there—to see what more we can do.
The noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Bilimoria, pointed out the importance within the EU of the Joint Expeditionary Force. Again, we will look to see what we can do and work with our neighbours. We know the importance of the High North, the change that climate change is bringing to that area, and the increasing problems and threats we have there.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned the PESCO arrangements and what we should do with permanent structural organisations in which we try to work together. We will not make a general statement that we will join all of them but look at them on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the European Political Community. We see that as an important addition. It is an informal arrangement as it stands, but it has brought people together in a forum that no other European multilateral institution offers, even with respect to the Council of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned the Council of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was another significant member of the Council of Europe over the years. I also mention my noble friend Lord Griffiths in this respect. Forgive me if other people in this Chamber have been members of the Council of Europe—I notice the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I beg his pardon. There are people who have been members right across this Chamber. It is a fundamentally important place where countries come together. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right to point out the importance of the Council of Europe, of our membership and of all Governments taking it particularly seriously going forward.
The noble Lords, Lord Ricketts, Lord Bruce, Lord Liddle, Lord Hannay, Lord Wallace and Lord Jay, and others mentioned the importance of delivering the forthcoming EU-UK security pact and of diplomacy and bilateral relationships. This Government’s fundamental point is that we are not afraid of saying that we need international co-operation and relationships to deal with the problems we face. We talked about that in this House at great length when we spoke about the need to tackle migration. We said that by working together we can overcome these problems. We have to come together to do that. On security, migration and climate, we will seek to work together.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Wallace, Lord Jay and Lord Ricketts, that we work closely with the higher education sector, but we do not have any plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that we recognise the importance of student exchanges and are looking to see whether there are other ways of delivering the same desired outcome of Erasmus.
There was some scepticism about the value of Turing. This year, 2024-25, £105 million is available to send 43,000 students abroad, both school students and those in higher education, and 23,000 of those are from disadvantaged backgrounds. I appreciate that some noble Lords may be sceptical about the Turing scheme, but I just point that out as something for us to consider in our deliberations. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, of course student exchanges are important. The Government seek a better way to deliver the same things within the context we are in.
On culture, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord Purvis, that we have no plans to look at an EU-wide youth mobility scheme. However, I take the point about trying to deliver the same thing through bilateral relationships—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will look at whether we have been able to succeed and deliver that. I will ensure that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on VAT on education—with respect to schools run by other European countries in the UK—are looked at by the relevant department.
On touring artists, we are committed to working collaboratively across departments to address musicians, performing artists and their support staff being able to tour across the EU. We recognise that that is a very live issue. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Ricketts, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter and Lady Helic, and a number of others made that point. We accept that there is a real issue and we are trying to ensure that our touring artists are not in any way disadvantaged. We are looking at how we can do that. We will also look at how we engage with the European Commission and EU member states and explore how best to improve arrangements for touring across Europe.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, that there are no plans to rejoin Creative Europe, but we are working with the creative and cultural sectors to ensure that those world-leading sectors can continue to promote growth and enrich lives at home and abroad.
The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I think—I will check—were right to say, on inward mobility for artists, that the UK domestic rules allow musicians, entertainers, artists and their technical staff from non-visa national countries, such as EU and EEA nationals, to perform in the UK without requiring a visa. If I have got that wrong, I will write and put a copy of the letter in the Library, but I think that that is the situation at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly challenged us on making Brexit work. There is no doubt that we will come back to the situation in a year or two. What we mean by making Brexit work is all the things that I have gone through—looking at whether we can deliver some of the outcomes that we would have been able to achieve within the EU from without it, and at whether we can generate that new EU security pact.
On China, the Government’s policy is one of co-operating, competing and challenging; again, we will see whether we can get the balance right between all those.
I will finish where I started by saying this to noble Lords, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who proposed this important Motion: there will be individual debates and discussions between us about some of the challenges that noble Lords have raised, and I understand that people will be disappointed with some of the answers I have given with respect to mobility, and people will think that the Government have got it wrong, but let there be no doubt that we are now in a changed context and changed environment. We are now in a situation where we have a Government who are determined to rebuild our relationships with the EU and with Europe, and to co-operate, because we believe that that is in the best interests of our country to overcome common problems and challenges. By doing that, we will have a more prosperous future for our country, as well as benefitting Europe.
I finish by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the Motion that she has introduced, which has allowed an important debate to take place. I wish my own Government well in resetting that relationship; it is crucial.
Combat Air Capability
Lord Coaker Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s future combat air capability.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, our assessment of the future combat air capability we require is informed by consideration of the future threat environment and strategic context. Consequently, the Global Combat Air Programme has been designed to utilise advanced capabilities, including next-generation sensors, weapons and data systems. Networked interoperability with allies and partners will be key. In the meantime, we continue to invest in our current fleet, which remains highly capable.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that part-reassurance. The previous Government’s commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme—GCAP—was clear and we were doing it in partnership with Italy and Japan. However, with the best of intentions, the current Government’s position is opaque. Can the noble Lord at least reassure the House that the Government understand the need to plan now for a successor to Typhoon and the extent to which UK industry is supporting thousands of jobs across the UK—not least, for example, at Leonardo in Edinburgh—that depend on this programme proceeding?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We certainly do understand that: 3,500 people are already employed in the development of this, £2 billion has already been invested in the research and development of the programme and further money will be invested, as we go forward. As the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago, the Global Combat Air Programme is “important” and
“we are making significant progress … There is … a review going on but … it is an important programme”.
I think that gives the reassurance that the noble Baroness is looking for.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, as I highlighted in Grand Committee yesterday, on current plans, by 2040 the UK will be down to just three combat air squadrons. Irrespective of the debate over the type and nature of future platforms, would the Minister agree that this position is wholly untenable for any Government who care about the security of this country?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point. He is really referring to investment in our defence capabilities as we go forward. The review will look at the threats that we need to meet, but this Government have made an absolute commitment to go to 2.5% of GDP as soon as we can. I think that gives some reassurance to the noble and gallant Lord.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, we have two aircraft carriers, which will last for some 50 years. Will the Minister confirm that, in this package of air capability—which we absolutely need and do not have enough of—some aircraft will have the capability of operating from those carriers?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I certainly believe that the noble Lord is right to point out that, if we have aircraft carriers, we need aircraft to operate from them. I accept that. As far as the defence review is concerned, there is no doubt that we will look at the future capabilities we need, in respect of how those carriers are deployed and where they should be deployed, but also in respect of the necessary air combat power we need to meet the threats that the noble Lord will know well—as indeed will the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is indeed reassuring that His Majesty’s Government appear to be recommitting to GCAP but, like AUKUS, this agreement has been inherited from the previous Conservative Government. The allies, in this case, are Italy and Japan. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any scope for bringing in other partners and whether that would that help with resilience and interoperability with our NATO allies, for example?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As it stands, we are certainly sharing the costs with Italy and Japan, as the noble Baroness points out. Regarding other partners, we are considering that and discussions are taking place, without any firm commitment as it stands. Interoperability is key. She will know that Germany, France and Spain are also developing a sixth-generation fighter—SCAF—as is the United States. They are all part of NATO, so interoperability becomes essential.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, while we accept that future generations of fast jet aircraft should be able to fly off aircraft carriers and fixed land bases, will the noble Lord accept that we also have land forces that need major investment? Will he also consider that going to just 2.5% of GDP is wholly inadequate and that the conversation should be about 3% or 3.5%?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The review will, of course, look at the necessary profile with respect to air, land, sea and intelligence and technology sharing. The Government have made an absolute commitment to 2.5% and are determined to deliver on that as soon as they can.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I did not quite hear the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on Japan, but does the Minister agree that the huge Tempest deal with Italy and Japan is very much at the centre of this whole issue and that it really is going forward in a positive way? This is a very crucial time, when our relations with Japan are much improved and with all sorts of plans ahead, and it would be fatal if this one had a wobble.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord; that is a good question. We have made as firm a commitment as we can, although I have said that it is also part of the ongoing review that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is undertaking. We have made a commitment to Italy and Japan and the noble Lord will know that the GCAP International Government Organisation was set up to run that programme. Its headquarters are in the UK. On 2 October, just a week or so ago, the King ratified the final part of the SI to ensure that the treaty was put in place. That shows that the Government are making progress with respect to the GCAP programme.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient war stocks for our front-line aircraft at the present time?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord will know that we have concerns about the supply of ammunition and missiles. That is why this Government are introducing a national armaments director and working with industry. We want to ensure that the stockpiles of weapons we have are replenishable quickly, and we will look to see whether we have the necessary quantity as well. That will also form part of the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, reports from Ukraine indicate the importance of drones. What are the Government doing to increase the capability of drones and to add them to the needs of the future, so that we can have many more of these smaller ones as well as the big ones that we often talk about?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really interesting point. That is the whole point of lessons learned from the conflict in respect of Ukraine, and that is part of what the review will look at. One thing that the noble Lord may pray in favour is the fact that the drones that Ukraine has used have, to an extent, neutralised the impact of the Black Sea fleet, and the Russian fleet has been driven back into port. That shows the utility of the use of drones. Of course, we need sixth-generation fighters and global combat air, but drones will form an important part of the weaponry that we need going forward to meet future threats.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that we have an aerospace and defence industry in the United Kingdom to be proud of. Will he ensure that, when he is looking at air capability, he will bear in mind the totality of the United Kingdom, including of course Northern Ireland’s excellent aerospace industry?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that I know Northern Ireland reasonably well and I have seen the fantastic skills base that Northern Ireland has. At the moment, as it stands, the particular emphasis in respect of the Global Combat Air Programme is that the main centres are in the south-west of England, Lancashire and Edinburgh. Of course, the spin-off from that is numerous small industries. We need to ensure that the growth agenda of this Government reaches all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness pointed out.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, manned aircraft require a supply of pilots. Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient resources are being made available to train the pilots of the future and that they are getting sufficient, real airtime in order to be effective?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that there have been problems with the training of pilots. That is partly the point of his question. The Government are looking at training and also at the recruitment and retention of all these particular skills, not just in respect of pilots but right across the Armed Forces. That is why this Government have launched a recruitment and retention review to see what we should do about it. Pilots will form an important part of that.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, given the drone capability we see daily in Ukraine, could not that be used to puncture people smugglers’ boats before they ever leave French shores?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Well, I do not know about that, but the use of drones will of course become increasingly important. With respect to the noble Lord’s suggestion, I am sure that people have heard it and will consider it in due course.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister confident that we can keep one Vanguard submarine at sea at all times, given the strain there is on crew and our loss of crew because of the increasingly long time each mission has to take because of maintenance of the rest of the fleet?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is a very important question and there should be no confusion here. The noble Lord is talking about the UK’s nuclear deterrent. That forms an important part of our deterrent. We are absolutely 100% certain that we will retain a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent presence. That needs to be heard from this Chamber and across the globe. There is no way that we will in any way allow our nuclear deterrent to be compromised. That needs to be heard loud and clear.