UK Homeland Defence

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and in so doing I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

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

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the Secretary of State for Defence will shortly make a Statement in the other place, and I will not pre-empt what he will say. However, I will say that the UK has taken a series of actions to strengthen our collective defence. NATO remains the cornerstone of allied deterrence and defence. NATO’s ballistic missile defence system was designed to deal with precisely this type of threat. We have already seen it in action during this crisis, successfully intercepting missiles that were aimed at Turkey. The MoD is strengthening homeland security, investing up to £1 billion in capability, including air and missile defence, improved munitions stockpiles and readiness at scale to deter and respond to threats.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that response. I am reassured by some of what he has said. However, it looks as though this Iranian capability is not necessarily hugely accurate and under those circumstances it may be difficult to be precise in terms of interception. What thinking is going on regarding guidance to people in this country about what to do in the event of some form of alert? Will there be alerts through the telephone emergency system? What will the guidance be for what people should do in the event of some form of incoming missile?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, the priority of the Government is to intercept any missiles, and the NATO umbrella is designed precisely to tackle that. Of the £1 billion that I outlined as a result of the SDR, we have committed to air defence and already started to spend some of that on various initiatives, including a £118 million contract to deliver state-of-the-art Land Ceptor missile systems to deal with some of the threat. My noble friend is right that, alongside the actions that the Government take to intercept the missiles, we need to talk to the public about the potential threats that they may face. Our assessment is that Iran poses no threat at the current time to the UK. However, we will, as my noble friend rightly keeps asking us, take the action needed to inform the public of the appropriate action that they should take in the event of any such threat coming about.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this conflict has laid bare the acute geopolitical threat that we face and the embarrassing sparseness of readily deployable UK military assets. The first is frightening, the second completely unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm that the discredited UK-Mauritius treaty is now dead and beyond resuscitation and that the excessively and embarrassingly delayed defence investment plan will now be elevated to an issue of urgent national security and published immediately?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the issue of the defence investment plan, I have nothing further to add to what has been said by the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. It will be published when it is ready to be published and we have completed work on it, which will be as soon as possible. Discussions continue on the appropriate way forward with respect to Diego Garcia, so discussions continue on the treaty. The noble Baroness and I are completely united, as everybody in this House is, on the importance of the Diego Garcia base, as we can see at the current time. The difference between us is on how best to protect that base. I take the noble Baroness’s point, but let me reiterate that we see the base as strategically important for the UK and will seek to defend our interests there.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, last June our best and biggest NATO ally said that the Iranian ballistic missile programme had been completely obliterated. President Trump has more recently called NATO both cowardly and unreliable. The UK air defence system is heavily reliant on satellite technology and, when it comes to the UK providing our contracts for this, would it not be better that we have a greater degree of integrity around our own capability, rather than perhaps relying on political allies of President Trump, who himself is an unreliable partner?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me deal with two separate issues on that. First, should the UK develop its own sovereign capability and do as much as we can to have the industry and intelligence that we need ourselves? Of course we should. The Government are taking action to rebuild and develop our own capabilities and industry. I have to say, with respect to the US, as the noble Lord has heard me say many times from this Dispatch Box, let us be under no illusions: the US-UK relationship is fundamental to the defence of our nation and fundamental to the protection of our values not only in this country but in Europe and across the world. The intelligence sharing and military-to-military co-operation that takes place is still absolutely essential to the defence of that. I know the noble Lord agrees with that. I will not get into what the President has said or has not said. All I am saying is that, for the intents of defending this country, our alliance with the United States is fundamental, and we should respect it for that.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, surely the point here is not the threat from Iranian missiles, which would be operating at extreme range with limited payload and very poor accuracy. The lessons to be drawn from this conflict are the vulnerability of military and civilian sites to combined missile and drone attack, which are capabilities Russia has in abundance and the targets set in the UK will be particularly vulnerable to. The Minister has pointed out some of the investment that has been made since the SDR, but it is wholly inadequate to restore the military capability we need to defend these islands and to provide the necessary degree of resilience to such attacks. If the Government do not do something urgently in financing these capabilities correctly, then this country will be vulnerable to such attacks for years to come.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble and gallant Lord that, of course, we await the defence investment plan, but we are not waiting for it before we do things. I have pointed out the investment we have made into some air defence systems already, but he is quite right to point out that we need to make progress at pace, as quickly as we can, to defend against potential missile threats but also against drone threats, which he quite rightly points out. We are assessing what we can do, are trying to work at pace on that, and will do all we can to protect our country—which, as everyone says, is the first duty of any Government.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, we have to realise that it is almost impossible to defend against exoatmospheric ballistic missiles trying to strike one’s country. Indeed, those are the nuclear warheads—if Russia ever goes to war, nuclear-wise—that will be coming towards us. They are hugely expensive and really difficult to take down. Drones are a different issue, and I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we have to start spending some money there. May I ask a slightly different question? We never, ever go to war nowadays; even when I fought in the Falklands, it was not a war. If someone starts lobbing missiles at one’s population, that is war, is it not? Would we go to war? If you go to war, there are a whole raft of things that a nation does, some of them quite horrifying; we have not done those, but, surely, we would if people started trying to kill our public with drones in our major cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to get into hypotheticals of what may or may not happen in the future about “If this were to happen, what would be the Government’s reaction?” The Government and the Prime Minister can and should take credit for the way they and he have handled what is happening at the present time with Iran; indeed, the public can also take credit for the way in which they have responded. We did not join in the offensive action to start with, but, as soon as we saw the indiscriminate retaliation from Iran threatening our citizens, our interests and our partners and allies in the region—who themselves were astounded by the Iranians’ indiscriminate response—the Government did not stand by and say they would not get involved but, because it was a legitimate legal basis on which to do so, said they would get involved in defensive action that did all it could to protect us from that threat. That is at the same time a realistic and strong way to respond, while abiding by international law.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I will not dwell on it but the disgusting destruction in Golders Green last night was despicable.

We are told that there are 20 IRGC-linked plots under investigation here in the UK. I will not ask why the Minister has changed his mind on the IRGC, but I would like to understand how the Government are assessing the combined threat of external missile capability and internal hostile activity directed by Iran.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The whole House will totally agree with what the noble Lord said about the abhorrent antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, which were absolutely disgraceful and should play no part in our society at all.

On the IRGC, the Government continue to keep it under review. The noble Lord will know that there have been many changes of opinion. When I look at some of the votes that took place two or three years ago, it is quite interesting—noble Lords might want to see who voted for what. On the other serious point that he made about the Government’s assessment, the Government of course work very closely with the services to ensure that we keep any threats under review. We can be thankful for the work that our services do to keep us all safe, and that work continues.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I take account of the point raised by the Minister regarding the direct threat from Iranian territory. However, is there not a long-standing concern about the increasing grip of jihadist groups in northern Africa with the ability to be supplied by Iran, given that they are already often sponsored by Iran, and the ability to launch on a route for which there is not the NATO defence, which is rightly focused on the eastern side of the eastern alliance, and which makes Madrid, Paris and London very vulnerable?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important and good point about instability in other regions. Obviously, the focus at the present time is on the Middle East, but clearly we can see problems in north Africa and wider. Only last week, I met with people from Nigeria and west Africa to talk about some of the things that my noble friend talked about. Any assessment of where we go and what we do in the future has to take account not only of threats that we face now but threats that we may face in the future. It is difficult to have a crystal ball, but all of us need to look at the problems that are occurring and how they may impact on us in our own homeland rather than believing that it is thousands of miles away and will never have any impact.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, may I suggest that there is now widespread public support for a very substantial and rapid increase in expenditure on defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As the noble Viscount will know, discussions continue around that. As the British public consider the threats that they face and the turmoil in certain parts of the world, there will be an interesting debate about that. From talking to many people who, frankly, do not share the noble Viscount’s opinion, I know that they would rather see money spent on other things—health, pensions, schools, children and so on—but my view is that the first priority of government is that to defend your country. Some of the rights that everybody enjoy are there only because of the people who fought in the past. Hopefully, nobody will have to fight again, but let us remember that and remember that it needs defence funding to fund it.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, I would argue that societal resilience is very much part of a country’s aura—how it comes across to its adversaries and how it is perceived—and that adds to our deterrence presence. Some of us heard from President Zelenksy last week about what it is like to live in constant fear of attack from the air and how that affects everything in life. Reinforcing the point that my noble friend made in questions, now is the perfect time to use the opportunity—that is a terrible word, but the fact is that we are seeing what is playing out in the Middle East—to have a direct conversation with the public, this week, next week and over the next few weeks, because they are focused on this and it is super urgent that we do that.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is very urgent to have that conversation. I think everybody understands and accepts that. I go back to the noble Lord’s point about defence spending; it requires that conversation, so that will take place. To pick up the other point, I have said time and again from this Dispatch Box that NATO, we and many of our friends and allies need to rediscover the theory of deterrence. You prevent war by preparing for war. You prevent war by people believing that you will actually respond if they break international law. That is a really important point. The rediscovery of deterrence is important. My noble friend’s point about having a national conversation is really important.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has mentioned defence spending on a number of different occasions without mentioning the defence investment plan. It would be remiss of your Lordships if we did not go back to the Minister and ask: when will this plan be published? Our credibility in NATO requires us to demonstrate the spending that has been announced, so when will the plan be published?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I was hoping the noble Lord was going to start with the Leonardo announcement, which he pressed me for in terms of spending; we pocketed that one and moved on. Leonardo was a huge investment that the noble Lord was demanding I do something about. I went back, argued with the department and talked to other Ministers. There is a point about the defence investment plan, and I have answered the questions of the noble Baroness with respect to that. But let us be clear: defence is not standing still. There are many projects.

In Scotland, on the Clyde and in Rosyth, there are ships being built. Billions of pounds are being spent on Plymouth dockyards and on renovating military housing. There is the contract with Leonardo helicopters I announced earlier. Of course, there is a debate about what the total outlay by the Government should be, and we heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord West about those matters, but the belief that the Government are not spending anything and not doing anything is something we should dispel, because billions of pounds-worth of investment are being put into the defence of this country, including, as we progress, into the air and missile defence of the country. That is something we can also be proud of and talk about, as well as the challenges we face.

Middle East: Defence

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as is so frequently the case on defence matters, I stand as the second opposition spokesperson to raise questions for the Minister, but I find myself very much in agreement with the Opposition Front Bench. Having heard statements from the other place, I had thought that today might be somewhat different and that there might be some differences of opinion between us, but the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised many questions that need to be answered. This is not a question of the rights or wrongs of action. We are in a situation that we may not have chosen to be in, but we are there now and we need to work out what His Majesty’s Government are able and planning to do—without giving away any operational secrets, obviously. We need at least to be thinking about the assets that we have available and a little bit more about how we interact with our allies.

I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, with one exception: I put on the record the thanks of the Liberal Democrats to His Majesty’s Armed Forces for, as always, stepping up and going beyond the call of duty. That is essential and their role is so crucial.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the UK’s response to defend our assets, including the sovereign base in Cyprus, seemed glacially slow. If the Government’s view is that all action should be defensive then we on these Benches would support that and we would have been less sure about engaging in offensive action in the initial mission, but we are now in a situation where there will likely be more attacks against the United Kingdom because of the current situation in the Middle East. We therefore need to understand the extent to which His Majesty’s Government and the MoD are able to up our presence in the region. Are HMS “Dragon” and Royal Fleet Auxiliary “Lyme Bay” the only naval vessels that we are able to send? Are we planning other movements? Are we doing everything possible?

There is a question that remains somewhat elusive. The Statement given in the other place talked about defensive action and ensuring legality—that the United Kingdom would act only where there is a clear legal base. However, as my honourable friend in the other place, Richard Foord, asked, how do His Majesty’s Government distinguish between offensive and defensive action in the current circumstances? If we have military embedded with the United States, does that not raise questions about how we deliver what we say we are doing?

Finally, although the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence industrial strategy, she did not make the following plea, which somebody needs to make: when are we going to increase defence expenditure? Talking about the end of this Parliament or the next one is not good enough. This is a regional war that is becoming a global war, and we cannot wait five years. Iran certainly will not.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their important tributes to our Armed Forces. There is no division between any of us in our admiration for our Armed Forces, their families, the communities, and all those who work in our defence industry. I join with both noble Baronesses on that. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, did—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, shares this sentiment— I offer our condolences to the American armed forces personnel who have lost their lives and to the others who have been wounded. I am sure that we all share that sentiment.

I thought the noble Baroness might ask a question about readiness, so I was interested to read the Defence Select Committee’s statement from the other place. Governments cannot always be guaranteed that Select Committees will put forward things that are helpful or indeed true—not that they are not true, but you know what I mean—so let me quote from the Defence Select Committee’s statement of 10 March 2026 on developments in the Middle East:

“Members of the cross-party Defence Committee met this morning with senior civilian and military officials from the Ministry of Defence, for a secret briefing on operations in Iran and the wider region. Although we cannot comment on the substance of that discussion, those Members present were left satisfied that the UK’s decision making and preparedness measures in place ahead of the recent military activity were grounded in a coherent logic”.


I just share that the Select Committee has come to that conclusion.

The noble Baroness quite rightly asked, and I do not dispute the challenge, what our preparedness has been. Since January, we have pre-positioned Typhoon jets and F35s, and counter-drone teams, radar and various other air defence measures were put in place because of the situation that we were concerned about. As the situation has developed, four more Typhoons have been sent, along with more F35s, refuelling Voyager aircraft, A400M, 400 more personnel to Akrotiri in Cyprus, three Wildcat helicopters, one Merlin helicopter, more radar and more air defence, and, as we know, HMS “Dragon” is on the way. The UK Government took that as a sovereign decision. There was no immediate request from the Middle East but we sent that as soon as we were able.

The noble Baroness made a very important point about the Serco contract. It is not true that people were restricted to working from only nine to five at Portsmouth to get the Type 45 destroyer ready. They worked virtually round the clock and they deserve a lot of praise. In the face of a national emergency, the workers and personnel there put in ammunition, refuelled and did all the various things that they needed to do. The crew were recalled and, in six days rather than a few weeks, that ship was ready. As Members of your Lordships’ House know, it is on its way.

The noble Baroness asked about planning. She will know from her own experience that planning obviously takes place. There are lots of considerations about what capabilities are available and may be made available to defend our interests. She asked specifically about offensive and defensive actions. We have been very clear that the legal basis for our action is the collective self-defence of the region and the defence of our Armed Forces personnel and people who are out there. She and others may be interested in the numbers. The latest figure I have is that 55,000 people have been brought back from the region, of some 173,000 people who have registered. Action is being taken on that.

As the noble Baroness knows, we have allowed the use of our bases at Fairford and Diego Garcia to take action which promotes the self-defence of our partners and ourselves. Specifically, those allowances and permissions relate to stockpiles and launch sites. As both noble Baronesses will know, if we can degrade the ability to launch missiles and degrade the stockpiles in the first place, that contributes to the self-defence of the region.

The noble Baroness asked about working with our allies. Only today, I met the Middle East ambassadors. I met last week with all of them, to tell them what we were doing and ask what more they would like us to do to support them—we want to work with them, and not do something to them. We have to have alliances and friendships with these people. They talk to us and they see the various actions that have been taking place. As the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, will know, you cannot have F35s, Typhoons and Voyagers and other air defence flying around without the co-operation of the various states to allow you the space to do it. Sometimes, that requires careful negotiation and consideration, so we work very closely with them to do that. I reassure both noble Baronesses that we continue to do so. At the end of our meeting, I suggested regular meetings. We met last week, we met today and we will have a regular meeting with them to ensure that we continue to work in the way that they would want.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence investment plan, though I will come to the industrial strategy as well. I can say no more than I have said in the past. We will publish that when it is ready to be published. On the industrial strategy and the particular point she made about the Type 26 and Type 31 being built in Scotland, she will welcome the 13 ships that are being built. To be fair, some of that was started under the previous Government, and she will have signed off some of it. All I am saying is that we have carried on with that shipbuilding programme and there will be 13 ships. It is our intention to deliver those 13 ships as quickly as we can, because they will provide us with some of the capability that we need.

The issue is how we deal with the current situation. That is why the noble Baroness was right to ask about the planning and consideration that is going on as to how we meet our responsibilities at the present time while we wait for some of the other capabilities that we want to be built and delivered.

The noble Baroness asked about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, RFA “Lyme Bay”. That is being readied for deployment, should that be decided. We are not in the situation that the noble Baroness suggests of, “Oh, my goodness, we should have an auxiliary ship available”, to take people away, for evacuation or for the delivery of supplies. RFA “Lyme Bay” is in Gibraltar and is being readied to be deployed should it be needed. That will be a further asset for us to use. There is a considerable number of things going on. There are always challenges and difficulties in these situations, and deployments are sometimes not easy. We are working as fast as we can to deliver the things that we are being asked for.

I have mentioned the Middle East and Akrotiri. We have had many discussions about why we do not deploy an aircraft carrier. We have an aircraft carrier, Akrotiri, which is our sovereign base that operates there. We have deployed numerous additional air defences and jets for the defence of our allies in the region and our personnel in the region. Noble Lords will have seen a few days ago the Defence Secretary going to Cyprus to thank and reassure personnel, and to work with and reassure the Government in Cyprus.

A whole range of different actions is taking place. At the end of the day, we will do all we can to reassure our allies, work with them and defend the region, to ensure that we have regional stability and, alongside that, that we protect British citizens, our Armed Forces and our interests there. We are working as hard as we possibly can to do that. I am very proud of much of what is being done, notwithstanding some of the challenges that we face and will no doubt face in the future.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom was not expected to take part in the initial strikes on Iran, as far as I am aware, so why did the Government not authorise the use of Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in mid-February, as my noble friend pointed out, when our ally the USA requested the use of those bases? It meant that the US Air Force was spending 37 hours in the air without a base in Europe.

Further to the attack on RAF Akrotiri, which, as the Minister quite rightly mentioned, is a sovereign British base, by Hezbollah—obviously, the proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran—when will the Government expel Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom, as they did following the Novichok attack by Russia, when we expelled 16 diplomats?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Foreign Office will no doubt have heard the noble Baroness’s request about Iranian diplomats. She will also know that the Foreign Office called in the Iranian ambassador to express our displeasure with what was going on.

There is a point of difference between the noble Baroness and me. I thought the Prime Minister was right not to join in the initial offensive by America and Israel on the Saturday. We did not think it was correct and that is why we would not allow the use of our bases at Fairford and Diego Garcia. She is quite right to point out the problems that that caused flights from the United States, but when the US came with the new request, we agreed.

What made the difference among the Middle East nations was that they could not believe the indiscriminate way in which Iran retaliated. It did not retaliate only against American military bases and Israel; it launched missile attack after missile attack against numerous Middle Eastern countries which were in disbelief that that had happened. They then started to say, “What are we going to do to protect ourselves?” Along with the Middle Eastern countries and their populations, it endangered our Armed Forces and our citizens—people from the UK there for business and tourism.

That is why, in defence of our friends and allies in the region, and in self-defence, we thought the situation was different and it gave us a legal basis on which we could support the action and allow the use of our bases. That was the Government’s decision. Others may disagree with it, but I suspect the vast majority of people in our country think it is right to act in a way that promotes self-defence rather than the offensive action which took place on the Saturday.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the troops who are involved in this action, and I commend the Government for what they have done up until now, because criticism has been levelled at them—a lot of it unjustified. But is this crisis not a wake-up call for all of us in this House in that it underlines what the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference a few days ago? He said:

“Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them. This time, it must be different. Because all of the warning signs are there”.


All the political parties in this country need to galvanise themselves in light of what we are seeing at present and do something about it for the future.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I join my noble friend Lord Robertson in the tribute to our Armed Forces and I thank him for the points he made about the way in which the Government have acted and the various policy decisions that they have made. I know it has a been long-standing demand from my noble friend, who led the government review—the SDR—which laid out some of the challenges we face and the investments that the Government will need to consider. I am sure the Prime Minister will read his letter with interest. He made those comments at Munich, and we look forward to seeing how the Government will turn the 3% ambition into action in the next Parliament, should economic conditions allow, and similarly the commitment to 5% by 2035. Perhaps my noble friend will share the response from the Prime Minister when he receives it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in reflecting on what the Minister and the Statement said, that Iran has lashed out with

“dangerous, indiscriminate and reckless strikes”,

which is clearly an accurate description, I join the Front Benches and others in offering thanks to the British service personnel who are seeking to protect threatened communities, ships and other sites.

At the same time, we are seeing extensive and extremely heavy strikes by America on Iran, particularly in built-up areas. The Mines Advisory Group says that when explosive weapons are used in populated areas, 90% of the casualties are civilians. That results not only in physical trauma but a great deal of mental trauma. Today, a report has come out about the Minab elementary school where 175 mostly small children were killed by a Tomahawk strike which it now appears came from the US. Are the Government speaking to the US about minimising civilian damage and following international law, particularly in view of the fact that many of the civilians under these strikes will be those who have been seeking to overturn the Iranian regime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a very important question. Of course we speak to the United States. The permissions we have given are very clear. Nobody wants to see civilian casualties, and we talk to the Americans about the need for careful targeting and to ensure that any potential impact on civilians is minimised. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I am sure we all share.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, as other Members of the House have done, I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As the father of a soldier, I am acutely aware of what the families at Akrotiri in Cyprus are going through at the moment. I am sure they are being well supported by chaplains in the Armed Forces, just as many of the communities in the Gulf will be being supported by Anglican and other denomination chaplains serving in the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf. I am grateful to the Minister for the briefing that was given yesterday at the Ministry of Defence. I found it immensely helpful and it gave me assurance about the preparedness that had gone on over the last few weeks.

However, when we focus on one conflict, we tend to take our eye off the ball of other conflicts, and I am very worried about what is now happening in Ukraine—I am sure we are still as committed to supporting the people of Ukraine—but also elsewhere. I hear increasing reports of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Six Palestinians were killed by settler militia armed by the IDF in the first week of the war with Iran. In Qaryut, two brothers were killed a week last Monday and three others were injured simply because they were trying to protect their olive groves. Settlers are taking advantage and acting with impunity under the cover of this war. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that in other places where we have a strategic interest, or a deep concern for the people, we are not taking our eye off the ball, particularly in the West Bank, where this further violence is reducing yet more the possibility of a two-state solution?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for the point about the briefing. We try to have as many briefings as we can so that people can keep up to date with the MoD’s thinking, and then they can make up their own minds. I join in him recognising the support that chaplains and other faith leaders give people in conflict, as well as the Armed Forces. That is a very important point to make.

Of course, our focus also remains on Ukraine. The MoD will be visiting the High North in the not-too-distant future. All of that is going on. He also made the point that, of course our focus at the moment with respect to the Middle East is on Iran, but that does not alter the fact that there are continuing issues with respect to Gaza and the West Bank. Tomorrow, I am seeing the Lebanese ambassador to talk to her about some of the issues occurring with Israel, the south of Lebanon and Hezbollah. So, it is quite right to say that, and we will continue to work with others to ensure that these other conflicts and problems, while they may not be in the headlines, are not forgotten and also need to be resolved as quickly as possible.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, the legal basis for this intervention is the collective self-defence of our allies in the Gulf. The Government’s position is that under collective self-defence, we may only target missiles and drones launched by Iran and the missile facilities. However, the law of armed conflict, once an armed conflict has begun, allows the targeting of all military objectives, which includes, at a minimum, all military personnel and all weapons. The UAE has now endured 250 ballistic missiles and 1,500 drone attacks. Are the Government really suggesting that a state under such an attack should respond by targeting only the specific weapons used against it, but not any other lawful military objectives, including any weapons such as, for example, an Iranian fighter jet? The Government have chosen to set out their targeting policy in this conflict in very legal terms. Are the Government not now concerned that, unless that statement from last week is updated and clarified, we risk conveying the impression to allies and enemies that our legal approach to targeting is now uniquely benevolent?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say to the noble Lord is that the UAE was at the briefing discussion we had in the MoD earlier, and we are working with the UAE as well as other allies to defend the UAE from attack. We have seen that happen, and it has been very satisfied with the way in which we have defended it against missile attack, as have other Middle East states. Some in this Chamber will know the difficulty, sometimes, of ensuring you can get the permissions you need in order to be able to do that. But we are working really hard, and the co-operation of all of those Middle East allies ensures we can protect as many of them as we can, including the UAE.

I know not everybody here agrees, but the legal basis on which we operate, to make a differentiation between taking offensive action and taking action in our self-defence and the defence of those in the region, is something that the Middle East countries themselves support, because they are worried about what is happening extending and developing in a way that becomes uncontrollable. All I am saying is that we are taking prudent, sensible and proportionate action to deliver the self-defence we all want.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. The whole House is very lucky to have him as our Minister. If it took only six days for HMS Dragon to get ready, why was readiness not instructed on or after 11 February?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We had no request from the region for a Type 45 destroyer. We made our own sovereign decision, on the basis of the intelligence and of the threat we perceived, to get a Type 45 there as soon as we could. People worked around the clock in order to deliver it there. Other assets were sent both before and during and will continue to be sent to deliver the defensive effect we want. That will be enhanced by the Type 45. Our assessment is that that needed to go, and we made the decision last week to send it and make it ready as soon as possible.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the gratitude and thanks to the armed services that has been expressed by all Members of this House. I ask my noble friend the Minister directly, does he agree with me that the British people understand that the responsibility of the British Government and the Prime Minister is primarily to protect British interests? Does he also appreciate that British people are worried at the moment about the military and economic consequences? Therefore, do the Minister and the Government have a clear plan to communicate with the British people and reassure them that the Government have a steady plan to protect British interests and the military and economic interests of the British people going forward?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is the whole basis of how the British Government are operating and of the decisions we are taking. The noble Baroness is quite right that the decisions we take are in the interests of the British people, both here and abroad, and obviously of our Armed Forces. We have a clear plan to do that. That is why we will operate only in a self-defensive way, because we do not want to escalate the situation. We are calling for de-escalation, which is the way to do it. We are also considering some of the economic impacts and how we might mitigate them.

A point I often make is that when you take action, it has consequences. When you do not take action, that also has consequences. So, sometimes a decision you make is based on your best assessment of how to deal with a particular situation. Our assessment, while not agreed by everyone, of the offensive action on the Saturday, was that it was not the right time to participate with the Americans and the Israelis. But, when the indiscriminate retaliation happened from Iran, with the attacks on numerous states across the region and their requests to us, the further request from the US was a reasonable one for us to allow it to use the bases to provide the self-defence that is so necessary.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his support for our Armed Forces. Has this action, which relies to some extent on aircraft operating out of Diego Garcia, persuaded the Government that it would be a very bad idea to give the freehold of this base to a friend of China and to take the risks with a non-nuclear power? Is that why they have paused that rather bad idea, or is it that the United States has warned them that it will not consent to vary the treaty which set up the base in the first place?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a couple of points. First, as a counterpoint to the point about China, if we are talking about Mauritius, the biggest friend it has got is India rather than China, and the Indians are just as worried about the influence of China in much of that region. The discussions continue around the Diego Garcia treaty, and we will see where that takes us, but the important thing is that Diego Garcia is and will be an important strategic asset for us. The debate the noble Lord and I would have is how we ensure the security of that base for us to continue operating in the way that we have done.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I say at the outset that I hold the Minister in great regard and see him and his Secretary of State colleague, the right honourable John Healey, in the same tradition as great Labour patriots such as James Callaghan, for instance. But I take him back to the very interesting question put by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. Is it not time at this juncture to step back and look at the cumulative damage to the reputation of the United Kingdom as a reliable and trustworthy ally to our most powerful friend, the United States, when even Tony Blair has criticised the Government’s conduct over this conflict?

This narrow interpretation of international law, as between defensive and offensive capabilities, has been applied erroneously, in my opinion. If it was 1939, with those same parameters, we would not have come to the aid of Poland, because the UK population was not under a direct threat. The point is surely that the Iranian Islamic Republic has been an ongoing threat to British, US, Israeli and other citizens for 47 years. On that basis, we should have been a more loyal and trustworthy supporter of the United States, because, at the end of the day, the United States and the Israelis are on the front line of a civilisational fight, which we will all be involved with very soon if we are not careful.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the comparison with James Callaghan; I appreciate that. The serious point is that we are all patriots in here. I would not question anybody’s patriotism in this Chamber. We all want the best for our country. We all support our Armed Forces and wish to ensure that the UK remains as powerful and significant on the world stage as it always has been. There will be points of difference within that. The UK is still hugely regarded across the world. It is still of huge significance to the large number of countries that want the UK to stand with them—and not always with regiments of troops or, say, 50 aircraft or 40 tanks. The fact that the UK will often stand with countries across the world gives those countries a sense of legitimacy, confidence and purpose about what they are doing. We should remind ourselves of that sometimes and be proud of that—I am, and I know the noble Lord is.

From the Government’s perspective, there is no doubt that it is imperative for our security and that of the United States, and the security of the values that we stand for, that we retain and maintain the closeness of our relationship. That is the Government’s policy. Does that mean that sometimes there are difficulties? Of course there are. The noble Lord and I could recount historical examples of where there have been very serious problems between the United States and the United Kingdom, but that has not altered the fact that, fundamentally, our two countries are united in standing for freedom, democracy and human rights. Considerable co-operation still goes on between the US and the UK, including on intelligence sharing and in the military-to-military discussions that happen all the time, notwithstanding some of the things that we read. The worst thing we can do—I refuse to do this—is to say, “The President said this and the President said that”. He is the President of the United States; we will do all we can to work with him to deliver common objectives. At the end of the day, the only people who gain from any division between the United States and the United Kingdom—notwithstanding the fact that, sometimes, there will be policy differences, as there were a week or two ago—are our adversaries, and we should not allow them to experience that at all.

Iran and the Middle East

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sorry, but my noble friend the Minister for Defence was saying something while the noble Lord was speaking. I think he was trying to be helpful.

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

I was trying.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

He always tries to be helpful. Obviously, noble Lords would not expect me to comment in any detail on exactly what is being used, but we have F35s and Typhoons, which are being used to keep our citizens safe. We may have time for the noble Lord to ask the question again; if that was not quite what he was asking, I would be happy to answer him again.

Defence Industrial Strategy 2025: Economic Growth and Job Creation

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of the Defence Industrial Strategy 2025 on promoting economic growth and job creation in English regions and devolved nations.

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

My Lords, investment in defence is investment in jobs and growth in every nation and region in the UK. That is why we have invested £773 million in the defence industrial strategy, which will position the UK as a global leader in defence technology by backing UK businesses and harnessing the sector’s strengths. There are five defence growth deals, revamping our procurement framework and launching an ambitious skills programme. The defence industrial strategy will create new good-quality and highly skilled jobs across the UK and drive economic growth.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, in warmly welcoming the Government’s commitment to significantly increasing defence expenditure and the opportunity to use this lever to promote economic growth, especially through the development of dual-use technologies and extended supply chains, I draw my noble friend the Minister’s attention to the fact that only seven of 14 mayoral combined authorities have so far produced local growth plans that explicitly name defence and national security as priority growth sectors for their area. Does he share my view that better connections between combined authorities and the Ministry of Defence are required to ensure that there are real and tangible economic benefits in every nation and region to increase defence spending? Will he ensure that His Majesty’s Government engage systematically and effectively with regional leaders to ensure that this welcome investment creates the maximum number of jobs possible?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. It is really important for the defence industrial strategy that we liaise with all the devolved Governments and, as my noble friend says, with local devolved councils and mayoral authorities. Kim McGuinness is the Mayor of the North East, in my noble friend’s part of the country, and I know of the work that he has done with local authorities. It is essential that we work with them to deliver the economic growth that we want across all the regions of England and nations of the UK.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the defence industrial strategy will have no economic effect. What might make an impact is a defence investment plan, backed up by the necessary level of resources. The absence of such a plan is undermining business confidence and investor confidence. When will the Government start taking such crucial decisions at a pace that matches the urgency of the international situation we face?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I accept the point with respect to the publication of the defence investment plan. As the noble and gallant Lord will know, that will be published as soon as it is ready. Look at what has been happening. Noble Lords across this Chamber demanded that the Government spend money on Leonardos, and we announced investment in them just recently. We have also invested huge sums of money on the Clyde and at Rosyth to build new ships. We are investing huge sums of money to develop the dockyards in Plymouth to improve the availability of the submarines, and we are also making numerous investments, such as in Rolls-Royce, with a £9 billion nuclear programme over the next few years. I understand the point the noble and gallant Lord is making, but the Government are not standing still—we are already spending billions of pounds investing in our defence industry.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister a little on the point that the noble and gallant Lord just raised about the defence investment plan? When I asked him about this in January, he referred to the comments of the Secretary of State at the beginning of January that the Government were working flat out to get this plan done, and there were rumours that it would be ready for the spring. Looking at the pleasant weather outside, spring seems to have arrived. When will the defence investment plan arrive? People will judge the Government not on what they say but on what they do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making, and it raised some mirth in here, but the defence investment plan will be published when it is ready and when the Government have made the decisions about matching the budget to the capabilities they want. These capabilities should be matched to the demands of the future, learning the lessons of Ukraine.

As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the Government are not waiting for the defence investment plan before investing billions of pounds in our defence industry across the country, in the ways I laid out. I go back to the point about the Leonardos. We did not wait for the defence investment plan to do that: £1 billion is going to be spent to ensure we have helicopters. Numerous noble Lords have also been to Rosyth and the Clyde and have seen the ships being built there. This Government are investing in our defence industry, and the defence investment plan will be published when it is ready.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, of course we welcome the decision to award the helicopter contracts for Yeovil, which the local MP, Adam Dance, has been campaigning for, and we are glad that it has been signed. But the reality is that without this investment plan, there are jobs and investment on hold in defence installations right across the UK. They desperately need to know when the orders are going to flow and when the money is going to come through. We also need to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses have a real stake in building up our high-tech capacity and in filling in our munitions requirements.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the last point, of course munitions are important, as we see particularly at the moment. That is why the Government are investing £1.5 billion in six new munitions sites. Thirteen sites have been identified, they are being reviewed, and we will come forward with those munitions sites so that we have them available. Again, that is money being invested. We are also talking about small and medium-sized businesses. We know that the future is not just in the big primes but in small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have set up within the Ministry of Defence an organisation to drive that growth. Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial, and we will develop those as well.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree that we should judge the Government on what they do. My noble friend the Minister has referred to the £10 billion defence contract with Norway to build Type 26 frigates, which has for the first time in many years brought sustainability to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. I ask my noble friend the Minister to double down on commitments to make sure that the jobs and investment that flow from this benefit all in Scotland, most particularly those in deprived communities. I ask him to set up a taskforce to make sure that all Scots and all people in the west of Scotland benefit from this—as I say, particularly the most deprived. This Government are taking action; let us make sure that people get the benefit of that action.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. I will consider her suggestion to ensure that the most deprived communities benefit from the investment. That is why we have the skills agenda and why Scotland has a defence growth deal. My noble friend will know that nearly 12,000 jobs are dependent on MoD investment in Scotland and that on the Clyde and in Rosyth we are seeing significant investment. This Government will drive that investment forward.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my register of interests. I welcome the defence growth round table that took place in Belfast last week. By all accounts it was a very worthwhile event, particularly its focus on the challenges to growth. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on political leaders in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh to get behind the defence industry and not shy away from it at this particularly turbulent time?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do agree. The noble Baroness will know how many jobs in Northern Ireland are dependent on the defence industry—not least Thales, which has seen a £1.6 billion investment. I would have thought that everyone would have welcomed that for the jobs and prosperity it brings.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, while I accept what the Minister has said about current investment, there is a continuing delay in defence investment and orders, which not only is damaging to the Government’s relationship with the home defence industry but risks pushing urgent UK requirements down the queue for future deliveries. Will the Government confirm that the UK’s orders remain prioritised for the Type 26 frigate programme?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will ensure that we deliver the frigate programme as announced. We are delighted with the frigate deal that has come from Norway, and we are hoping to bring forward other significant investments. The noble Earl, with his Scottish roots, will know how important this investment is to Scotland. We will continue to drive that investment forward. We will make sure that we protect our own frigate programme as far as we can, but exports are an important part of what we do as well.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, Northern Ireland is rightly designated as one of the five key UK regions that are pivotal to the success of this strategy, thanks to the Province’s expertise in cyber security, shipbuilding and missile manufacturing. Can the Minister update the House on precisely what progress His Majesty’s Government have made in delivering this strategy in the six months since it was published and what benefits it has brought to the people of Northern Ireland?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, there have been meetings in Northern Ireland to drive the strategy forward. We are hoping to make an announcement about the growth deal for Northern Ireland to build on the consultations that have taken place. Northern Ireland is home to Thales and a diverse range of defence and dual-use industries. The country is recognised as a leading cyber security hub, boosted by the Queen’s University Belfast Centre for Secure Information Technologies and Momentum One Zero. It is also a critical home to Thales and Harland & Wolff, companies that are critical to our support for Ukraine and our maritime strength. That is a good news story for Northern Ireland and for the whole of the UK.

Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.

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

I beg to move that the Grand Committee considers these regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 15 January. They form a key part of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, which strengthens independent oversight and support for our service personnel and their families.

Before turning to the detail of these regulations, I acknowledge the considered scrutiny that this House gave to the “family” definition during the passage of the Act. In particular, I thank those noble Lords who engaged so thoughtfully on the definition of “family”. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who is not in her place, for her scrutiny, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their contributions on clarity, bereaved families and the breadth of modern family structures. Their careful examination directly shaped the regulations before us today.

Noble Lords offered valuable insights, particularly on recognising kinship carers and other parental figures. The House rightly highlighted the importance of those who step in, whether grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or family friends, to provide stable, long-term care, who should be fully recognised within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Noble Lords also raised the issue around non-traditional family structures, as well as on legal clarity, financial dependency, household membership and the position of bereaved families. These contributions have been instrumental in shaping the regulations now before the Committee.

The Government listened closely to those debates. The draft regulations reflect the issues raised, providing a clear and inclusive definition of “relevant family member” that fits modern service life. It is the same definition brought to Committee in this House, with only one small legal adjustment. The purpose of these regulations is to give full effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act by setting out a clear and inclusive definition of “family member” for the commissioner’s welfare remit. The Act creates an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with strong statutory powers to investigate welfare issues and report directly to Parliament, strengthening transparency and support across defence. By replacing the ombudsman with a more proactive model, it delivers a long-standing commitment to improve the lived experience of service personnel and their families. These regulations enable that.

A clear and inclusive family definition is essential because the commissioner’s ability to act depends on who falls within their remit. We know that service life impacts not only serving personnel but those closest to them. Partners, children, parents, siblings, carers and others often shoulder the pressures that come with military service. It is therefore right that the commissioner’s remit reflects this wider network of support.

During the passage of the Act in this House, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the definition of “relevant family members” should be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposed definition. The Government consider that the family definition meets this higher level of parliamentary approval, which is reflected in the draft regulations before the Committee. Given that the definition is fundamental to the commissioner’s welfare role, it is right that both Houses have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve it directly.

At the same time, secondary legislation provides some flexibility to amend the definition in future without reopening primary legislation, ensuring that it can adapt as family structures evolve. This balanced approach strengthens parliamentary scrutiny while maintaining the ability to respond to social and demographic change.

The policy intention behind the definition is clear: to ensure that those most affected by service life are able to access the commissioner’s support. The definition therefore takes a broad and inclusive approach. It includes partners, including former partners and those in relationships akin to marriage, biological and stepchildren, adult children, siblings and stepsiblings, parents, stepparents, long-term foster carers, guardians and kinship carers. It also includes other relatives who are financially dependent on, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are included where they fall within one of these categories immediately prior to the serviceperson’s death. This reflects the wide range of relationships that form modern service families and responds directly to the issues raised during the Lords’ scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, including the role which was especially raised of kinship carers and the importance of ensuring that bereaved families remain supported.

It is important to be clear that this definition applies solely to the commissioner’s welfare remit. It does not expand the scope of the service complaints system, nor does it alter other Ministry of Defence definitions of family members. It is tailored specifically to the commissioner’s purpose.

These regulations are made under powers provided by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999 as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. This legislative framework gives the Secretary of State the authority to define relevant family members for the purpose of the commissioner’s functions, to make consequential amendments to related legislation and to establish transitional and savings provisions.

The Government have acted within that framework to produce a definition that is legally robust, operationally workable and reflects faithfully Parliament’s intent. These regulations are necessary to ensure that the commissioner can operate effectively from the moment the Act comes into force. Without a clear and comprehensive family definition, there would be significant uncertainty about who can raise concerns with the commissioner and who falls within their remit. Peers expressed strong interest in ensuring that the definition is inclusive and legally clear. During the passage of the Bill, issues such as financial dependency, household membership, the treatment of bereaved families and the position of kinship carers featured prominently. The draft regulations address each of these points directly.

These regulations also introduce essential consequential amendments to ensure a smooth transition from the Service Complaints Ombudsman to the Armed Forces Commissioner. This includes transferring functions and updating legislative references so that the system remains coherent and accessible. Transitional and savings provisions ensure that ongoing cases or applications are not disrupted. Families and serving personnel will receive clear guidance as the new system is introduced, helping them to understand their rights and how best to engage with the commissioner’s office.

In summary, these regulations provide the clarity, inclusivity and coherence required for the Armed Forces Commissioner to discharge their welfare functions effectively. They reflect the concerns, expertise and priorities expressed by this House, and they ensure that the commissioner’s remit aligns with the realities of modern service life. The Government believe that these regulations strengthen the support available to our service personnel and their families. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations, and I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I support, and for the way in which he did so.

In the interests of transparency, I should declare the interest that some Members of this Committee have already heard during the passage of the Bill through the House, which is that six months ago my daughter married a senior RAF officer. Therefore, I have a personal stake in the subject matter of the Act and the way in which it will be carried out by the Armed Forces Commissioner. I welcome the fact that it has the widest possible definition of family and family members to enable the commissioner to undertake her or his work.

There is just one question I want to ask, which I hope is not wrong, but it might be. Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is the United Kingdom”.


However, I take it that the provisions of these regulations will apply to service personnel wherever they are around the globe, not solely those based in the United Kingdom. Of course, at this very moment Armed Forces personnel are engaged in conflict in the Middle East, so I hope that is a question that is not out of order and can be answered in the affirmative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say in answer to the specific question from my noble friend Lord Stansgate that, yes, the regulations apply to wherever anyone serves. I thank him for raising that issue and allowing me to clarify that point.

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I wish to read a particular thing. I thank him for his question and for his work with the reserves. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work he does with respect to them. The specific nature of the noble Lord’s question concerned what the term “Reserve Forces” includes. Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 inserted new Schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. The meaning of “Reserve Forces” in this legislation is the same as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996. It includes the volunteer reserve and the ex-regular reserve, but not individuals in the so-called recall reserve. That is the legislative position. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her general welcome of the regulations before us and the constructive way in which she engaged with them. I made a commitment on the whistleblower review. An interim review has been done; we are looking at that. We will invite the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, to the Ministry of Defence to have a look through where we have got to with the whistleblower review before we publish something, so that they can see where we are.

The intention of that, with respect to this issue and the noble Baroness’s question regarding the families, is for us to ensure that families who complain or bring forward concerns around service life under this provision or, indeed, in a more general sense are protected from feeling as though they will suffer detriment as a result of bringing something forward either under this instrument or more generally. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question, which she asked specifically in reference to this point, and her more general point about whistleblowing.

All the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who I mentioned will, in due course, receive a letter asking them to come to the Ministry of Defence to discuss where we are on this point. I made that parliamentary commitment, and it is important to honour such parliamentary commitments. In general, you may not be able to amend legislation, but—this is an important point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know—if a Minister makes a commitment to do something in order for something to be withdrawn, it is important that they follow through on that. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s questions with respect to safeguards and the review.

On monitoring, let me reflect on that point about the review. The point about secondary legislation is that, if something is not working, you can look at it again, but the broad definition of what we have and the work of the commissioner are important. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the commissioner has to publish a report and give it to Parliament. One would expect that if a particular problem had arisen as a result of their work, that would be reported in that annual report so that we could all see whether the regulations were working in the way we had hoped or whether the commissioner was drawing attention to something that Parliament needed to consider again. I would expect that to be the place where any review that was necessary would be pointed out.

With those remarks, I hope that I have answered the various questions asked by noble Lords. I thank everyone for their contributions and their involvement in these regulations.

Motion agreed.

LGBT Veterans Independent Review

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing the recommendations of the LGBT Veterans Independent Review, published in July 2023, with particular regard to the Financial Recognition Scheme.

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

My Lords, I will start answering this Question by paying tribute to Lord Etherton—we would not be having Questions such as this were it not for him—and the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden. We should remind ourselves of the work people do in this House and the progress they make.

The Government have implemented 48 of the 49 recommendations, including 14 restorative measures and the LGBT financial recognition scheme. I encourage affected veterans to visit GOV.UK for information on these schemes. The outstanding recommendation focused on the ban’s long-term consequences for female veterans and will be achieved through work starting this year, following the commitment in this Government’s veterans strategy to better understand and support women veterans.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that statement and, equally, for his kind words. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. This is a great example of what we can do when we act cross-party in the common good. I congratulate my noble friend, the Government and the previous Government on the work done to implement the late noble and learned Lord’s recommendations. However, sadly, I must express the concern of the charity Fighting With Pride, and my own concerns, regarding the delays in implementing financial reparations, and some discharged and dismissed payments appeals which appear contrary to the letter and the spirit of the review.

It is important that the Government act swiftly. Many who were discharged or forced out, or had their service terminated, are in their later years. Sadly, many are in ill health. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister: what further measures will the Government take to speed up the delivery of financial reparations, and to address the concerns raised regarding dismissed and discharged payment appeals? Now is the time to finally deliver the justice so deserved by these brave LGBT veterans who, to quote the late Lord Etherton, were so shamefully treated.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We all associate with the remarks my noble friend just made with respect to the shameful way in which people were treated between 1967 and 2001. On the timeliness of the financial recognition scheme and the direct payments, the Government are working hard to ensure that we get to those who are the most seriously ill and the most elderly first so that they get the recognition that they deserve. On the impact part of the financial recognition scheme, the Government are going to increase the number of panels from two to three—I notice the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his place—which will allow three meetings of those panels each week. We are also appointing an additional chair. We think those measures, reaching out to local councils, reaching out to veterans’ charities and increasing the numbers of panels should speed up the process to ensure that we get to those veterans who need that support.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for the Minister and what he has been doing on this scheme, but there is a sense among the former service men and women that the rules are being applied far too narrowly, with no flexibility whatever. That was not the intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, when he drew up the scheme. Could the Minister please look at this to ensure that there is a degree of flexibility in the operation of the scheme, as was intended, and that the rules are not applied precisely as written and in no other circumstances?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. The fundamental principle of the scheme that is operating is to ensure that everybody who was affected by the ban between 1967 and 2001 receives the recognition that they deserve. For some, that will be under the financial recognition scheme, whichever part of that it may be, but part of this is about the restoration of rank, berets and those sorts of things. It is not the Government’s intention to exclude anyone who is eligible, and we will ensure that as much as we can. I heard what the noble Lord said, and we will always look at that, but we need to make sure that we get to those people who are covered by the scheme.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, it seems that gay veterans have, in some ways, been delivered a double whammy: not only the central discrimination, which is the way they were discriminated against in the past, but, on top of that, the discrimination and delays in rectifying it. It would be good if the Government could indicate when we are likely to see this rectified.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This gives me the opportunity to say this to the noble Baroness: I urge everybody that all applications for the scheme need to be in by midnight on 12 December this year. It is important to make that statement. The Government have no interest in trying to delay, or in not doing everything as quickly as possible. The noble Baroness urges the Government, as other noble Lords have, to do as much as we can, as quickly as we can. We will do that, because it is not in our interest not to. This is in the interest of putting right something that was wrong, and that is supported across the Chamber. It is our intention to ensure that we get to as many affected veterans as possible, to ensure that they get not only recognition under the scheme but some way of trying to put right the wrong of the past.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, my father hugely enjoyed working for the noble Lord, Lord West, in Washington DC and London, so I believe I have some understanding of the commitment of veterans. Many of the veterans involved in this redress scheme face excessive delays in accessing their own service records, as those applying for the financial recognition scheme are not prioritised for subject access requests. Surely that is neither fair nor reasonable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a reverse burden of proof, so anybody applying to the scheme is believed; it is up to the MoD to show that their service records do not match what they put forward. Everybody asked for that, and everybody accepted that it was really important. It is not in anybody’s interest to delay anything. We respect veterans, as the noble Earl does, and we want as many people to receive recognition under the terms of this scheme as possible. We will do everything to ensure that happens. There is no delay on the Government’s part.

On the noble Earl’s point on the service records, should somebody be refused recognition under the scheme, they can apply for the evidence that the MoD used to refuse them that recognition and use it as part of furthering their appeal against refusal. I think the MoD is trying to do that. On subject access requests, I think that takes us into medical records and a different dataset. I reassure the noble Earl that anything used in evidence to refuse recognition under the scheme will be released to the person who made the application.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, on the back of this scheme, I have been trying for three years to get action on the diplomats who were thrown out of the FCDO for being gay. I have raised this many times and keep being told that we will be updated on finding those who were sacked from the FCDO. Can the Minister give us a date for when that work will be done, when these people will be identified and when a similar scheme will start for them?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me talk to FCDO colleagues about that and come back to the noble Baroness with a letter, rather than make something up, because I am not sure of the answer. I will go back to the FCDO, write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the independent chair of the panel deciding on impact payments under the LGBT financial recognition scheme. Although I acknowledge the strenuous efforts of the independent panel members, who are dealing with long, complex and harrowing cases, will the Minister ensure that the appointment of an additional chair and additional panel members is expedited to ensure that all cases are dealt with by the absolute deadline of April 2027?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The simple answer is yes. The noble Lord makes an important point. I will ensure that the ministry takes that forward and expedites this as quickly as possible to support the excellent work that the noble Lord has been doing with the other panel members.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Will the Minister acknowledge that what he rightly described as the shameful treatment of service men and women who are LGBT prior to 2001 ended only because of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, and that persons who criticise the role of the European court should bear that in mind as an example of the valuable role of that institution? I declare an interest because I am very proud that I was counsel for the claimants in that case.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Congratulations on that further string to the noble Lord’s bow. The important point is that he is to be congratulated on the work that he did to bring that change forward and right that wrong. He should be proud of that, in the way I pointed out to other noble Lords. Frankly, we can make points about the European Court of Human Rights or many other courts, but the important thing is that the noble Lord used the legal process that was available at that time to put right a wrong. He is to be congratulated on that, but so is everybody across the House in the campaign to recognise that when something is wrong, sometimes the best thing to do is to admit it and put it right.

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, everybody knew that this contract between Palantir and the MoD was going to expire in 2025, with, we understand, interest from British companies in tendering for the new contract. We now know that, in February 2025, the Prime Minister attended a meeting in Washington DC with Palantir, at which the now disgraced former ambassador, Peter Mandelson, who held shares in a company engaged by Palantir, was also present. In December 2025, the MoD, without competition, awarded a lucrative three-year contract to Palantir. There is a very unpleasant smell hovering over this particular bucket of fish. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what was discussed at that February meeting in Washington and, if he does not know, go away and write to me? Why, given the interest of British companies, was this contract not put out for competitive tender?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the courteous way in which she asked the question. I will reflect on what she has said and respond appropriately once I have discussed it with others.

On the fundamental issue of single-source contracts, I can do no better than to quote the Conservative spokesperson in the other place, who said:

“It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/26; col. 691.]


In this particular instance, the MoD judged the capabilities and record of Palantir in the delivery of the systems that it has, and the artificial intelligence and data sharing that can take place, which started with the enterprise agreement that the last Government entered into in 2022, enabling Palantir to embed itself in all sorts of operations that were and are ongoing and will continue. The transparency notice that we published a few weeks ago, in December, laid out why the direct award was justified in this case, giving it to Palantir as a single-source contract and not making it available to more general competition. It was in our interests, the interests of the MoD and the interests of our country that we let that contract to Palantir to deliver the very special capabilities that it has.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, leaving aside the nature of the ownership of Palantir and the questionable involvement of Peter Mandelson, we have another key concern. On the Government’s own admission, this is a strategic contract. It seems that only Palantir is in a position to deliver this, otherwise it would have been a contested commissioning. The Minister in the Commons has said that the data will remain under sovereign protection. However, the core competence of developing the ways of using that data for AI will rest with Palantir and will be embedded, as the Minister has said, with its proprietary systems and software. Does the Minister share my concern that this is outsourcing what should be a sovereign capability—not just owning the data but knowing how to use it? Does he recognise that we will be reliant for crucial AI expertise embedded across the defence industry on a single US supplier?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord, who asks an important question with respect to this, that the UK defence data used and developed in Palantir’s software remains sovereign and under the control of the MoD. It resides in the United Kingdom. We have clear contractual controls in place to ensure that, as well as control over the data system that Palantir software sits upon. Any change from this cannot be conducted without the consent of the United Kingdom, so very real protections are in place to ensure that we can get the benefits from Palantir while protecting the data and information, so that we can allay the noble Lord’s concerns.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, when the Prime Minister and Lord Mandelson visited the HQ of Palantir, met the chief executive, toured the offices and obviously had meetings with many other representatives there, were minutes taken of that meeting?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

No minutes were taken of that meeting, but it was a routine visit. The noble Lord will know from his own experience that going to visit businesses and industry is a significant part of the job. The noble Lord will have done it in the past; he will have gone with civil servants and others, maybe not industrialists but with industry representatives, to see that capability. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord; it was him doing his job. The Prime Minister went with the then ambassador to Palantir. As I understand it, during that visit he had a short presentation, followed by a tour of the premises and an introduction to members of staff. That is the Prime Minister doing his job: trying to develop and build business contacts with huge companies which are of benefit to our country.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, on 5 January, I asked the Government if they could give us details of contracts with Palantir and Anduril. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, said that, as an honorary captain in the defence of the country through the Royal Navy, it was of prime importance to her and she would write to me. She has obviously been incredibly busy, and a lot of information has come out since. I wonder if the Minister could let us know about contracts with Anduril too, please.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I missed that. Could the noble Baroness say with who?

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

With Anduril.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Baroness about that. I will write, along with my noble friend Lady Anderson, to make sure that the noble Baroness gets one joint letter rather than two. I will take that on board and make sure that she gets it, and put a copy of it in the Library so that other noble Lords can see it as well.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, while I am not particularly worried about the way this contract was awarded, it does raise the issue of single companies being given large defence contracts without competition. It also raises value for money. I would hope that the defence department was looking at value for money and at making sure that where British industry can compete, it is encouraged to do so.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Again, that is an extremely important point. There are two things. Of course, single source is something that you try to avoid by having open competition, but there are circumstances where single-source contracts are in the interests of our country. Alongside that, as my noble friend hinted, we are trying to ensure that we develop UK industry and business as well. He will be interested that, as part of the enterprise agreement, it was announced in December 2025 that Palantir would commit £1.5 billion-worth of money to grow British business—to grow small and medium-sized enterprises—and develop skills right across the UK. We were conscious of the fact that it was a contract to a US-based company, as prestigious as it is, and wanted to ensure that the UK gained benefit from it as well. I hope that reassures my noble friend that, to some extent, we took the UK into account with that enterprise arrangement as well.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, it is of note that, as reported by openDemocracy, one of the Labour Party’s largest donations, if not the largest, of £4 million, came from a hedge fund called Quadrature, which has holdings in Blackstone. The openDemocracy website reported that it stood to benefit from government contracts awarded to the likes of Palantir. Will the Minister address this and, if he is unable to do so today, undertake to write and provide further information about that donation, and whether the conflicts were properly examined?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If necessary, I will write to the noble Baroness, but let me reassure her that everything was done properly and appropriately. The decision to award the contract to Palantir was made by the Defence Secretary alone. Of course, I will reflect on what the noble Baroness has said, but what she said is something that a Government would not do in awarding a contract with respect to defence or any other part of the Government. That sort of thing is not allowed to influence decisions. The Defence Secretary made the decision, and he made it on the basis that Palantir was the right company to do this, the right business to do this, and that it was in the interest of our defence and that of our allies to award it that contract.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I want to return to the question from my noble friend Lord Fox. The Minister referred to the company not having a sovereign right, but the key issue is what the company can do with data. During the passage of the then Procurement Bill, we and Labour—then in opposition—argued for special arrangements for Palantir’s contract under health where it could access only extremely anonymised data. Do we have that assurance with this contract that data is safe and will not go to Palantir?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an important question, which is why I tried to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The ability of our country to protect its data, its information and systems is very important. This is why I am saying that the control of that data is a sovereign decision-making power for the UK Government. Nothing can be done without the consent of the UK Government. Those protections and shields against anything moving from where it should be are in place. I hope that will satisfy the noble Baroness.

Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether there is a shortfall of £28 billion in the budget of the Ministry of Defence over the next four years.

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

My Lords, the defence investment plan will set out how we will deliver the vision set out in the Strategic Defence Review. It will be a coherent, fully costed and affordable plan against the defence budget. Over the course of this Parliament, the Government have committed to the greatest sustained investment since the Cold War, with over £270 billion going into defence. We have set a further ambition to spend 3% in the next Parliament and joined NATO allies in a commitment to spend 5% on national security from 2035.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The Chief of the Defence Staff has rightly warned the country about the growing threat from Russia and other countries and the need for adequate preparation. In response to questions about the £28 billion shortfall on Monday before the Defence Select Committee in another place, the Chief of the Defence Staff, while not directly answering the question, said:

“Right now, we are in a position where we are forecasting to spend more than the budget we have”.


Does it not follow that without extra cash from the Treasury, over and above the sums the Minister has just referred to, the Government may have to postpone or abandon major programmes?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The defence investment plan will deal with choices according to the budget that it has set for it. Even if you increase the budget, you still have to make choices about what you spend that money on. The Chief of the Defence Staff and the other chiefs are involved in this, discussing what capabilities we need, with the budget that we have, to ensure that we have the war-fighting readiness we need. Those choices are taking place.

Considerable sums of money are being spent at present—billions of pounds. I keep repeating this: under current plans, the total budget in 2024-25 was £60.2 billion; in 2008-29, on current plans, it will be £73.5 billion. Billions of pounds of additional money is being spent. We are seeking to ensure that we spend it properly and appropriately to fight the wars of the future.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is quite right, but he knows as well as the rest of us that those are meaningless figures: what really matters is how much you can buy for the money you are spending. Given the accounting changes that have taken place over the intervening years, we are currently spending a lower percentage of GDP on defence than we were in 2010, when we were not facing the very serious threats to European security that we see today. How do the Government explain this?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government explain it by using the figures I have just outlined. There is billions of pounds of additional money. You cannot alter the fact that it is going from the figure I just gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young, to the figure it will be. The noble and gallant Lord knows far better than me that choices have to be made within that budget about what capabilities you will spend it upon. One of the choices that confronts us is what lessons we learn from Ukraine, and what capabilities we need to ensure that we fight the war of the future and not the war of the past. That is part of the discussion that is going on at present.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

Is not the reality that the defence investment plan has been delayed because of concerns inside government and the Cabinet about its affordability, especially given the commitment to increase our own sovereign capacity? In that context, is not the reality that cuts will have to be made to achieve that, and simply to fulfil the current budget? Will the Government recognise that we need to have a much clearer and honest declaration of exactly what is needed? The public need to know what the threat is and why we need to spend more on it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with the last point about making sure that the public have greater awareness of the threats faced, and the national conversation. The noble Lord has asked me about that before, and we are seeking to do something about it.

Within the current budgets, we have signed more than 1,000 defence contracts since July 2024, 86% with British-based businesses, and spent more than £31 billion with UK industry. If the noble Lord were Secretary of State for Defence, he would have a budget and would have to make choices about which capabilities he believed were necessary to bring the country to the war-fighting readiness we need. Those are the discussions at the present time. I know there is frustration about the delay to the defence investment plan, but I would rather have a plan that is affordable and meets the needs of our Armed Forces and defence industry, so that we can fight the wars of the future.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing defence spending. It is not just about the quantum; it is also about dealing with project overruns and delays, cancelled projects, poor management and the contract overspending that we saw under the last Government. What will this Government do to make sure that our defence spending is actually well spent?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend will know the importance of his question. That is why reform has taken place within the Ministry of Defence with the establishment of the National Armaments Director Group. The new National Armaments Director is in post and is addressing the very real problems and concerns my noble friend has rightly pointed out.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister actually acknowledged the shortfall of £28 billion as identified by the Chief of the Defence Staff and the other chiefs. I understand that we must wait for the defence investment plan, but can he say whether the shortfall, or cash squeeze, that the Ministry of Defence is facing is the reason for the delay in GIGO’s award of its first contract to Edgewing with regard to the GCAP trilateral fighter jet project?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Many decisions will be subject to the defence investment plan. The noble Viscount has been an advocate of the GCAP programme for a number of years and was berating me a few months ago regarding whether the Government support the programme. He knows that the Government support it, and he has seen the importance of the relationship between Japan, Italy and the UK. The specifics of that contract will have to wait, but the overall support for GCAP is there and has been well stated in this Chamber and beyond.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer—I will be on the live firing ranges with my battalion this weekend. I bring that up because we are hearing worrying signals across the Army Reserve that reserve service days and special taskings are being turned off to meet budgetary requirements. Will the Minister assure the House that in the forthcoming defence investment plan, all reserve force budgets will be protected and boosted to meet our operational effectiveness requirements?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the service that the noble Lord undertakes on behalf of our nation; perhaps he can pass that on to the other reservists he will be training with at the weekend.

What the noble Lord asks will, again, be subject to the defence investment plan. Reserves are important to this Government. They will be an important part of how we ensure that we have war-fighting readiness in the future, and alongside that they will need the necessary training.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the premise of my noble friend Lord Young’s Question could not be simpler: if the money is not there, what will be cut? The Minister’s admirable verbal limbo dancing has not answered that Question, so let me try to help. Can I turn this on its head and invite the Minister to start spelling out what is being funded? For example, in reply to me yesterday, we seemed to make some encouraging headway on training and equipping the Special Boat Service to enable our elite soldiers to board sanctioned, illegally flagged vessels. Could that one get a tick?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not going to comment on the operation of Special Forces, and the noble Baroness would not have done that in her previous role, however nicely she was asked. I outlined the money being spent to other noble Lords: we are developing munitions factories and money will be spent on that; there is a defence housing strategy and money will be spent on that; the Typhoon and T26 deals are enabling imports and money to be spent there; we are spending money on the DragonFire laser system; there is a new programme to build drone factories; and we are spending billions of pounds on the nuclear deterrent. All sorts of moneys are being spent.

While we are talking about this, let us also reflect on what our Armed Forces have done in the last few months, notwithstanding that this debate is about budget. We have seen RAF Typhoons take action in Syria, the carrier strike group, a commitment to the coalition of the willing, forces in Estonia and elsewhere, and support for the American action to deal with the shadow fleet. I know that the noble Baroness supports all of those. I understand the point of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Young, but we should also reflect on what we do and the challenges this country faces.

Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Royal Navy has a fleet of nine submarines currently in service. It operates four Vanguard class nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines in Operation Relentless, the continuous at-sea deterrent, which has been successfully maintained for over 56 years. The Vanguard class will be sequentially replaced by four Dreadnought class submarines, which will enter service in the 2030s. Additionally, five Astute class nuclear-powered and conventionally armed submarines are in service, with two more under construction.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Is it not the case that the four submarines to which my Question refers are the essence of our nuclear defence delivery systems? Is he satisfied that they are maintained and operated to the required standard?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

A key point for all of us in this House, our nation and our alliances is that it is a continuous at-sea deterrent, and I reassure everyone that we maintain that. The noble Lord is right that it has been the foundation of our alliance’s peace and security for decades under all Governments, and long may it continue.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister say how many of these submarines are operational at any one time? Many have been out of service quite frequently. Given the constraints, are we sure that we can maintain the programme that he has outlined and deliver AUKUS on time and on budget?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am confident about that. I will not go into the number of submarines that are operational for obvious reasons, but the noble Lord will have heard the First Sea Lord outlining the submarine recovery plan a couple of months ago, which was about doing more to ensure that our docking and maintenance facilities are of the standard that we want. That will also help us ensure that we get the availability that we want.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, the 2025 SDSR committed to £15 billion of investment in the sovereign warhead programme by the end of this Parliament. Can the Minister indicate what progress has been made in implementing that investment programme?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I need to be careful about the monetary figures, but I can reassure the noble Baroness that the programme is going ahead according to schedule and will deliver what we need for our deterrent programme.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister care to remind the House how much the nuclear programme is suffering from the enormously damaging freeze on it between 2010 and 2016, the period of the coalition, when the then Prime Minister gave in to demands from the Liberal Democrats?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There have been challenges for the programme over a number of years, and my noble friend has outlined one of them. I reassure him and those who read our proceedings, including our adversaries, that we are investing in it. We have the Vanguard continuous at-sea deterrent at the moment. It will be replaced by the Dreadnought programme, backed by £41 billion, including £31 billion for the actual build and a £10 billion reserve. We expect the first Dreadnought submarines to be in service in the early 2030s. That is what we and our adversaries need to read.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. My concern is not so much about the submarines but the people. I pay tribute to our service personnel serving in the silent service. I had the privilege of spending three days on HMS “Trenchant” under the ice a few years ago, and three days was definitely enough for me. We have harmony guidelines that seek to find the balance between time at sea and time at home with their families. That is vital for retention. Can the Minister ensure that those harmony guidelines are being met?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly take seriously the harmony guidelines, which look at the welfare not only of the serving crew—the noble Lord is right to remind us to recognise their service in what, for many of us, would be unthinkable circumstances—but of their families. The harmony guidelines are about the culture on board as well as how we support the families whose loved ones are away for considerable periods. The noble Lord is right to remind us of that, and they remain a priority for the Government.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Opposition, who call for more expenditure, need to demonstrate where that expenditure will come from? Otherwise, they are hollow claims that are not backed up by any resource.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There are debates about the defence budget, and it is a matter for the Opposition to explain some of the promises that they are making, as my noble friend pointed out—we will no doubt hear much on this in a later Question. I am pleased to celebrate that this Government are investing record amounts of money in the Ministry of Defence and our defence industry and capabilities.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the nuclear submarines out of service? Can he say what conclusions the submarine dismantling programme has come to, based on HMS “Swiftsure” at Rosyth? What are the current projected costs of the overall decommissioning and dismantling programme?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can give some of the information that the noble Baroness has asked me for. The Defence Nuclear Enterprise submarine dismantling project has achieved a major milestone as it completes the fin cut and removal on HMS “Swiftsure”. She will become the first decommissioned Royal Navy submarine to be dismantled by the end of 2026, establishing a unique and world-first methodology for submarine disposal. Over 500 tonnes of conventional waste have already been removed and recycled from HMS “Swiftsure”, and the innovative programme of work will enable around 90% of the submarine structure and components to be reused or recycled. That demonstrates to the noble Baroness that considerable progress is being made, and HMS “Swiftsure” is an exemplar for what will come next.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, we rightly talk about the submarine programme as a national endeavour. We know that every corner of the United Kingdom is required to be part of the supply chain to build the submarine programme, which is both an opportunity and a challenge. Will the Minister ask the Ministry of Defence to work with the prime contractors—and with us in the All-Party Group on AUKUS, ably led by my successor in the Commons, Michelle Scrogham—to make available the details of the companies that are, now or in the future, part of the supply chain, so that we can all work together and engage local MPs on that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

From his previous incarnation as the MP for Barrow and Furness, the noble Lord knows a significant amount about the nuclear programme. He is right to highlight the important work around not only the major companies and big primes but the smaller companies and the supply chain right across the UK. As my noble friend Lord Spellar often says—quite rightly—we need to make sure that as much of that industrial capability as possible is developed within our own country. I am happy to meet the All-Party Group on AUKUS to discuss how we take this forward.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I realise that I represent a minority view in this Chamber, but can the Minister say whether it is still the Government’s policy that they reserve the position of using nuclear weapons as a first response to a conventional strike? Many of us would regard that approach as totally morally unacceptable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course, the Government’s position is to maintain the position that we have had over many decades. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord raises. He will know—because the debate often rages about this—that the fact he can say that and can speak without fear or favour in this Chamber in a democracy is part of why we keep the nuclear deterrent: to defend our democracy from those who seek to undermine it.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the SNP in Edinburgh maintains that it is committed to the future of Faslane as a base while at the same time it says that it would want to rid an independent Scotland of nuclear weapons. What discussions does the Minister have on a regular basis with Edinburgh about that position, and how many jobs from the nuclear programme are going to be created in Scotland?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right. Thousands of jobs are dependent on the nuclear deterrent in Scotland and across the UK. I often make the point around the SNP, and we see its inconsistent position with respect to nuclear weapons. I remind the noble Lord that, a few years ago, the SNP’s position was not only opposition to nuclear weapons but opposition to NATO. When it changed that position at an SNP conference, some SNPs resigned from the party as a result. Now it has a position of opposition to nuclear weapons but of maintaining membership of NATO. The SNP needs to be reminded that NATO is a nuclear alliance.