Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, during the previous Government, there was a bit of a triumvirate when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was the Minister. Many times, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I would stand up and ask questions, and I would associate myself immediately with his comments. Today, I find myself in a similar position, standing up to associate myself and these Benches with the comments and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which are extremely important. My questions should therefore be seen very much as additional to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

I first thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces, particularly at the start of a new year, and say how important it is that we support them. Obviously, our personnel were not actively involved last week, but we support them and we want to ensure that the situation for our Armed Forces will be such that we are ready to deal with all the international situations that may come up in 2026. Although this Statement was officially labelled, “Ukraine and Wider Operational Update”, already in 2026 we have had Iran, Ukraine and Russia, and the other issue, of course, is the situation with Venezuela.

I do not propose to ask the Minister questions specifically about Venezuela, but I stress that the importance of supporting the United States last week in tackling the tanker and dealing with the shadow fleet is precisely that we understand that that was in accordance with international law. It is important to stress that we support His Majesty’s Government as long as the action taken is in accordance with international law. Will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, where actions are taken, even by our closest ally, the United States, we will hold them to account if we believe that they are not acting according to international law?

We clearly have a difficult situation where, on some issues, we agree entirely with the United States and on other issues we find ourselves perhaps at one remove. Could the Minister help the House understand where the United Kingdom is in discussing with the United States the situation of another sovereign entity—namely, Greenland? We have had reassuring answers from the FCDO, suggesting that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Kingdom of Denmark. But Greenland is a significant geographical part of NATO. There are questions around what support we as the United Kingdom, particularly the MoD, are giving to Greenland and to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Building on questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, if the United Kingdom were to commit troops to Ukraine, what would the conditions be? I understand that there would be a vote in the other place, but would it be just the United Kingdom and France? Are His Majesty’s Government sure that, if we did that, we would not actually be creating vulnerabilities for our own troops, because the prospect of peace in Ukraine still seems a long way off?

Finally, is the Minister convinced that the commitments to defence expenditure are adequate? He said in the Chamber last week and the Secretary of State said in the Commons as part of this Statement—or in response on this Statement—that we have our 3% commitment, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked, if we are not spending that money, and if we are not letting the contracts and there are vulnerabilities for our frigates and helicopter services, where does that leave us in terms of national security? Supporting the United States in supporting Ukraine is important, but so is our national security.

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

First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their general support for what the Government have been doing, which, to be fair, carries on from the last Government. It is a source of strength for our country that that is the case and that there is a degree of consensus between us all about that. As a statement of the obvious, it is extremely important for our adversaries to see that unity of purpose between us all.

I also join the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, in thanking our service personnel for the various operations that they have been involved in in different ways. I want to praise the American forces as well for their bravery in what they did in conducting that operation. Again, I thank both noble Baronesses for their support for that operation, which was of huge significance. The noble Baroness talked about the importance of tackling sanctioned vessels. I remind her that we have sanctioned 544 shadow vessels, of which we believe 200 have been forced off the water, which has led to a decline in Russian oil revenues of 27% since October 2024. While we all wish we could do more, some progress has been made, and indeed we always consider what more can be done.

The noble Baroness asked about the 39 nations—they will contribute in different ways. As she will have read, France and the UK are at the forefront, and discussions are going on about what different countries will do. Most importantly, we need a peace agreement, and Russia is the impediment to that. If we get a peace agreement, a multinational force—whatever form that takes, but with France and Britain at the lead—can then provide that security guarantee which makes it a reality.

I also say to both noble Baronesses and other people the House that it was particularly important to hear the remarks of the Americans, such as Steve Witkoff, at the conference in Paris, where he said that the discussions that had taken place were very significant. Given the way in which we sometimes question whether the involvement of the Americans is as strong as it might be, that was a particularly important point that he made and one that we were very pleased with and are keen to continue to support.

I will mention two other strategic points, because we talk a lot about the Americans. There was a lot of talk a couple of months ago about the new American national security strategy. Less attention was given to the National Defense Authorization Act that the Americans passed at the same time, which laid out the Americans’ military budget, which included significant sums of money for Ukraine and significant troop numbers in Europe and confirmed the American general as SACEUR, which is important. So, in answer to the noble Baroness’s point about America, we continue to work very closely with the Americans. They are a very important ally to us, and we talk to them. I will come to Greenland in a minute, but we talk to them, and that is particularly important.

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the point about the national conversation. We are starting with that work, but there is an awful lot to do to alert the British people much more to the challenges that they face, not necessarily just in terms of troops invading but certainly hybrid threats, cyber attacks and some of the activity we have seen on our streets, not least in Salisbury a few years ago.

The protection of critical national infrastructure and the development of the reserves will become increasingly important. We certainly live, to put it mildly, in unsettled and uncertain times, and the national conversation is a really important point. If the noble Baronesses, or indeed other Members, have ideas about how we take that forward, I would very much welcome them because it is an important national endeavour that is taking place.

Going back to Ukraine, of course, planning is being undertaken. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been talking about what may be done. There is a lot of planning going on—I am not going to go into details—certainly in terms of making sure that the various equipment and materials that would be needed to deliver the reassurance are available.

The noble Baroness has heard what I said about the defence investment plan. We are working at pace to try to get that developed as quickly as possible. There is a debate and discussion about the defence investment plan but this country does an awful lot militarily, even within the existing budget. I reflected on that when the noble Baroness was asking that question. I was thinking about the RAF Typhoons that, with France, took action in Syria just a week or so ago.

We have the commitment we are going to make to Ukraine and the commitment in the Arctic; we have marines training in Norway and troops in Estonia; we had the carrier strike group recently out in the Indo-Pacific and, of course, the support we gave to the Americans, so notwithstanding the debate about whether enough is being spent, this country does an awful lot militarily, and sometimes we should remind ourselves of that.

On helicopters, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the Philippines has just placed an order with Leonardo for six helicopters. That does not answer the question about the defence investment plan and the British Government’s investment, which is still being considered, but certainly those six orders will be welcome news for Leonardo.

Of course, we operate on a legal basis. The action against the shadow vessel was against a sanctioned stateless vessel, which carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with Iran and Russia. It is a sanctions-busting ship. It was stateless: the noble Baroness will know it changed its flag when it sailed towards the eastern Caribbean. It was flying a Guyanese flag, and then when it sailed away, it changed it to a Russian flag.

There is a strategic point, which will not be lost on some colleagues here, that sometimes America’s attitude towards Russia is questioned—whether it sees Russia as a country it ought to take action against—but that was a very clear demonstration that where the United States believes it is in its interest to do so, it will take action.

The noble Baroness asked me about Greenland. She is quite right. We believe that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and it has the right to determine its own future. There is a question about Arctic security, and we have discussed in this Chamber at great length the need for us to consider how we develop that. I have mentioned in debates that climate change and the melting of some of that ice opens up that territory in a way which means that we will have to consider its security even more.

The noble Baroness asked again about the commitment to invest. She will know what I have said about investment, and that debate will go on. The Government have made their commitments. I would argue that even within the existing budget, we make a significant military contribution to the defence of democracy and of our values. We shall continue to do that, not least in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of our minds all the time, and in supporting the Americans where we believe that that should happen, as we have proved just recently in the last few weeks.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I was impressed by two points that arose in the debate in another place last week. First, the Statement itself said that

“if Putin prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine”.

Secondly, Rishi Sunak said that we must have

“credible and durable security guarantees”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 390.]

I very much agree with those two points. Is the Minister seized of the vital need to ensure that any settlement with Putin over Ukraine does not ignore the possibility of him just jumping in and repeating the operation elsewhere? I am thinking particularly of Georgia and Moldova, where there are striking similarities to the Ukraine situation. Putin would argue, with the same dishonest and disgraceful justifications he used over Ukraine, first, that they used to be under Russian influence and, secondly, that Russia already has a military foothold in Moldova and Georgia in a similar way to what it had in Ukraine. I have been to both places. In South Ossetia in Georgia, I looked down over the Russian military base, materiel and equipment with which it illegally invaded some time ago. In Moldova, I have been to Transnistria and met the generals and colonels, who told us in those days that they had only 1,500 troops there, which was a total lie. Will the Minister agree that a settlement with Putin is not just about Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a series of very good points, and I could say that I agree with him about the need for all the things he said. I completely agree with him about the need for there to be a security guarantee for Ukraine. Any arrangement that is made has to have the support of the Ukrainians. That is why we have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to put together a coalition of the willing. There are still discussions going on about that. It is good that the UK and France have been at the forefront of it. We have tried very hard, and it was good to hear what the Americans said at the meeting of the coalition of the willing in Paris. Their involvement is essential as well, and sends a strong signal to Russia.

The noble Lord made a point about Moldova and Georgia. He will know that in Moldova we supported the facilitation of free and fair elections, which led to a result that Russia did not want. We would certainly wish to see similar in Georgia. The noble Lord makes a really good point—Putin has to know he cannot be seen to have won, and we are doing all we can to ensure that that is the case—and he is right to point out that the front line in Ukraine is our front line as well.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement leaves me puzzled. Are the Government insisting on boots on the ground in Ukraine as a condition of a ceasefire? As the Russian Government have said that under no conditions will they accept NATO boots on the ground, is that not equivalent to a policy of prolonging the war rather than hastening the arrival of peace? Leading on from that, what other plans or ideas do the Government have for security guarantees for Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The whole point of us saying that we are willing to deploy troops to Ukraine, with France and perhaps others, is precisely to ensure that any peace agreement arrived at is guaranteed and acceptable to the Ukrainians. That is important. It is what the Ukrainians want and have asked for, and we negotiated on that. As I said to other noble Lords, the Americans are working with us to provide some sort of security guarantee. Putin needs to negotiate with us. He is the impediment to peace in Ukraine. We say to him: let us negotiate in a way that is acceptable to the Ukrainians.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, to take the Minister back to the question of resources, he will be aware that the Chief of the Defence Staff gave evidence to a Select Committee this afternoon and confirmed that there is a gap between the funds available and the ability to spend on current strategic defence programmes. For reasons I do not quite understand, he said that the size of that gap is a secret. Can the Minister be a little more open with us?

The real point of my question comes back to what I said last week. The defence industrial plan is a signal of how serious the Government are about putting our money where their mouth is. Last week, the Secretary of State said that the Government were working flat out on it. There are indications that it will not be published until the spring. He will know that, in government, “spring” is an elastic concept. I would not want the Minister to have to work flat out for six months. Can he give the House a bit of an indication as to whether we are talking about something that will be here in the next few weeks, or is it months away? We will draw conclusions from his answer.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord but I will not be a hostage to fortune and say that it will be in a few weeks, or when it will be. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can to deliver as soon as we can a defence industrial plan that meets the needs of the budget we have and the needs of the country to deliver the military force and capabilities we need. That is what we are seeking to do. The noble Lord will continue to argue the case for more money and resources. We are working with the resources we have and seeking to deliver the military capability we need.

In my answer to the noble Baroness, I was trying to point out that, even within the existing budget, this country does an awful lot of which we can be proud with our existing military and the Armed Forces personnel that we have. But there is no doubt that the debate that the noble Lord quite rightly raises will continue.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, when asked about the deployment of a multinational force, the Secretary of State for Defence in the House of Commons said:

“Any deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine will take place only after a peace deal”.


That is fine. He then said:

“Secondly, the role of that force is primarily one of reassurance, the regeneration of the Ukraine forces, and deterrence of any future Russian aggression”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 395.]


To that last point, if it is supposed to serve as a deterrence to future Russian aggression then the national debate has to start with what would happen if that peace agreement were breached and what our response would be. The Minister will say that these are hypothetical questions, but I think the national debate will have to prepare people for that possibility.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is a hypothetical situation. It goes back to the point I was trying to make in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. There is a need for a national conversation about the threat that we face. There is a national conversation about the state-on-state threat that exists now in a way that people would not have predicted a few years ago. The Cold War and Russia and one country versus another country were supposed to be the wars of the past; we were supposed to be combating terrorist activity, counterinsurgency and those sorts of things. Although those threats have not totally gone away, the state-on-state threat has now re-emerged. Part of the national conversation has to be about what that means for our country and our Armed Forces.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question is also about the national conversation. To put it on the record, the Green Party supports the principle of UK troops serving in a peacekeeping role in Ukraine, following a negotiated settlement with a robust international mandate and standards. We are very pleased that the Statement says there will be a debate and a vote in the other place beforehand; that is the minimum democratic standard. Can the Minister reassure me that MPs will be able to scrutinise robustly the Government’s proposal, so that they will have before them—this follows on from the noble Baroness’s questions—details about the size and the composition of the force, what weapons they would have, the rules of engagement, and measurable indicators of what success looks like? It is important that it is not just a debate but a full debate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There will be as wide a debate as possible. Some of it will not be debated on the Floor of the House necessarily—for example, rules of engagement and so on. Having said that, let me reiterate what the Prime Minister stated last week, because it is important to make sure that I am accurate:

“If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 254.]


The noble Baroness can read into that the answer to her question.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have had any indication from any Russian source that Russia would accept either British and French peacekeeping troops or troops deployed to uphold an agreement in Ukraine, or a ceasefire, which has been proposed on a number of occasions by President Trump? Then, could he perhaps also say whether the very high-level American attendance last week in Paris, where the commitments were made by the President and by the Prime Minister, meant that the United States Administration is firmly supportive of what the Prime Minister and the President were saying they would be ready to do if there was a settlement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have no knowledge at all of any commitment by Russia regarding the points the noble Lord made. On the American commitment to the discussions and the declaration of intent in Paris last week, it was very significant that people such as Steve Witkoff were saying how strong those commitments were and how much they welcomed them. That is extremely important. The Americans’ part in any security guarantee is really important and something we will continue to work on. As the noble Lord says, the fact that there was such high-level American representation is hugely significant.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, let us be quite clear that Mr Putin does not want a ceasefire under any circumstances—it is not going to happen. Without wanting to sound trite, I pay tribute to the armed forces of Ukraine, which are defending our freedom in Europe with their lives, blood and treasure. I am sure we all agree with that, but it is worth saying again.

The question I want to ask is slightly different. It strikes me that, over the past 12 or 18 months, when it comes to propaganda, Ukraine and its right cause has been on the defensive. During 2025, the Russian forces occupied a further 1%, to the nearest percentage point, I believe, of Ukrainian territory, with huge and obscene losses of their own troops and population, yet we still have the feeling that the White House understands that Ukraine has no cards, the cause is lost, and there is no future in successfully stopping Putin from winning. It is all very difficult, but those are the facts of military change over the past year. What are the Minister’s thoughts on how we can reverse some of that feeling, so that we can be more positive about what Ukraine is achieving in its work and its firepower and that side of the conflict? How can we change the narrative?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an important question. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the Ukrainian armed forces, and acknowledge the stoicism and bravery of the Ukrainian people for resisting in the way that they have.

Whatever the debate about defence investment and how much we should be spending, we should remember what we actually are doing. Notwithstanding the difficulties and challenges that Ukraine faces in re-equipping and so on, we should remind ourselves that Russia was not expecting to be in the position that it is now. When it attacked, it was expecting to take Kyiv within a few days, put a puppet Government in place and have a vassal state. That was the intention. Has Russia been successful in doing that? Not at all. Instead of saying that this is where we are now, sometimes you need to go back and look at what the original objective was. I say to this House, this Parliament and this country that Russia has totally failed in its original objective. Ultimately, it has failed because of the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the support that most countries have given to them.

What else did Russia expect? It expected NATO to be weakened and implode. What has happened? Notwithstanding the discussions we have had about the United States, NATO has been strengthened. Who would have said at the beginning of the conflict that Finland and Sweden would join NATO? They have, and that has strengthened NATO. As well as looking at the challenges and difficulties that we face, we ought to remind ourselves sometimes about what has been done and is working well. Russia has failed in its original objectives, and we should remind people of that.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I want to take the Minister back to the issue of conversation. He and I have discussed in the past that, these days, social media is a weapon of war. I quoted to him a senior military figure who said to me, “We should spend as much on social media as we do on hard kit”. I suspect that comes pretty hard to those with a military background, but what does he think of that suggestion?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that warfare is changing, and that part of the battle now is understanding what is fake news and what is happening in reality. In every area of life, what appears online is an important part of any battle. The noble Lord will know that, both in Ukraine and in other parts of the world, the battlespace is online. Part of the Government’s response to that is to open up new cyber recruitment routes into the Armed Forces. To develop that, we have a new cyber offensive command as well as our defensive operations. That is how warfare is changing. I am not sure that everyone who will come in through the cyber route would naturally have got in via the soldier route before, but they are the soldiers of the future as well as those whom we would regard as soldiers in the more traditional sense. So, that is a good point. The war of the future is going to have many of the features of the past but also features along the lines that the noble Lord has just outlined.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, may I speak like a fool? I do not have all the facts, so I am speaking like a fool. Ukraine has spent a lot of hours in all those conversations and discussions about peace, attending endless meetings, when everyone knows that Putin is not interested in any of that. By encouraging conversations about peace, have we drained the energy that Ukraine had before the talks started? Is the coalition of the willing giving Ukraine the weapons that it needs, especially since a few days ago a ballistic missile was used to devasting effect in Ukraine and surrounding areas? Are we letting Ukraine down?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

No, I do not think we are. Conversations and discussions take place on how to bring about peace, but alongside those we continue to stand with Ukraine and arm it to defend itself against Russian aggression.

House adjourned at 6.59 pm.

Defence Spending

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the military Chiefs of Staff have expressed concern over in-year defence spending.

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

My Lords, Defence is collectively working to deliver the strategic defence review as a deliverable and affordable plan, backed by historic funding increases. Further detail will follow in the defence investment plan. All the Chiefs of Staff are fully engaged in that planning, as they are in the routine budget management exercises that ensure we can respond appropriately in-year to the changing nature of the threats that we face.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our nation is standing into danger. I do not need to articulate the dangerous geopolitical situation that we are in, and which is getting worse. I think people understand that, and they believe that we need to spend more on defence. Unfortunately, there is no urgency in that. For example, the defence investment plan, which was just mentioned, is already six months late. Does my noble friend the Minister—who I think understands these issues but whose hands are rather tied, judging by that Answer, on what he can say—agree that wars do not wait until the nations involved are ready? In an era of might is right, we need to grasp the nettle and seriously increase our defence spending today, not in the weeks and years to come. Then perhaps we can rebuild the Armed Forces and some of the might that is required.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with much of what my noble friend says about the threat that we face and the need for us to respond appropriately. All I would say is that we are increasing defence spending. My noble friend asked about the chiefs, and I will quote directly from the speech the Chief of the Defence Staff gave just a few weeks ago, in December. He said that he was looking at the greatest “sustained” rise

“in defence spending since the … Cold War”.

That is enormously positive. We are trying to respond to the threats that we face today, and there will be debates about how much we spend. My noble friend refers to the defence investment plan. It was due to be published by the end of the year, not six months ago, and we are looking to publish it as soon as we can. We want to make sure that the investment choices that we make within it are the right choices for ensuring that we have the capabilities we need now, as well as in the future.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, can I press the Minister on why the investment plan has been delayed for so long? Is it because there is disagreement within the Government about its affordability and how we can develop our capacity if we were to reduce dependence on Americans and yet have walked away from joint procurement with the EU, which Canada has joined, and we have rejected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord often raises capability and defence investment in our industry. One of the challenges we faced was the fact that our industries have declined. Much of the ability of defence infrastructure to produce the things that we need has gone, and the Government are trying to do something about that. We have announced new munitions factories and we have got the defence investment plan coming. We are trying to recognise that, in order to fight wars now and those which may come in the future, we need a defence industry which has the capacity to deliver the equipment and goods that we need.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the defence industry will judge the Government not by the promises they have made—which the Chief of the Defence Staff welcomed, as the Minister mentioned—but on what they actually deliver. One of the ways that will be judged, for example, is when we see the defence investment plan. When I asked the Minister about this on 8 December, he said Ministers were working hard to deliver it by the end of the year; that deadline has passed. I heard the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, but can he give us some more detail? When are the Government aiming to do that—by the end of the month, or the end of the quarter? If they do not start delivering, people will think their promises are just words, not actions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the challenge that the noble Lord makes, but I cannot give him a specific time—next week or by the end of the month—by which it will be published. We are determined, through the defence investment plan, to make sure that we get this right; that we make the right choices and that we do not have a situation where, in order to meet some timetable, we produce a defence investment plan that does not enable us to have the war-fighting capability that we need. The noble Lord challenged me to say what we are doing at the moment. The CDEL budget in 2024-25 is £22.7 billion. In 2028-29 it will be £31.5 billion, which is nearly £10 billion more. The total DEL budget was £60.2 billion in 2025 and in 2028-29 it will be £73.5 billion. There are billions of pounds of additional investment, much of which we hope to be spent in our own country, with our own industry.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

Can the Minister assure the House that, notwithstanding all that we have heard, we are fully up to speed with the commitments to be made to deliver them within the right time going forward? That is very important post Brexit, with all the threats, as we know, to the rules-based order.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are certainly trying to do exactly as the noble Lord says: to deliver properly, effectively and coherently on the choices that we face within the defence investment plan. Whatever we increase the budget to, there will always be debates on where that should be invested and what choices we make within that. We want to make sure that we get those right. On Europe and the alliances, the noble Lord will know that we are trying to work more closely with our European colleagues and have strengthened bilateral relationships with a number of countries, not least Germany, France and Poland.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, investment is clearly vital, and it is obviously welcome that the Government are willing to spend more on defence, but this House needs to be reassured that the expenditure is going to come and that the capabilities will be in place in such a manner that we will be able to act more as a middle-ranking power, not a diminishing power. Do His Majesty’s Government believe that they are going in the right direction and that we will be able to play a full and effective role in NATO?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly will. I will not have our country categorised as a middle-ranking power or a diminishing power. I just do not believe that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness does either. She is quite right to challenge us on investment; we need the investment that I have outlined in the answers that I have given. I know she supports that investment, and I look forward to working with her, and collectively across this House, to ensure that we have the capacity and the capabilities we need to play the full and proper role in NATO that she and I support.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have stated, encouragingly and repeatedly, that defence is a number one priority, but there is a current budget black hole in the MoD of £2.6 billion, defence industry partners are being starved of essential orders, the Autumn Budget was deafeningly silent on how we reach the spend of 3% in the next Parliament, and the defence investment plan is taking longer than an elephant’s pregnancy. That is a bizarre reflection of priority. Can the Minister, with his legendary bonhomie, shine any light on this gloom?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will first have to tell me how long an elephant’s pregnancy is— I have absolutely no idea whether that is good news or bad news, and I do not know whether anybody else does.

The noble Baroness makes a serious point, challenging the Government on the defence investment plan. I say to this House and to the noble Baroness, who I know takes a keen interest and is very supportive of defence overall, that the defence investment plan will be published when we are in a position to have made the necessary choices to deliver the war-fighting readiness that we want and the capability to fight if we need to, now, in the middle term and in the long term. There are in-year choices that we are dealing with, and the chiefs are fully involved in the discussion and debate on how we take that forward.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, who I am pleased to see has just taken his place, said in answer to a previous Question in this House that any increase in the defence budget beyond 2.5% is a matter for the next Parliament and anything beyond 3% is a matter for the Parliament beyond that. Does the Minister realise that this is a wholly irresponsible attitude? If we are to achieve 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035 in a sensible, graduated manner that expands the defence industrial base in this country at a sensible pace, along with military capability, we need a plan for doing it now, and it needs to start today, not in 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord will know the Government’s position, as laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. We have a plan for the achievement of 2.6%; we have the ambition of 3%. It was remarkable for the Prime Minister to say at The Hague that we will have a commitment of 3.5%, with an overall commitment on defence and security of 5%. That is an important step forward and an important statement by the Government on their ambition for defence spending, and one that I look forward to us trying to keep.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in seeking to address legacy issues arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles, I suspect that what we are all agreed on is that there is no absolutely right way in which to proceed. A judgment about what is the least harmful approach has to be made. May I ask the Minister two questions? Why have the Government created equivalence between our Armed Forces serving their country and terrorists who committed murder and torture? How can such an abandonment of our Armed Forces be the least harmful way to proceed?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.

We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee pointed out, the current legislation, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, managed to do one thing, which was to unite the parties of Northern Ireland against it. The Minister is right that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. Can he reassure the House and veterans that the proposals that are coming forward really will ensure that veterans are not left vulnerable? In particular, as my honourable friend the Member for Lewes said:

“Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 63.]


Will the draft legislation actually ensure that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, as always, has asked a very important question. A number of people will listen to her question. There are a number of people in this Chamber who know Northern Ireland far better than I do—it is good to see my noble friend Lady Anderson here. The Government will continue to discuss with veterans’ organisations, veterans themselves, people across this Chamber and indeed the other place, and people in Northern Ireland to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that is fair to our veterans, the families and the people of Northern Ireland. Part of that is the continuing discussions which are taking place.

We are pleased that the protections for veterans will go into the Bill. There will be five protections in the Bill and there is continuing discussion about the sixth. But I can reassure the noble Baroness and others that we will continue to talk across this Chamber and the whole of Northern Ireland to ensure that, as far as possible, we build a consensus and take into account the views of everyone, but most especially our veterans.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend the Minister in what he is saying. There is no moral equivalence between any member of the security forces and a terrorist. There is no question about that, and he is right to say that. I remind the House, as I am sure he will, that while nobody wants to see people well into their retirement dragged out and hauled before the courts—it rarely ever happens; it is not going to happen—equally, nobody wants to go back to a dreadful Act which found its way into a judicial judgment that found that we could not actually proceed in the way that the last Conservative Government wanted to, and he is striking exactly the right balance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, with his experience and knowledge, for that. We are trying to replace something that was unworkable and judged by the courts to be illegal. It is not an easy process; we are trying to go forward in a way which adheres to the principle that everyone in this House would respect—the moral equivalence point—but how do we deal with the legacy issues that are there? We need the support, help and advice of people across this Chamber, in Northern Ireland and in the other place to ensure that we can do that.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, has warned in the last few days that the current draft of the proposed legislation treats terrorists better than veterans. We know that terrorists have the protection of weapons having been destroyed with no forensics. The documentation from terrorist organisations is not coming. Indeed, they are protected by a form of omertà among their members. So what changes will the Government make to the legislation to provide at least some level of additional protection to veterans beyond what is there at present?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a reasonable point, but the protections we have in the Bill are an important starting point. Of course, we will talk to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, the veterans’ associations and everyone—indeed, those discussions are taking place. No doubt amendments will be tabled in the other place and here. We are seeking to build a consensus to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that commands as widespread support across the community as it can. We will certainly take on board the noble Lord’s comments.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, might I suggest that instead of a Northern Ireland Bill, it would better to introduce an amnesty in respect of all offences alleged to have been committed prior to the Good Friday agreement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think people want answers, and investigation into many of the things that have taken place. I do not think an amnesty is the right way forward to achieve that.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, members of my family have served in the Armed Forces for some 120 years. Is the Minister aware that in the 55 years since 1969, while some 300,000 members of the Armed Forces served in Northern Ireland over 30 years, the British Army reported that there were very few prosecutions of military personnel for serious offences? A dozen or so were reported in 30 years, and only four soldiers were convicted. Some 30,000 to 40,000 paramilitaries were convicted in those 30 years.

Most recently, Soldier F was found not guilty of charges arising from Bloody Sunday, because the judge said that the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof. But the judge did say that Soldier G, Soldier H, Soldier F and Soldier E were part of the initial group of soldiers who entered the square and were responsible for two deaths and four, possibly five woundings.

It is not the case that there has been a witch hunt, and I think the Minister will surely agree with me that our soldiers should be reassured that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, and that the people of Northern Ireland will all be subject to the rule of law.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Obviously, I agree with the points the noble Baroness has made.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, central to the legacy Bill is the impetus to protect victims and survivors. Therefore, does my noble friend Minister agree with me that there is a need for an adherence to a human rights-compliant approach in all aspects of the legislation impacting on various parts of society within these islands?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course, the application of human rights legislation is important. The one thing I would say is that the ECHR cannot be applied retrospectively.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner was a creation of New Decade, New Approach, which brought the Government of Northern Ireland back together in 2020. Given that, will he listen to the very strong opinion of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner that veterans feel that they are treated as less than terrorists? Surely that is something the Government should be very concerned about.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course that is a concern, and of course what the veterans commissioner has said is important. We are trying to reassure. We are meeting veterans and various associations. We do not shy away from doing that, and we will continue to do so, to try to ensure that the Act that we bring forward is an Act with which they agree.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I wish to make some comments on Amendment 22 in my name, and I will seek not to transgress my time in relation to this one.

In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out the difficulty arising from the fact that while the Mauritius treaty makes provision for the leasing of Diego Garcia by the United Kingdom, this does not change the fact that in the event that the Mauritius treaty is ratified, Diego Garcia would come under the sovereignty of Mauritius.

This is problematic for two reasons at least. First, the Republic of Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which means that no nuclear weapons can be held in the territory over which it is sovereign. Secondly, Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty expressly states:

“Each Party confirms that none of its existing international obligations or arrangements now in force or effect between it and any third party is in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.


Can the Minister confirm—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has already made reference to this—that the Government have discussed this matter in its entirety with the Government of the United States and that they have confirmation from the US that they have secured their solemn pledge that no nuclear submarines or other nuclear weapons will be able to be taken to Diego Garcia if sovereignty is transferred?

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point. But I very gently say that while of course he must not discuss operational matters, this cannot be pushed as an excuse for dodging questions about compliance with international law. Any attempt to deploy that stratagem, to the point of avoiding the demonstration of compliance with international law when non-compliance is feared, would form a deeply troubling precedent.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to get up for the first time on Report and address your Lordships on this important group dealing with security matters. I will try to come to some of the points that have been raised.

I will come to the point about the letter that the noble Baroness raised, but I will start with the challenge that she put at the end to explain how the Government are dealing with the position on the treaty from a security point of view. This answers some of the questions that have been asked, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I will not go into some of the operational points that have been made by him and others. However, on the security matters, I can say that if your Lordships look at the expressions of support for the security aspects of this treaty, all our major international allies and partners have supported the security arrangements. That is a fairly significant point for us to make and a fairly important point for the House to recognise.

To answer the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester: President Trump expressed support for the Diego Garcia arrangements within the treaty. US Secretary Hegseth said:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead”.


That was not me but the US.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

What is the US paying Britain for the lease? It is pretty clear why the Americans are supporting this: they are not having to shell out £34 billion.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The US pays for the operations at the base and has done for many years. I say to the noble Earl that it is a fairly important policy that the Government have secured this to ensure the security of the base over the coming decades. I will come to AUKUS in a minute, but the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and other noble Lords have asked in their amendments how the treaty arrangements protect the security of the base. All I am doing is reading out what our crucial allies are saying about it. I am saying what they are saying about it. They are paying for the operation of the base. We have secured the future of the base, and they are supporting it. Secretary Rubio came out and supported the base as well.

People ask me how we have secured it—this is the challenge the noble Baroness put to me—and how we have ensured that we have secured the future of the base. We have secured it by ensuring that our major allies support it. I can only imagine what the noble Earl would say if I could not read out quotes from the US supporting what we are doing. The Five Eyes have all supported it. Of the AUKUS partners, Australia supports it as well as the US. Canada, Japan, Korea and India have supported it. I think that is an important position for the Government to be in. That is the context within which all the amendments should be considered.

I do not question the desire of noble Lords in their amendments to challenge the Government and to understand how effectively we have done that. All I am arguing before your Lordships is that, in the context of the treaty, the future of the base is secured. That is a fairly important statement for the Government to be able to make. I will come to the Pelindaba treaty when I come to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and address the specifics that the noble Baroness raised.

Amendment 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, requests a statement from the Secretary of State on base security. The treaty has robust security provisions to protect the base, including full operational control of Diego Garcia, full UK control over the presence of foreign security forces across the archipelago and an effective veto over any construction or development that risks undermining, prejudicing or otherwise interfering with the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base on Diego Garcia. Claims that Mauritius is an unreliable partner and one that cannot be trusted are unfounded. Mauritius is a member of the Commonwealth and a westward-facing country with shared democratic values. Mauritius ranks among the top African nations in governance, human development and innovation. It is a full democracy, a regional leader in human rights and a trusted partner in upholding the rules-based international order, ranking second out of 54 African countries in the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for tabling Amendment 14 and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for supporting him. The noble Baroness asked me—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, as well; I always try to be helpful, as noble Lords know—to ask my officials to draft a letter between now and Third Reading. Of course I will do that. I cannot guarantee that the content will necessarily be everything that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord want, but asking for a letter is a perfectly reasonable request. That will be done, and I will place a copy of it in the Library so that it is available to all noble Lords to consider as we move towards Third Reading.

Regarding the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, he knows—he has been a senior Minister and has a distinguished former Prime Minister sitting next to him—that it is very difficult to answer some of the specific questions that noble Lords have posed about certain capabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, recognised that we cannot talk about it. I will say what I can. Amendment 14 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would require guarantees

“that Mauritius will not enforce its duties under the Pelindaba Treaty on the Base”

and that sovereignty would revert to the UK if it did. As I said in Committee, the Governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with their existing obligations under applicable international law. The UK will ensure that all operations on Diego Garcia comply with its existing obligations. The UK is not a party to the Pelindaba treaty, although it is a party to Protocols I and II. The treaty and the Bill will allow the base to operate as it always has. It will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to and from Diego Garcia in any way.

Lithuania: Balloon Incursions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rawlings]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the defence implications of balloon incursions into Lithuania for British forces stationed in the Baltic states.

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

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, my son-in-law, as a reservist, has served recently in the Balkans and may well do so again in the future.

Lithuania has experienced over 600 balloon incursions and over 200 drone violations in 2025. It has requested support from a NATO counter-hybrid support team. The UK is the framework nation of NATO’s forward land forces in Estonia. UK forces stationed in the Baltic states as part of NATO’s forward presence remain safe and able to operate effectively. There has been no change to force protection posture for UK personnel as a result of this incident.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive Answer; he always gives very good answers. Balloons are not just for Christmas or festival treats. Sadly, these balloons can be serious weapons, as we have heard. Can the Minister enlighten us further about the deadly balloon incursions in Lithuania at the moment?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Lithuanian intelligence is that the vast majority of the balloons in the drone incursions to which I have referred are for criminal activity and relate mainly to tobacco and cigarettes. Of course, that does not alter that Lithuania believes, with some credibility, that this is part of Belarus weaponising that sort of activity in order to destabilise and disrupt Lithuania and elsewhere.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, have any Royal Air Force flights been affected by these balloons? More serious even than that, this type of activity could become more widespread. What attempt are the Government making to deal with the possibility of further attacks? For example, have they tasked the Advanced Research + Invention Agency with working on this problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are looking at all the various options to deter such activity, as the noble and gallant Lord will know from his own experience. Through Eastern Sentry we have tasked Royal Air Force assets to try to deter right across the eastern flank of NATO. More of that will be done. In January 2026, SACEUR will be announcing further measures that will be taken with respect to that. I point out, as I often do, the importance of deterrents. I am not talking about balloons, but since the introduction of Eastern Sentry on 10 September, there have been no Russian military aircraft incursions into NATO airspace.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the media coverage of this universally describes a significant proportion of it being done by Belarus as a proxy for Russia. Last month, Admiral Dragone, the head of NATO’s Military Committee, said that the western military alliance was considering a more aggressive or proactive stance to Russia’s hybrid warfare, which this is. To what extent are we contributing to that process of consideration?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are contributing to a whole range of efforts to deter Belarus’s activity, or Belarus acting as a Russian proxy. Lithuania and a number of other states have requested a NATO counter-hybrid support team from us. In the next couple of weeks it will work with Lithuania to assess what is going on there and what needs to be done, and to support Lithuania and others, if necessary, in order to deter this activity and respond appropriately.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, in a normal world, Belarus would be offering co-operation to stop this smuggling, rather than sneering and saying that Lithuania has to solve it. Lithuania has offered €1 million to anybody who can work out how to deal with these balloons. What are we doing, in co-operation with NATO’s centres of excellence in Tallinn and in Helsinki for countering hybrid and cyber threats, to ensure that we can find ways of dealing with the balloons? They represent a threat to the whole of NATO.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with the threat that they represent, and the destabilisation and disruption that they cause. We are doing exactly what Lithuania has asked us to do. It has asked us, with NATO, to send a counter-hybrid team to Lithuania to work with it and establish what it needs to do to deal with the threat from the balloons, and the drone incursions, and find the most appropriate way forward. We are doing exactly what Lithuania is asking us to do within the auspices of NATO.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome and support the Government’s announcement of support through NATO. I have visited troops in that part of the world, and I know we do a lot of work in the JEF as well. Can the Minister say, particularly with regard to countries in the Balkans, what extra support is planned within the context and framework of the JEF to send a straight signal to Belarus and Russia that the threat from Belarus—we have also seen challenges in the airspace of Poland—will not be accepted or tolerated?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is an important question, and one that both the previous Government and this Government have sought to deal with. The noble Lord will know that there are 1,000 British troops in Estonia as part of the forward land forces, along with defence attachés and others in support in other JEF nations. The noble Lord will know of Baltic Sentry, the maritime defence in and around underwater cables in the Baltic. So we have forward land forces, Baltic Sentry and, alongside that, the Eastern Sentry, which is the aerial operation. At a land force level, a maritime level and an air level, within the auspices of NATO, this country is contributing to deter Russia and to deal with the threats. We can be proud of what we are trying to do to deter Russia from the activity it is seeking to pursue.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as we approach Christmas, I am sure that my noble friend and all Members of the House would wish to thank the members of our Armed Forces and security services, who will be working over Christmas, at home and abroad, to keep us all safe. The Baltic states are on the front line against Russian aggression, and are doing a sterling job through the efforts of not only their armed forces but their populations. What more can NATO partners do to meet the defence expenditure goals that were set at The Hague earlier this year?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I join my noble friend in his congratulations and recognition of our serving Armed Forces personnel and their families who stand behind them. It is important to recognise that, particularly at this time of the year, as my noble friend has just done. I am sure that the whole House joins him in that.

Discussions are ongoing about how we can meet NATO expenditure targets. While those discussions around expenditure and budgets are ongoing, we can point to the many things that we are already doing. This includes through RAF fighter support within Eastern Sentry, the troops that we are committing, maritime support of Nordic Warden, and responding to the request directly from the Lithuanian Government, through NATO, to provide the counter-hybrid support team. Whatever is needed, we will do it. I say again that, in order to stop Russia and the aggression we face, this has to be deterred. As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, since 10 September and the adoption by NATO of Eastern Sentry, there have been no Russian military incursions into NATO airspace. That shows us all the value of deterrents.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Royal Navy does a brilliant job of helping to stop smugglers in various parts of the world. If the situation in Lithuania is cigarette smuggling, will the Government consider allowing our forces on the ground to assist with ending the illegal smuggling trade in the region?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are doing all that we can. Lithuania is telling us that it is cigarettes and tobacco smuggling, in the vast majority of cases, with respect to the balloons and the drones. It sees this as criminal activity. Lithuania is saying to us that the weaponisation of that criminal activity is being used by Belarus, and Belarus as a proxy, to disrupt and destabilise. That is why the counter-hybrid support team, under the auspices of NATO, is going to Lithuania. It is going there to talk about what specifically Lithuania believes is necessary to deter and deal with the threat that it faces. That is the proper way forward.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, we may be approaching Christmas, but the people of Ukraine will face no peace. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, highlighted the comments of the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff—to which he might have added the Secretary General of NATO—that we are planning for war. This is a clear statement that starts to match the passion that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, represents in this House every time he speaks about this issue. I wonder why we and our Government are not planning to increase spending on defence in 2030, or increase it again in 2035. Our opponents are doing something now. Is it not time to redress that priority?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know the Government’s defence spending policy, and he and others will no doubt continue to make the case they do. As we approach Christmas and beyond, and the search for peace in a way that is consistent with what Ukraine would want goes on, this country can be proud of what it is doing with respect to Ukraine. It stood up for the people of Ukraine and defended freedom, democracy and the international borders that international law represents. The noble Lord will continue to press the case for defence spending. But even within the auspices of current spending and the increases the Government have agreed to over the next couple of years, there will be no doubt that we will stand up to Russian aggression and seek to deter it. We will stand with the Ukrainian people in defence of freedom and democracy.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I extend my personal sorrow to the family of Lance Corporal George Hooley. His tragic death is a humbling reminder of the risk that we ask all those who serve with such honour to confront on a daily basis.

In relation to the Urgent Question, we have here a story of starkly, indeed darkly, contrasting facts. In the summer, troops were taken ill after using Ajax vehicles. In late November, 31 soldiers fell ill after using the vehicles, forcing a two-week suspension of Ajax’s use while a safety investigation was carried out. Personnel have been limited to spending only one and a half hours inside the vehicles due to health concerns. Their speed has been restricted because of instability, and they cannot fire while moving. Meanwhile, in early November Mr Luke Pollard, the Minister, visited General Dynamics in Wales to mark the initial operating capability of Ajax. The November edition of Desider, an internal MoD publication, lavished praise on Ajax as a “world-class armoured fighting vehicle” and a “transformational capability”.

Given what we now know, I ask the Minister how on earth the MoD could accept initial operating capability. Who signed that off? If this nightmare cannot be fixed, as looks increasingly likely, can the contract be terminated?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about our British serviceman who was so tragically lost. The whole House will join in her remarks.

With respect to the position regarding Ajax, the previous Minister will be well aware of the various reports and representations that have been made to various Ministers over a number of years. All Ministers, past and present, will want answers to the very questions that the noble Baroness has quite rightly put to us. Like all of us, she will be waiting for the results of the various investigations that have been set up. I assure her that—as she will have heard from my colleague in the other place—when we get the results of those investigations, we will consider all available options on how we move forward.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches also recognise the responsibilities we have with troops now helping to train the Ukrainian army and we send our condolences; we know that we are committed to Ukraine. Now that we are waiting for further comments on what is really happening with the Ajax vehicle, can I ask three quick wider questions?

First, the Minister in the Commons admitted:

“The Army has a number of vehicles that … have been in service for a long period”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/25; col. 58.]


I think that is saying that both the fighting fleet and the logistics fleet are pretty outdated. Does that mean that in this much more dangerous period we should be investing much more into the Army fleet than we currently plan to?

Secondly, the SDR says that we are now in a very different situation but the Treasury, at the Budget, has said that we will do a little bit of extra investment in the next two years and then maybe a bit more in three or four years. Should we not now be talking about a much more serious threat that requires much more defence investment than we are currently planning?

My third question is about strategic partnerships. The Defence Industrial Strategy says:

“It is no longer affordable for NATO Allies, especially within Europe, to develop their own exquisite capabilities at low production volumes”.


That means much closer co-operation and collaboration with others. Given what President Trump is saying about the NATO alliance, that means hard negotiations with our European partners, difficult though it is. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There was quite a bit in that. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the bravery and sacrifice of our Armed Forces. He will know that we have paused all use of the Ajax vehicles pending the outcome of the investigations as the safety of our Armed Forces comes first.

On logistics, I think he refers to the fact that large numbers of trucks are having to be repaired. They are being repaired, and we expect that to be completed in the new year. On the SDR and the money, he will see the budgets that have been made available and the increase over a period of time. He referred to the aspiration to move even further with that, particularly by 2035.

On the point he made about strategic partnerships, of course they are crucial. We spend a large amount of time negotiating with European friends and partners. He will have seen the recent Norway deal with respect to the frigates, and the arrangements we have made with France, Germany and Poland. They are just some examples, and I hope it demonstrates to the noble Lord that we take seriously the need to negotiate, work and co-operate with our European friends, most of which are members of NATO as well.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, this scandal reminds me of a scandal I worked on when I was a very young man: the airborne early warning system of the 1980s. It started under Labour and was cancelled by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne; it cost millions of pounds. Working within that company, Ministers were deliberately deceived so that they could get payment for costs plus. Can the noble Lord, who is a highly respected Minister in this place, assure the House that Ministers have not been deceived over this contract? Is it possible that we could decide to go for an off-the-shelf product from a manufacturer within this country or one of our allies? My noble friend made the difficult decision, and in the 1980s we took an off-the-shelf product to replace the failed airborne early warning contract. We took AWACS, which still works to this day.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. Clearly, Ministers from all Governments make decisions on the basis of the advice they receive. Let us see what the investigation tells us about that advice. He will know that there are four different aspects to the investigations. There are the defence, Army and ministerial aspects, then alongside that, which I think the noble Lord will appreciate, we are looking to people outside the MoD—some independent consultants—to look at what is happening so that we get independent advice. I think that was something the former Minister in the other place, James Cartlidge MP, asked for. When we get the result of those investigations we will take the decisions that are necessary at that point, but we need to wait for the results.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, has any foreign interest been expressed in purchasing Ajax at any stage? If it is not going to be purchased, will it be a UK-only piece of equipment?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not aware of any foreign interest in it, but I will check my facts and come back to the noble and gallant Lord if I am incorrect.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, given the situation in which he finds himself. More than £6 billion has been spent on a fighting vehicle that is more dangerous to our own troops than to the enemy. What steps are being taken to pursue redress for malefaction on the part of the company concerned, General Dynamics? Permanent Secretaries at the Ministry of Defence have been the accounting officers responsible to Parliament for this expenditure. If we find that at the very highest level, Permanent Secretaries and directors-general in the Ministry of Defence have made mistakes that have endangered the lives of our fighting men and wasted millions, will we in this House have the opportunity to ensure that appropriate action is taken to ensure that they cannot play a future role in public life?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know the absolute answer to the noble Lord’s last point, but at some point there will be a significant number of debates and questions that will explore in much more detail the whole Ajax programme since 2014 up to the present day. As I say, we are in a slightly difficult situation because we are waiting for the outcome of those investigations to inform the way forward. The budget of £6.3 billion was set in 2014 and is the same budget now, but I take the noble Lord’s point. Let us come back to it at a future debate when we have the results of the investigations.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. We have a difficult history of armoured fighting vehicle procurements in this country. The TRACER programme was a failed procurement, as was the multi-role armoured vehicle, MRAV, and now we have issues with the Ajax programme. What lessons learned from Ajax are being brought forward into future procurements, such as Boxer and Challenger 3?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without being flippant, I am fed up with lessons learned from various reports over a period of time. The bigger question is why the lessons learned so often do not translate into something that makes a fundamental difference. The noble Baroness worked in the MoD, and the noble Lord works in the way that he suggested. I do not think that the vast majority of people set out to do a bad job; they work with dynamism, principle and determination to do their best. But somewhere along the line, we do not seem to be able to procure the equipment that we should, at the pace we should and for the price we should.

I hope that the defence reform that the Secretary of State has implemented—the establishment of a new National Armaments Director Group, with a new National Armaments Director at the top who is directly accountable for what happens with respect to procurement —is a reform that, in a year, two years or whenever, the noble Lord will be able to describe as a reform that worked. He will be able to say that lessons were learned and actions taken that made a fundamental difference.

We have to get our defence industry working, whether across Europe or fundamentally within our own country, because the defence and security of our nation depend on the sovereign ability of our own industry to produce and develop the goods, ammunition and war equipment that we need to support our soldiers.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference 2026

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the priorities for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

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

My Lords, before I answer the noble Baroness’s Question, I follow the Prime Minister in expressing our deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Lance Corporal George Hooley, who died yesterday in Ukraine. He served his country with honour in the cause of freedom, and all of us in your Lordships’ House will want to affirm that his service will never be forgotten.

The NPT is the cornerstone of international peace and security, and has been for over half a century. The UK is working hard to strengthen the NPT to ensure its continued success. At this review conference we will work across all three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear energy. This will include supporting efforts to create the conditions for disarmament, upholding the IAEA and its safeguards, championing nuclear weapon-free zones, countering attempts to weaken the non-proliferation architecture, and enabling access to nuclear technology for peaceful uses worldwide.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and associate these Benches with his tribute. As he is all too aware, the NPT is in a very fragile state, with nuclear arms states modernising and expanding their range of nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons increase the risk of escalation, miscalculation and accidents. As was stated in your Lordships’ House a couple of weeks ago during Questions, a nuclear war must never be fought and there will be no winners. As the UK is currently chair of the P5, will the Minister use that position to prepare the ground for the NPT conference next April? Meanwhile, will the Government reconsider their refusal to join the UN panel on the physical and societal effects of a nuclear war?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we will always consider any suggestions, but let me be clear: we chair the P5 as part of the NPT. We are very proud to do that. We established the process. This country has as its goal a nuclear-free world, but we also recognise today’s strategic realities, and to meet these challenges, we have to take the action that we do. We are very proud to be part of the P5 and the NPT, but we also recognise in the strategic context that we are in that the nuclear deterrent and its modernisation are essential to our security and that of the global world.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

The Minister takes this extremely seriously, and so he should. Does he agree that the NPT review now faces the worst challenge in the 50 years since its inception in 1968? Will he assure us that our team, when we go into the review, will press on all three of the pillars he described extremely hard and bring home to people the extreme danger of smaller countries wanting to get in on the act, already applying to see whether they can break the existing five’s monopoly, which, of course, is broken a bit anyway, and bring to the public a much stronger understanding of the intense danger of the proliferation everywhere of nuclear bombs?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I strongly agree with the noble Lord’s analysis. The NPT is an essential cornerstone of global security. I suggest that in many ways it has been particularly successful. I was looking at the figures earlier on. In 1986, there were an estimated 70,300 nuclear warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and the most recent figure I could find was 12,241. Although there are challenges, as the noble Lord points out, we have managed in many ways to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to ensure that, as far as possible, the architecture of the post-war world remains the same. However, the noble Lord is right to point out the challenges, and this country, along with our allies and friends, will do all we can to ensure that the NPT remains successful and that all three pillars are pursued.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

I endorse the Minister’s comments about the tragic loss of Lance Corporal Hooley and express sympathy to the lance corporal’s family and friends. What analysis have the Government made of the likely impact on non-proliferation efforts of the wholly inadequate response of the international community to Russia’s violation of the Budapest memorandum through its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent war of aggression in Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his comments, and I should have thanked the noble Baroness for associating herself with the remarks that I made about the tragic death of our serviceman. The lesson I think we should learn as a country is that it is important for us to reassert and re-establish the principle of deterrence. Part of preventing war is actually preparing for war. The whole success of the deterrent is the fact that the nuclear deterrent is there—the theory of deterrence. I think what happened following the Budapest arrangements, the withdrawal of nuclear weapons there, is perhaps a lesson for us that sometimes a position of strength allows you to negotiate and pursue peace more effectively than in the alternative way.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

First, on behalf of these Benches I echo and endorse the Minister’s sentiments on the tragic death of Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment in Ukraine while observing Ukrainian forces testing a new defensive capability, and we of course extend our condolences to his family on this tragic loss. On the subject of proliferation, what is the Government’s current assessment of Iran’s progress towards nuclear capability? What work is ongoing to discourage Iran from further progress, and what steps is the UK taking in concert with our allies to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I first thank the noble Lord for the comments that he made and his association with my remarks about the tragic death. It is appreciated by everyone in this House and beyond. The noble Lord will know that there is no difference between us all. We support the work of the IAEA in ensuring that Iran’s nuclear technology is not used for the making or establishment of a nuclear weapons facility; we take action with respect to that. The noble Lord will have seen the action that others have chosen to take. The UK takes this very seriously, and we continue to press Iran to ensure that it abides by the provisions of the NPT.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the challenge of the review next year is to prevent the escalation, never mind the reduction, of nuclear weapons, and to ensure that there is no worrying escalation by America, China or Russia of their threats to test nuclear weapons, for example. How can we be sure that we put the process into reverse rather than see it escalate?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The establishment and existence of the NPT, which involves 191 countries, including all the countries—Russia, China and the United States—that the noble Lord has mentioned, provides a conference and a venue in which much of this can be discussed. All I am saying is that the NPT has been a successful vehicle. We need to continue to support it to try to take this forward.

The noble Lord mentions the comprehensive test-ban treaty; that has been another success. I know the point that he is making about the apparent re-establishment—according to President Trump—of that. That is a matter for America. This country has not tested a nuclear weapon since the early 1990s. We adhere to the provisions of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and to the provisions of the NPT. We ask and call on other countries to do exactly the same.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

At the risk of repeating myself—the only thing that I am testing is my memory—can the Minister give us any reassurance that the international community is taking seriously the increase in the production of nuclear weapons, and in weapons capability, by the DPRK? What action is being taken with some of the DPRK’s influential neighbours to contain a potentially lethal situation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be pleased to know that I never repeat myself. On the serious point about the DPRK, we take that challenge seriously. The DPRK announced that it had departed from the NPT in 2003. That is something that the UK and the international community dispute and do not accept. We call on the neighbours to which the noble Lord refers to put pressure on the DPRK to adhere to its responsibilities that it accepted when it joined the NPT in the first place.

Armed Services: Sexual Violence

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Curran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what support is offered to victims of sexual violence in the armed services.

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

My Lords, people who choose to serve their country deserve to do so free from fear of abuse. The Defence Serious Crime Command has driven improvements to victim care and investigations since its establishment in December 2022. The Victim Witness Care Unit has delivered independent, exemplary care to victims of crime since launching in 2023. We have partnerships with several charities providing independent support, and we are further strengthening this with an independent legal advocacy pilot and improving access to medical support following an incident, so action continues.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very helpful reply. Are all complaints of sexual harassment and assault recorded? How are they monitored, and is the Minister aware of what percentage leads to disciplinary action or prosecution?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Question, which I think is of importance and interest to us all. As I said, various units have been set up to deal with this problem. The MoD publishes annual statistics for sexual offending within the service justice system, and the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces reports on complaints of sexual harassment. In 2024, there were 294 criminal investigations into sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault, compared to 251 in 2023. Additionally, 37 cases were transferred to the Home Office police. A further 10 cases were recategorised as non-sexual offences but remained within the service justice system and were handled by commanding officers. The Service Prosecuting Authority brought 61 charges for sexual offences in 2024 based on cases received that year. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Army website for the Victim Support Pathway for sexual offences is, helpfully, very clear and, most of all, encouraging, making it plain that it is not the victim’s fault and setting out a route for her—it usually is a her—to get help. I apologise for asking for more data, but is there data yet by rank to show what percentage of the military workforce has undertaken training recommended on the Victim Support Pathway? The key advice about not being a bystander will work only if there is extensive training throughout the military.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of training all ranks. Certainly, I know that the military take that extremely seriously. The establishment of the victim care unit is part of ensuring that victims are supported through the process. On whether the training has been identified according to rank, I will go back and see whether that has been done.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of supporting victims is showing clear and sustained condemnation for this type of behaviour, and ensuring that the military pursues these cases vigorously and rapidly and that we do not find delay in the process?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know that there have been a number of documented cases of utterly unacceptable behaviour, some of which is criminal and deserves to be prosecuted. I know from speaking to senior officers, past and present, that they are determined to do something about the small number of people who undermine the culture of our Armed Forces. They are adamant in the pursuit of those who break those rules and act inappropriately. The Government support them in that, as did the previous Government. We support our senior officers and officers at all ranks in rooting out this totally unacceptable behaviour.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, this Question is specifically about sexual violence, but a lot of distress is caused by sexual harassment. Can the Minister assure the House that sexual harassment, which can cause great anxiety and difficulty to the victim involved, is taken very seriously too in the Armed Forces?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can assure my noble friend of that. The Armed Forces go out of their way to encourage service personnel to report all examples of sexual harassment. They make it clear that sexual harassment or sexual intimidation below what we might consider to be the criminal threshold is unacceptable as well. They encourage self-reporting and keep statistics in respect of that. At all levels and at all ranks within the Armed Forces, they are seeking to root out unacceptable behaviour, whether it is so-called minor sexually inappropriate behaviour or more serious criminal activities.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in response to my amendment to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which would have enabled an independent direct route to the commissioner for whistleblowing complainers, the Government announced that they would undertake a whistleblowing in defence review. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of that review?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank again the noble Baroness for the whistleblower review amendment that she brought to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in liaison with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. That is being taken forward. The whistleblowing review is under way. We expect an interim report to be available in the very near future, with a full report available sometime in the spring next year. I assure the noble Baroness that it has not been forgotten; it has not been put on the shelf; it is something that we are actively pursuing.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, given that chaplains routinely provide partial support for victims of crime, including sexual offences, can the Minister outline what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure that Armed Forces chaplains receive specialist trauma-informed training so that they can support survivors of sexual violence? Is such training consistent across the services?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can assure the noble—I do not know what the correct title is.

[Noble Lords]

Right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate, who I know very well is the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham. I can reassure the noble—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that of course the chaplaincy service within the Armed Forces is involved in support and dealing with these matters when they arise. That sort of support is essential, because victims should have the confidence and support to come forward. If they do not feel that anyone is there to support them, they will not do so. The chaplaincy service is fully involved in these discussions and obviously at the forefront of giving support to those who find themselves in that situation. As for consistency across all services, I would hope that that is consistent across all three services, because it affects them all, but, again, I will go back and make sure that is the case.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I conducted the study 30 years ago into whether women should serve at sea and came to the conclusion that they should, and it has been a huge success. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, overall, women have added hugely to our Armed Forces and that, with all these debates, there is a real risk it might put women off joining for what is still a fantastic career with huge opportunities for them? It is only a tiny minority, and we need to be very clear to get that message across.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend again on the work that he did with respect to encouraging women into the service and in particular into the Navy and indeed the submarine service. A number of noble and gallant Lords are in the Chamber listening to this debate, and I know that they too have been right at the forefront of encouraging that. Let us be clear, of course there are unacceptable behaviours; of course there are examples where standards are not met, but across the whole of the services, the contribution that women make is phenomenal. They add to our services; they are an important part of our Armed Forces, and it is a brilliant career for women. I hope many more women join the services in the future.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord missed out that it was a ministerial decision to send women to sea, and it was taken because we were turning away very good women and accepting substandard men. That decision was taken by a Conservative Government.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will just say to the noble Lord that I try very hard not to be partisan on defence matters. I do not really care whether it was a Conservative Government or a Labour Government. The important principle is that women have made a huge contribution to our Armed Forces. That decision was the right one and, frankly, that is what we should be celebrating.

Royal Navy Submarine Force

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they have implemented to resolve problems confronting the Royal Navy’s submarine force.

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

My Lords, the Royal Navy has successfully maintained Operation Relentless, the continuous at-sea deterrent, without interruption for over 56 years. We continue to adapt to new challenges to meet our submarine commitments, deploying globally on operations, protecting national interests and keeping us and our allies safe. Today, the First Sea Lord has announced further measures to protect the undersea environment to counter the new threats we face in that domain.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our submarine force is in a parlous state—the worst in my 60 years of service. Successive delays in ordering, a lack of dry dock investment, the failure to recruit and train the requisite nuclear personnel, training delays for those for those we have got, lack of spares and lack of maintenance have all taken their toll. Does our nation realise that, for the last year, this great maritime nation has had one attack submarine operational for most of the time? Some of the time, it has not had one at all. That is pretty horrifying for a maritime nation of our stature. These submarines are war winners. They frighten Putin and are what we use to give the Soviets a hard time with. That is where we have got to on that.

In terms of a continuous at-sea deterrent, at the moment, the boats are having to do 200-day patrols, with no fallback should something go wrong. We have maintained it—it is an amazing effort to do it—but, my God, we should not be in that position.

I think that the MoD does understand this and is beginning to pull things together and 1SL has a 100-day programme to sort it out. I ask my noble friend the Minister, because the nation needs to know how bad this is, can we go back to the Treasury and ask for extra money in-year, which can start an impetus to the 100-day programme of the First Sea Lord?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his Question. He will know that we have been to the Treasury and have secured more money for the defence programme and industry. Just to pick up on a point that my noble friend made, I think it is incumbent on us all to praise our submariners for the work they do and the time they spend at sea. We are seeking to address some of the challenges that my noble friend pointed out. He will know that there are now programmes of investment in the infrastructure of both Devonport and Faslane. He will know that the Dreadnought programme has a commitment of £31 billion, with a £10 billion contingency. He will know that we are seeking to invest in AUKUS, and we also have the Astute programme.

Alongside that, with respect to the problems that my noble friend pointed out with respect to the engineers and technicians who keep our submarines at sea, he will know that we have started to ensure that we recruit more of those. I am also pleased to announce to the House that the recruitment and retention submariners have improved as well. I accept the challenges that my noble friend lays out but, with the First Sea Lord and others, we seek to address that quickly and urgently, as the 100-day plan pointed out.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister explain the maintenance problem, which clearly goes back a number of years? On the dry docks that are not ready, are private contractors are failing in their obligations or is there a shortage of money? What is now being done to rectify this enormous backlog of maintenance, which is a very large part of the problem?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is a challenge. Part of it is investment into the infrastructure. That can take a long time. One of the things that the Navy has looked to deal with that is the floating dry dock concept, which others could explain better than I can. It is certainly something that can be made available much more quickly than the investment into that, but there is significant investment going in Devonport and Faslane. That was something that I indicated in answer to my noble friend. We are also seeking, through the defence technical colleges that were announced as part of the growth deals and other ways, to ensure that we get engineers and technicians into these areas to work. That has been part of the problem.

If I might just digress slightly, I will say that getting technicians, engineers and the important skills that we need is a problem that has bedevilled our country for decades. We have always had a shortage of them, and successive Governments have tried hard to tackle that. Indeed, the noble Lord mentioned defence technical colleges, or whatever they are called, and they were one of the ways in which we tried to deal with that. Certainly, we need to do more to raise the esteem of vocational education to ensure that we get all the technicians and engineers that we need.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Cork and Orrery (CB)]

My Lords, could the Minister advise the House as to the progress of the floating dock construction to which he alluded just now? The programme was announced two years ago but has not yet shown any sign of going into production. Secondly, could he indicate whether there is any linkage between this and the Chancellor’s recent announcement of money to restore the Inchgreen dry dock in Port Glasgow?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to the second part of the question, so I shall have to write to the noble Earl about it. To answer the first part of his question, I know that the Ministry of Defence is looking carefully at the concept of floating dry docks. It is a much quicker way of ensuring that we have the capability that would otherwise be provided by the more traditional dry dock. It is certainly an important question that we need to look at it urgently.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Senior representatives from BAE Systems and Babcock recently warned the Defence Select Committee in the other place of the risk to the AUKUS programme of delays in decision-making and alignment. What steps have the Government taken in the light of that evidence to avert these risks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

With respect to the AUKUS programme, we have made sure that nobody is under any doubt about its importance and our determination to take it forward. There has always been a question about the commitment of the United States to it. Recently—I think it was in October—the President announced its commitment to the programme. The noble Baroness should wait until later in the week, when other things may be said. Let us be clear. The AUKUS programme is a phenomenal alliance between Australia, ourselves and the US, and one of the ways to ensure that it goes forward is for us to have the confidence that we can deliver it and to talk about how it will be delivered as well as some of the challenges it faces.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, do we have any concerns about the commitment of the US Administration to the AUKUS concept?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is now not in his place. I keep saying that the US and the UK are fundamental allies in the protection of global security in every part of the world. To answer my noble friend’s important question, I have no doubt that the US, the UK and Australia will stand together in the AUKUS programme. One way in which we will achieve that is by looking forward to the important steps that the US is taking to work with us. I think it was the Colby review there that looked into the AUKUS programme and found it was something that the US could take forward. As I have said, let us wait until later in the week, but the US-UK alliance is as strong as it ever has been and will continue to be so.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to and acknowledged the shortage of technicians. He also said that we need to raise the status of vocational education. I really do not think that is the problem. We have at least five people chasing every apprenticeship opening in this country. We have excess demand for engineering courses at universities, because they are not funded at a level which means that the number of places can be expanded. Could the Minister say whether his ministry is talking directly to the relevant other departments about how to increase capacity for technician training?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It would be interesting to have a conversation outside the Chamber with the noble Baroness about her challenge to me. Certainly, we are talking to other departments about what more we can do to encourage technical education and I would like to discuss this with the noble Baroness. When I go to MoD establishment after MoD establishment, there are vacancies and they cannot recruit people into those bases to do some of the work they need to do. There is a particular problem and I would be very keen to talk to the noble Baroness about what we might do about it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, is not the most immediate and serious threat to our national prosperity and security the safety of our entire subsea cable system, on which the nation depends daily and hourly? I do not think the Minister has mentioned subsea cables and how to cope with them, or the role of submarines in dealing with this. Can he assure us that, even if we do not have the submarines now, we are planning to build the vehicles—submarines and new technologies—to deal with this rather promptly, because the threat is coming soon?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really important question; I apologise if I have not mentioned undersea cables, because there is an important need and requirement for us as a country to protect them and the critical national infrastructure that flows under the sea. If the noble Lord has not had a chance yet, I suggest that he reads the First Sea Lord’s speech this morning at the International Sea Power Conference, where he talked about Atlantic Bastion, which seeks to deal with many of the points that the noble Lord has quite rightly just raised. These are new undersea technology vessels, for want of a better word, that can operate through the use of artificial intelligence and, as a result of that artificial intelligence, military personnel can make decisions about what they should do. They can stay under water for a considerable period of time and they liaise not only with ships but with aircraft and indeed submarines. That is the sort of thing that I was talking about in the earlier Question about the new warfare and new threats that we face, and the new equipment that we will need to deal with those threats. So, having these uncrewed vessels, alongside our submarines, our ships and our aircraft, as outlined in Atlantic Bastion earlier today, is certainly the way forward, and I hope that that reassures the noble Lord with respect to that threat that we face.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what response they are making to the proposals for a ‘whole society’ approach to threats to national security, as set out in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to reviewing the recommendations outlined in the strategic defence review, which recognises the importance of a whole-of-society approach to strengthening our resilience and readiness against the threats we face. Defence is playing a key role within the Cabinet Office-led home defence programme, which is co-ordinating civil and military preparations against the most serious risks. Our approach includes strengthening our civilian and military links to deliver legislation, enhance critical national infrastructure protection, and develop our reserve and cadet forces.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that this is a very radical proposal? The SDR envisages the mobilisation of substantial numbers of volunteers at local level, under local leadership, in civilian rescue teams, with reserve firemen, special constables and a new home defence force. It also calls for a national conversation on security. Do the Government intend to begin a national conversation, and how will they start to mobilise the sort of people who are needed?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is an important matter and a radical proposal, and it is to do with the new threats we face as a country. We cannot any longer simply carry on as we always have done, so the proposals in this strategic defence review are radical and serious, and we intend to deliver them. One way that we intend to do that is to start to talk to the population of this country about the need for us all to wake up to the threat we face. That will require many of the actions that the noble Lord pointed out, and we intend to come forward with proposals in due course.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, recent surveys suggest that there is weak to no openness among Generation Z to engage with defence or security issues. Going further on what the Minister has just said about talking to people, does he agree that any whole-of-society approach to defence must, as a precursor, require the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces more widely to reconnect with societal attitudes in this country, particularly among young people? If he does agree, can he say in more detail how the Government intend to go about this?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree very much with the noble and gallant Lord’s points. As he said, the reconnection between the military and the civilian population is crucial. The one positive thing I would say is that, just a few weeks ago, like many noble Lords, I was at the remembrance events, where up and down the country tens of thousands of young people were remembering the sacrifice made in the past. They were Scouts, Guides, cadets and Reserve Forces—all of those. That is not a solution to the problem, but it points the way forward. It is one thing we should celebrate, as well as looking at the challenges we still face. The noble and gallant Lord will also know that we look to extend and expand the reserve and cadet forces. That will take some doing, but we are determined to do it.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

An important feature of the strategic defence review will be the defence investment plan. Can the Minister update the House about whether that will be published, as it was intended to be, before the Christmas Recess, and how the national conversation is going on between the Ministry of Defence and His Majesty’s Treasury?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is working hard to finalise the defence investment plan by the end of the year. The discussions that we are having with the Treasury have been successful up to now and we will continue those. Importantly, as well as the point that he made about the Treasury, the noble Lord referred to the national conversation. It is crucial that, across government, whatever Government it is, we start that national conversation with the people of our country so that they recognise the threats that they face, not necessarily from traditional warfare but from “greyfare”, the threats to underwater cables, cyber attacks and all those sorts of things. We face a very real threat from that now, and the question is how we take that national conversation forward quickly and urgently.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest as a senior counsellor with the Cohen Group. Does my noble friend agree that the importance of the strategic defence review, which needs to get through to the wider public, is that Britain is under attack, both at home and from abroad, and that the transformation of defence, which is what the strategic defence review is all about, is essential for the nation’s safety? In the light of the stunningly depressing national security review published by the Americans last Friday, even more needs to be done to warn our public about the risks that we now face, and which we might now have to face without the United States of America?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I totally agree with the comments that my noble friend has made. I read the strategic defence review again over the weekend in preparing for the Question, so I know that it is chapter 6. The important part was the challenge that it makes—not only to the public but to us as politicians and to Parliament—to reflect on how we engage. Too often, when we talk about national conversations, we talk about having a village hall meeting here or a village hall meeting there. That is not sufficient. This requires a whole-government approach, involving all government departments, the devolved Governments, local authorities, civil society, financial society and industry. All those together need to wake up to the very real threat. As my noble friend says, we are facing a threat now, not in a year’s time or five years’ time. That threat is upon us, and we need to wake up to it.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I echo what the Minister has been saying: the threat that we are facing is immediate. Other countries, recognising that urgency, have taken steps to engage their public through a range of measures, from conscription at one end to seeking volunteers aged 18 and over for military training—as in France and Germany—at the other end. I think what this Chamber wants to know is what imminent steps will the Government take to educate the British public now about the gravity of the situation and to put the UK on to a comparable readiness footing to these other countries.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In saying that we need to do more and to act more urgently, there are already steps that have started to be taken across government. We are already looking at how we extend and develop the reserve and cadet forces, which are important. We are already looking at how we celebrate the involvement of young people at remembrance events, as I just said. We are also having seminars and conferences with industry and with finance—I am going to an event on Thursday night with veterans and the City of London. All sorts of different events are taking place that seek to address the very real and important issues that the noble Baroness has raised. The real challenge for the Government is how we do that more quickly and more urgently, but it is certainly one that they have addressed and have taken on board. It is a whole-government response; it is not just the government response now—although the Government have to lead it, of course—but how we all come together to address that very real challenge that we face.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

More fundamentally, does the Minister agree that the real resilience of a nation does not rest on the state of its physical infrastructure, or military numbers, or the number of boy scouts or reserves that we have, but, rather, it rests on its moral fibre and its societal integrity? The Minister does not explain or tell the House what the delivery pathways are that will enhance the human dimension of national resilience, for they are sorely needed.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is an important challenge and an important question put by the noble and gallant Lord. The starting point is to speak up and speak out, in a way that sometimes does not happen. For example, there is very real resilience among the population in many respects, but we need to explain to people, through government, devolved Governments and local government, the very real threats and challenges that they face now. The point that members of the public, more generally, need to understand is that it is not the traditional warfare, necessarily, that is the threat we are currently facing but the cyber attacks that we have already seen many examples of in our country, the threats to underwater cables and the threat to data. Indeed, it is why the carrier strike group was in the Indo-Pacific recently, protecting the trade routes on which this country’s economy and prosperity also depend. We need to do more on that, because, as the noble and gallant Lord says, building resilience among the population is something that needs to be done. I have confidence in the British people that if that is explained to them, they will stand up for it.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. The Minister is saying all the right things; he is talking about how urgent it is, how it must be the whole of society and the whole of government, but he did not answer the question put at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on when this national conversation is going to start. Could he give us a clearer indication of the Government’s timescale on that, and an indication, for example, of when the defence readiness bill—proposed in the security review—is going to come forward, and whether it will include a wider definition so that it looks at all the hazards we face, including climate change, criminal cyber gangs as well as hazards from overseas states?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sure that when it comes forward, a defence readiness bill will include many of the things that my noble friend has pointed to. Defence in that sense, as he says, is more than just military equipment and troops; it is about climate change and many of the other things that he mentioned. The conversation has already started. We have started having conferences and conversations with different parts of industry. What I am saying to the Chamber, to my noble friend and to all those who spend so much time working on this, as I know he does, is that we need to accelerate and expand that, and to do that more than we are doing at present. A conference here and a conference there, while worth while and important, are not at the level of the sort of national conversation that needs to take place regarding our country. That is the point that I am trying to make. We have an Armed Forces Bill next year, but we are exploring defence readiness legislation—we look forward to seeing whether we can deliver that in this Parliament.