Atlantic Undersea Cables: Russian Subsurface Operations

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Antrobus]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the Armed Forces in deterring Russian sub-surface operations threatening Atlantic undersea cables.

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

My Lords, as demonstrated by the operation that the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, our Armed Forces are continually ready to respond to threats against our and our allies’ critical undersea infrastructure. We are further supporting our Armed Forces in this effort by: launching the Atlantic Bastion programme, which will create an advanced hybrid naval force; providing an extra £100 million for vital P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft; and working closely with NATO allies, including delivering the Lunna House agreement with Norway to build a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and uncrewed systems.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that taking a more overt approach to highlighting Russian aggression is necessary to send a message that attempts to attack critical undersea infrastructure will be called out and attributed to Russia, and to ensure that the public are fully aware of the dangers that we face from our primary adversary? Additionally, given that the UK military operation lasted for more than a month and involved 500 British personnel, 450 flying hours and several thousand nautical miles sailed, does he acknowledge that our Armed Forces are confronting the most challenging security circumstances in decades, and that we must all understand better that this is no longer a world of isolated crises but one of interconnected threats?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend about interconnected threats. The important thing that flows from her Question is that, notwithstanding our focus on Iran, on Ukraine, quite rightly, and on many other operations across the world, it is a tribute to our Armed Forces personnel that they recognised the threat they found in the north Atlantic and responded to it. It is important that we demonstrate that to Russia, which, as my noble friend rightly said, is a major threat to us. As I have said from this Dispatch Box time and again, part of the Armed Forces response—and the response we need from our NATO allies—is to deter people from taking action against us, knowing that there will be consequences should they break international law or threaten us. The action we took in the north Atlantic on the attempted covert operation of those submarines was a tribute to all of us and to our country.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, is quite right to urge the Government to give more support to our hard-pressed Armed Forces in meeting the many challenges that they do. As the Minister knows, the Prime Minister has provided a temporary three-month bridge to enable work on the GCAP fighter project to start, but is he confident that the defence investment plan will be approved in time to permit the project to continue beyond the end of June?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am confident that the defence investment plan will come forward with a large number of investments, which, as the noble Viscount points out, will be vital to the future defence of our country. He has been a doughty proponent of GCAP, an arrangement between us, Japan and Italy for a new generation of fighter aircraft. It is a really important way of demonstrating that our country is looking at what we do to deter adversaries not only now but in future. I am sure that GCAP will play a full part in that.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I commend our senior service for the work it has been doing for some time in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom and Ireland. Can the Minister give us some details on the recent agreement between our Government and that of the Republic of Ireland in relation to the seas off Ireland, in particular whether the Irish Government are contributing to our Royal Navy’s costs?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, who always raises these issues, quite rightly, with respect to another part of the threat to us, which we need to deal with. She asked for the details of the memorandum of understanding signed a few weeks ago, in March. It focused on enhancing maritime co-operation, cyber defence, air domain information sharing, and increased joint procurement. That modernised memorandum of understanding will not only help Ireland meet some of the challenges and threats that it perceives to itself, notwithstanding its position of neutrality, but ensure that we work with Ireland, as far as we can, to deter the threats we face from that part of the Atlantic.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, Norway supplied 47% of our total gas consumption in 2025 and the UK is increasingly dependent on its offshore wind infrastructure and interconnectors as part of our energy mix. What urgent steps are being taken to strengthen our energy security and repair capabilities, to further harness autonomous technology and AI for continuous remote monitoring and to deepen our co-operation with allies to patrol, deter and prevent such threats?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Earl will have heard me mention in my Answer to my noble friend the Lunna House agreement between us and Norway, which is a significant step forward in the co-operation between us. Norway is a key ally in dealing with the threats we face. I think he was also asking about developments in Atlantic Bastion, which I also mentioned in that Answer. It talks about ships and frigates—the frigate deal that we have done—but also about the autonomous systems we need to develop. I say again from this Dispatch Box that the Navy of the future will be a hybrid Navy; it will have extensive autonomous platforms and motherships—for want of a better word—above, on and below the sea. Our work with Norway and our other allies, through Atlantic Bastion and other alliances, will make a major contribution to protecting underwater structures on which this country depends.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome very much what the Minister said. But some 18 months ago, a group was formed, including senior Royal Marines and Royal Navy officers, to look at these underwater and over-surface risks to our maritime infrastructure. Six months ago, we stood that down because we think all the risks are well known. I was alarmed to see that the Secretary of State invited industry leaders to a meeting literally only in the last 48 hours. I am amazed that that had not happened already, beforehand. Can the Minister, who I have very great respect for, tell me whether this was the first meeting that senior Ministers have had with senior industry figures?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There have been many meetings across government and there are always meetings across government, with DSIT and DESNZ, which have responsibility for underwater structures. I think that the meeting the noble Lord referred to is a meeting that the Defence Secretary announced last week in which he talked about the need for them to come together again to look at the increased threat from Russia with respect to that. That demonstrates the increased co-operation across government to meet what is a very real challenge and threat to our country.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the professionalism of the RAF and our Poseidon P-8 pilots operating out of Lossiemouth in monitoring the recent activities of that Russian attack submarine and the related Russian spy ships is to be commended. We thank them, and I hope everyone in this Chamber acknowledges their contribution. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, for her distinguished career in the RAF and her contribution to our defence and security. If the RAF surveillance operation had identified a malign attack on undersea cables, what UK assets were available in these seas to thwart such an attack?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks a very reasonable question, but I cannot go into some of the operational details that she requires. Suffice to say, the important thing was that the Poseidon P-8s that she identified, flying from Lossiemouth, identified the threat. We also put a Type 23 frigate out there, HMS “Somerset”. Working with other assets, they made sure that the Russian submarines were aware that we were aware of them, because of course the whole point of submarine warfare is covert activity. We found them, we saw them, we took action against them and, if we had needed to, we would have been able to deal with that as well.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, during the Cold War, I was a member of the “red tie” group, which consisted of intelligence officers, operations teams and the defence industry. Basically, we monitored the Soviet submarine threat. By the end of the Cold War, at any given time, we knew exactly where all its submarines were. We had up to 12 of our own operational SSNs to mark them, plus American ones to mark them. If war had started, we would have killed them all within the first few minutes of that war.

I fear that we are no longer in that position. Part of the reason for that has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Robertson, who refers to it as people’s “corrosive complacency” over a number of years. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has highlighted what is being done now, but I have a feeling that we have a long way to catch up. We are nowhere near that position, and we are in a state where we ought to put our military, and certainly our defence industries, on some sort of war footing to be able to catch up and to do the things that we need to do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I was just thinking about the red tie club, as I stood up. But the serious point that my noble friend makes is clearly an important one about our ability to detect and deter those who would threaten us. The importance of the activity that took place in the north Atlantic was that we were able to use the P-8s. We have nine P-8s based at Lossiemouth. Of course, not all of them are operational, although most of them are and they are enabled to detect and deter. There are other ways of detecting submarine activity, which is really important. As I say, the ability to deter and to take action where necessary is really important.

I say to my noble friend that our noble friend Lord Robertson quite rightly pointed out what he felt, and the need for the strategic defence review to be implemented and funded. That debate and discussion will move forward. I also say to him—he will be particularly interested in this, having mentioned submarines—that I was recently in Plymouth, where we are putting billions of pounds into the docks at Plymouth to ensure that we have docks which are capable of dealing and working with the submarines that we have now to increase and improve the availability of those submarines. That is true in many areas of the country. There is huge and significant investment going in. The issue for us is what we do now, in the interim, to provide the deterrent and capabilities we need to ensure that our forces are able to act in the way that they do while we wait for some of those new ships and new capabilities to become ready to us. We are looking to advance that.

I am sorry to take up noble Lords’ time but the need for this country to move to a position of war readiness is crucial. That is not a government effort but a whole of society effort. From this side of the House, from that side of the House, from all parts of the United Kingdom, to deal with the threats that we face, our population have to understand the threats that they face. We as a Government have to talk to them and all of us have to stand up and say that we will defend our country and the values that we stand for.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this has turned into a very sorry affair. I continue to be sorry for the Chagossian community, which sees that the political turmoil and injustice that it has endured over many years has the potential to continue, because the same international legal position remains, not only in relation to the status of the archipelago but with regard to the rights of the Chagossian community that have been denied by subsequent Governments since their shameful expulsion in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

There has been poor handling from the outset, and the Minister has heard me say so on a number of occasions. I say “the outset” because, in the Statement in November 2022 by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly saying that negotiations would commence on ceding sovereignty, he said they would cover the international legal elements, but in the process of negotiation that then took place the Chagossian community was disregarded far too casually. Indeed, in March 2024, just before the Dissolution of Parliament for the general election, the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, confirmed to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that negotiations were ongoing but he also restated the Conservative Government’s strong opposition to any right of return, settlement, visits or working on Diego Garcia.

With regard to the UK-US security relationship, which has been the trigger now for the Government’s action of pausing the legislation, the previous Government also failed to take up the extension of the UK-US treaty that was allowed for in that treaty, so we are operating under a rollover element of that treaty. It has not been renewed or updated in a substantive form. Is it the Government’s intent that that process will carry on? We have seen the statements from the State Department that were then contradicted by President Trump, but what is the status of the understanding with regard to the treaty? It has been amended on a number of occasions since it was signed but has not been fundamentally reviewed. That was a choice by the previous Government.

Fundamentally, there has been a continual denial of the right of return, and the Labour Government did not properly consult the community, which would be directly affected. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government are content with the text of the treaty itself—separate from the fact that it cannot be brought into force because the legislation has now been withdrawn in this Session—or will they take the opportunity to look at the treaty again? It is important to be clear on that point but it was not clear in the House of Commons yesterday.

There are opportunities to look at the treaty elements to firm up those areas so that they are not simply permissive with regard to Chagossian rights but will enshrine them. The same goes for the test for value for money, scrutiny and accountability. The Minister knows that those are issues that these Benches have focused on relentlessly. Indeed, our amendments to that effect passed this House with cross-party support.

If there is a long delay then the Chagossians’ rights will be continuously denied. There is an opportunity to operationalise those rights and for the Government to right the wrongs of many of their predecessors by bringing into force the mechanisms to do so under our domestic legislation. That would overturn the statement of the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but while we wait for clarity from the United States Administration, which none of us can guarantee, these Benches would support legislation to ensure that Chagossian rights are not put in limbo. They have been denied those rights, but that can be addressed now.

We can also operationalise the funding elements, with regard not to Mauritius but to the Chagossian community itself. There seems to be a commitment by the Government to support a trust fund for the rights of the Chagossians, and it seems an injustice that that should be paused as a result of President Trump. The Chagossian community should be able to benefit from that level of support. We simply cannot trust the Trump Administration, notwithstanding the previous statements by US State Department officials.

Can the Minister state what US processes we will trust? I have a degree of sympathy for the Government; within the space of two days there was a statement from the State Department of the United States saying that it was supportive of this measure, followed by a White House Truth Social posting by the President. What is the mechanism in America that we will now trust?

Lastly, this is a technical point that was raised by my honourable friend Richard Foord yesterday in the House of Commons about the military relationship with the US. There seems to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether the United States has access to the deep-water port at Diego Garcia, which could potentially be a staging post of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Can the Minister be clear about our understanding of what the US is currently using and can use, and what the UK will allow to be used, when it comes to both the port and the military base at Diego Garcia?

I hope the Minister can take up an offer for there to be—at least at this stage, even though it might be difficult—a degree of cross-party consensus that the Chagossian community’s rights that have been denied for so long should not be put on ice. While we await clarity from the State Department of the United States, we should be operationalising those rights now.

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

I thank everyone for their warm welcome and for the opportunity to respond to those questions. It is an important debate. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis, and to everybody contributing—many Members on both sides of the House—that it is an important issue.

Let me say straight away, just to set some context, that the difference between us is not about ensuring that we have a strategic base, which is of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and to our allies, and about doing our best for the Chagossian people. There is a difference of view about how that can be achieved. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has outlined in his remarks and the various speeches he has made from the Dispatch Box over the last few months, supported by many of his colleagues, he has a different view from the Government as to how that can be achieved. He has argued for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others have argued for a sort of middle ground but have also raised the issue, as many Members have done, of the rights of the Chagossians themselves. None of us in the House believes that the way the Chagossians were originally treated was something of which any of us can be proud, but any Government have to deal with the situation that they are confronted with and we are dealing with the situation now.

Let me try to answer directly some of the points that have been made. The noble Lord will know that the Bill will not pass in this particular parliamentary Session. As for the King’s Speech, let us see what is in that, but the Government will continue the discussions on how to take this forward. We will continue discussions with the Americans. We have said all along that it cannot proceed without the support of the Americans. The exchange of notes from 1966, although slightly amended, underpins the treaty, so of course we need US support for that. Although originally given, that support is not forthcoming from the President at the current time. I hope that directly answers him: of course we need US agreement with respect to this, were we to take it forward.

On the issue of the money, there will be no treaty payments at all to Mauritius.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

What about the delegation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have sparred across the Dispatch Box, but not as much as I would like, if I am honest about it. I just say to him that Mauritius is a country: every now and again, any country in the world that the UK has relationships with will have such arrangements: we will have educational visits, exchanges and all those sorts of things. If the noble Lord was standing where I am, he would not be able to say, “There will be absolutely nothing at all spent by the UK on Mauritius”. What I have said, which is what his question was about, is that, with respect to the treaty, there will be no treaty payments. I hope he understood and accepted that point.

The noble Lord also mentioned the FCDO visit. FCDO officials will be going to Mauritius to speak to the Mauritians. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; FCDO officials go to various countries all over the world. They will be going to discuss the arrangements and where we are at the current time.

There are six people on the particular island which the noble Lord referred to. I asked a question on this, and I am told—and I accept—that there has been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island at all. I am telling the noble Lord what I have been told: unless people are not giving me accurate information, there has been no denial of humanitarian provision to the people on the island. On the situation with respect to the BIOT Supreme Court, the noble Lord will know that the court rejected the right to remove the people from there by BIOT. That was rejected and it has been appealed, so we await the appeal to see what happens as a consequence. I hope that directly answers some of the questions that the noble Lord posed.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is quite right to point out that the negotiations were not started by this Government; they were started by the previous Government. In fact, such was the determination of the previous Government to get some sort of arrangement that there were 11 rounds of negotiation. It was not one round that just fizzled out; there were 11 separate rounds. Now their defence is, “We wouldn’t have done the deal that’s before us now”. All I say is, “Why on earth would a Government have 11 rounds of negotiation? Was it just a pretence? Were they not actually serious about the negotiations?” Just before the last election, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out, the Foreign Secretary of the time talked to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about how the Government were negotiating to come to some agreement and some arrangements for that.

In terms of the UK-US extension, I think the noble Lord was referring to the exchange of notes. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is quite right: the exchange of notes obviously underpins the existing treaty or any change in the future. Of course, that would need to be negotiated and changed for it to be taken forward.

On the treaty delay and what happens to Chagossians outside of the treaty, the arrangements in the treaty cannot be put in place because it is not in force, so we deal with the existing situation. But I give noble Lords one thing that will happen. We seek to resume the heritage visits as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will know that they have not taken place since 2020. We hope that we may be able to restart the heritage visits, including to Diego Garcia, and get them going. As for the £40 million trust fund and the resettlement programme, they await the treaty to be introduced.

I would point out that the treaty that was moving forward and has had to be delayed has a resettlement programme in it that does not exist at the current time. The ability of Chagossians to resettle, not to Diego Garcia but to the wider British Indian Ocean Territory, is enshrined within the treaty that is now not going forward. At the moment, there is no resettlement programme. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, the Foreign Secretary of the time pointed that out to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. There are existing arrangements around education, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and other things that will continue, but the things under the treaty cannot go forward because they do not exist in law at the current time.

The noble Lord talked about the status of the deep-sea port. He will know from his reading of the exchange of notes that the US-UK base is governed by that exchange of notes and that all combat operations from that base are subject to joint decision-making. While no Government are necessarily going to talk about the various permissions that are given on specific operations, I hope that gives some confidence that those things are subject to joint decision-making.

Let me finish by thanking again all noble Lords who are wrestling with a difficult problem. The Government’s view is that the security of that base at Diego Garcia is paramount: it is absolutely fundamental to us. His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, if we simply carry on as we are, the security of that base is maintained. His Majesty’s Government’s view is that we need legal certainty to ensure that that base is maintained and that we protect the integrity of a base that is fundamentally important not only to ourselves but to the US and the security of the whole western alliance. That is why we sought to take this treaty forward.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will now have up to 20 minutes of questions, but not speeches, from Back-Bench Members. This is set out in chapter 6 of the Companion, at pages 86 and 87, in points 6.7 and 6.8. We will have the Conservative Benches first.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, if anyone was left with any lingering doubt about the naivete of losing sovereignty over this base, recent events have emblazoned that folly for all to see. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, arguably one of the most respected defence experts in the world and defence adviser to the Government, today accuses the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of “corrosive complacency” over defence, and vents his frustration and anger at the lack of decisive political leadership in defence. That is an excoriating criticism, so can I ask the Minister two questions?

Given this explosive intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will the Government respond positively by binning this discredited deal now and redirecting the money, say, for immediate investment in defence? Assuming—I am almost tempted to say “knowing”, but let us stick with “assuming”—that the Minister is in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will he, as someone whose reputation rightly stands high, ask his Secretary of State to tell the Prime Minister to remove the Treasury’s decision-making from people who know nothing about military strategy and military planning, and order the Treasury to lay out a new plan for a rapid escalation of defence spend during this Parliament and the next one?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that we are not binning the treaty—I think that was the word she used. We will look to take it forward and discussions will continue; it just will not happen in the current Session, because parliamentary time will not allow it. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we cannot take this forward without US support, but discussions will carry on.

As for the investment programme, as I have said to the noble Baroness on many occasions, the Government are increasing defence spending and we will continue to do that. There have been various commitments: 3% in the next Parliament, should economic circumstances allow, and then on to 2035, with further investment. As I have said time and again, whatever the argument about the totality of spending, let us recognise that there are significant sums of money being spent on shipbuilding and aircraft, dockyards, and all of our Armed Forces across many parts of our country and indeed abroad. We need to recognise what we are doing, as well as what we are not.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his presentation. I have considerable sympathy for the situation that the Government find themselves in, subject to the capricious decisions of the US President. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the State Department, to be honest.

However, the fact is that the Government have made some missteps, as my noble friend Lord Purvis said. I hope the Minister recognises that, unlike the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats have been constructive and consistent in our position on this issue. If I may, I praise my noble friend—my leader, now—for his role and expertise on this subject. It is a matter of when, not if, this subject comes back—the fundamentals stay the same. Perhaps the Minister might consider whether the Government could be a bit more flexible on the question of Chagossian rights to resettlement and assistance to the community, and help build a sound cross-party basis for the future.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me make one general point. The clash of opinion in this Chamber leads to better policy, done in the way that it is done. I respect challenge from wherever it comes, because that makes for better policy. In that sense, most contributions, even if they are sometimes difficult, are constructive. People could sometimes reflect on the tone in which it is done, but the challenge across the Chamber, from whichever direction, is really helpful.

We will continue to work with the US. We have to update the exchange of notes in order to take anything forward, and, if there are discussions, those discussions have to be about what we can do to bring about an agreement. At the moment, the President and other parts of the US system do not agree with the position of the UK Government. We will continue to discuss with them to see whether we can find a way forward to ensure that the US and the UK can come to an agreement to allow us to move forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear next from the Cross Benches. Can we have short, sharp, succinct questions, please, not speeches?

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has made it clear that the treaty, as it was, has not been “binned”. If and when there is agreement with the Americans to proceed, will the Government consider also the Maldive interest that has been expressed? If so, have the Government had any formal approach from the Maldivian Government over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This is a treaty between the UK and Mauritius with respect to the future of the BIOT, without the involvement of the Maldivian Government. If that is wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord and put it on the record, but that is my understanding.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is not so much a sparrer as a knocker-outer, which is why we love him on this side and why even that lot have to respect him, but I wonder whether he will respond to a question that the whole House has. While it is perfectly true that there can be no treaty without the agreement of the Americans, should it not also be true that there can be no treaty without at least the involvement of the Chagossians? Has not the time come to establish some form of formal consultation arrangement with the Chagossian people, who have suffered an injustice over the years, in order that they are involved in the future?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. As far as I am aware, numerous Members of your Lordships’ House have met the Chagossian community and numerous ministerial visits have taken place with representatives of the Chagossian community and Chagossians themselves. No doubt those meetings will continue; they are obviously important as we seek a resolution to the issue that we face. At the end of the day, it is about how the Government take this forward to protect not only the rights of the Chagossians as far as we can but the integrity of the base of Diego Garcia.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, in response to a question from the Liberal Democrat spokesman Al Pinkerton in the other House about what the collapse of the treaty means in practice for the long-promised right of return for Chagossians, the Minister replied,

“we believe that this is the best route, under Mauritius’s guidance, leading to resettlement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/4/26; col. 603.]

Will the Minister now confirm that that was misleading? The treaty does not require the Mauritians to resettle, and if they do allow resettlement, which they are against at present, they could resettle it with Mauritian people and not Chagossians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding, reading it again in preparing for this Statement, is that there is no right of return as it stands at the present time in the existing arrangements. What is proposed in the treaty allows a right of return for Chagossians to islands other than Diego Garcia. As far as I am concerned, that is what is contained within the treaty.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I fully understand the sensitivities of the status of the islands in the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, but will the Minister confirm that such an opinion does not have the force of law? I impress on the Minister that the view from these Benches is to give priority for consultations to Chagos Islanders and their descendants, for the very important preservation of the current marine protected reserve and to begin a fresh approach to a new settlement for the British Indian Ocean Territory.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend Lord Boateng, discussions with the Chagossians are really important. Numerous meetings have been held with the Chagossians and those will continue in the future. I knew that somebody was going to ask me about the court issue and the binding judgment, so I asked lawyers about it. They tell me that Annex VII of the UNCLOS treaty would be binding were a judgment to be made under that particular provision. If that is wrong then the lawyers who have been advising me are wrong—I asked them because I thought the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was going to ask me that particular question. Let me say again that Annex VII of the UNCLOS treaty is the binding judgment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It has been said that the Americans are against the necessary revision of the 1966 exchange of letters. That is not my understanding. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the text of the revised exchange of letters has been agreed by officials from the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Pentagon and the State Department. The Americans are not against the revision—one American is against the revision. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct? Would he also comment on the possibility that that one American has been moved to the position he has taken up by informal contacts, through his MAGA friends, with people in this country who were opposed to the treaty? Would the Minister say whether he, like me, deprecates such informal contacts behind the Government’s back?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Again, to show my preparation for this, I have the exchange of notes in front of me. The noble Lord is right about the 1966 exchange of notes, but to reflect the change in the treaty that is proposed, the exchange of notes will need to be amended and adapted. He is right to say that officials, both here and in the US, have agreed on the changes to the exchange of notes; however, not all the American system has agreed with those changes. Whatever our view, it is quite an important part of the American system that has not agreed with the changes.

We will continue the discussions we are having to try to ensure that we take forward something that we believe is in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the United States and the security alliances on which we depend. That is the important thing. I do not want to sound pompous—although this does sound pompous—but as a UK Government Minister what I am really interested in is how I work with others across government in the interests of the country and the alliances that we represent. I appreciate that there are many others doing this or that, but my interest is in the defence of the country and the protection of Diego Garcia.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, thank you very much for letting me get in. My noble friend the Minister is very robust but, from listening to this debate, I find it a bit difficult to imagine the kind of cross-party discussions and sensible debate that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked for. I begin with what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said: he started by accusing the Government of doing a U-turn. I think there have been two U-turns on this: the first was from the President of the United States, who is volatile as always—we have heard just how far the negotiations had already gone between the State Department and the FCDO—and the second was from the Conservative Party. It was absolutely clear that the previous Conservative Government, as my noble friend the Minister said, spent 11 rounds of debate on this, and they produced a proposal for a treaty that is full of all the things that were in the treaty that this Government came up with. I think that there is a bit of a U-turn on the noble Lord’s side. Does my noble friend agree, given what has happened, that it is somewhat hypocritical to hear the Conservative Front Benches making the sort of criticisms they have made when they have been through all this themselves?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. It is in the interests of the country to try to take this forward. It is in all our interests to try to do that, because it is in the interests not only of our country but of the security alliances on which we depend. The point made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—which I gently point out again to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—is that the idea that this started under this Government is simply not the case. There were rounds after rounds of negotiations beforehand, where the previous Government tried to deal with what they regarded as a difficulty that potentially put Diego Garcia under threat. That is what I would like the noble Lord opposite sometimes to recognise, because it is important that it did not start under us.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, why are the Government blocking the delivery of a small fast boat to the Chagossians on the islands? It is much needed in case of a medical emergency that could threaten them.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I previously said that I asked directly before this debate whether any humanitarian assistance—

[A noble Lord]

Medical assistance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think that medical assistance is humanitarian assistance. I asked whether any humanitarian assistance was prevented from going to the island where those six people are, and I have been reassured that that has not been the case. We do not believe that they should be there—we think that they are there illegally—and there is a current court process going on about that. That is what I have been informed on. I gently say to the noble Lord that if what I have said is wrong, I will correct it. He should understand that I have been reassured by civil servants that humanitarian aid has not been stopped.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I very much welcome the Minister, because he answers very directly. Can he have a word with the Minister in the other place, who said that noble Lords were “game-playing”? Because of the campaigns and work we have done in this House, the public now understand Chagos much more than they did when the Bill was introduced. I think they realise that the people who were torn from their island homes in the 1960s, and those six brave Chagossians there now, should be helped and supported as much as possible. I ask one simple question: does he accept that those loyal British citizens now on the Chagos Islands pose no security threat whatever to Diego Garcia?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her initial comments. The point about the six people on the atoll we are talking about is that they are there illegally. You must have a permit to go there, the BIOT Administration did not grant them a permit, and so they are seeking to remove them from the island. That is what the current court process is about and the legal process must take its course. The BIOT Supreme Court said that the BIOT Administration do not have a right to remove them; that is being appealed and we will see what happens as a result of the judgment of the BIOT Court of Appeal.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister says that this is a vital base for Britain as well as for the United States. Just how vital is it for Britain? Nearly 20 years ago, I did some work and published a paper on the special relationship and US and UK bases. I recall that the number of British military personnel in Diego Garcia was in single figures and there were no naval or aerial weapons platforms based there. Has that changed? Do we now have units there? Are the military personnel from Britain in triple figures at least? Alternatively, is this really an American base with which we have some co-operation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that I will not go into all the detail that he referred to, but the point I am making is that it is a fundamentally important security base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. All across the world, different bases operate under different arrangements and are made up of different armed forces. People do not go into those details because it would draw attention to them and could help our adversaries. The only point I am making is that it is a strategically crucial base for us, the Americans and the alliances to which we belong. As such, the Government are seeking to protect that. Others have a different way through which they think they would protect it, but we are seeking to ensure that we have the legal certainty that will provide the security to that base that we think is vital.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but we need to put the record straight on the issue of the 11 rounds of negotiations. I agree with the Minister that the previous Government had discussions with the Government of Mauritius in good faith, but as I have said to him, both inside and outside the Chamber, the issue of the long-term, permanent security of Diego Garcia could not be agreed on. There were peripheral issues too. The Minister alluded to Annex VII of UNCLOS. Its enforcement mechanism is within the jurisdiction of the UN Secretary-General. Ultimately, the only authority carried within the UN structures is within the UN Security Council, on which, of course, the United Kingdom carries a veto.

The previous Government were fully versed with some of these things, so ultimately, it would have come down to a decision on security and political priority. That is important for the record, because this idea that there were 11 rounds of negotiations is a fact. On the fact that they were not concluded, the proof is there for the Minister to see.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is one of the most esteemed Members of your Lordships’ House. There were 11 rounds of negotiation. On the fact that—to use the noble Lord’s words—they were not concluded, that happens with negotiations, but there was an intent to try to reach a negotiated settlement on what to do about the future of Diego Garcia. I have been in many negotiations that have not been concluded, but that does not mean that you are not trying to negotiate to get to a conclusion. That is the only point I would make on that.

Going back to Annex VII of UNCLOS, because I knew that people were going to ask what the binding judgment that could be made upon the UK Government would be, and people have made much of the fact that many of the legal things that have been referred to have been non-binding judgments, I ask: what would be a binding judgment? Legal people, who understand these matters and advise me—as they will have advised the noble Lord in his Foreign Office ministerial capacity—have told me that Annex VII of UNCLOS would provide a binding judgment.

Strait of Hormuz: Mine Clearance

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assistance, if any, the UK has agreed to provide with mine clearance operations in the Strait of Hormuz.

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

My Lords, we continue to convene efforts towards restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is of vital importance to the UK. The Prime Minister will deliver an Oral Statement this afternoon following his trip to the region and will update on our latest work to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The Royal Navy has a long history of mine-hunting expertise and has existing capabilities in the region. It is also stepping up its mine-hunting capabilities by adding new, cutting-edge, uncrewed equipment to RFA “Lyme Bay”, allowing it to be used as the mothership for autonomous systems if required. On 7 April, the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters convened a meeting with 30 nations to discuss freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz; and our military planning continues.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend the Minister that we must not let this war end with the Strait of Hormuz, a very important international waterway, being closed. It is in global interests and in our interest that this does not happen. We are very good at mine-hunting. Our—very badly funded at the moment—Navy is actually an expert at mine-hunting, which is very important. The Minister is probably aware that the bulk of the deepwater routes into and out of the Gulf actually go through Omani, not Iranian, waters. We are very close friends and allies with Oman. Can we not go ahead with talking to the Omanis and asking whether they would be happy for us to start making sure that the routes within their waters are clear? This is a step forward in the right direction, in which we can start moving, using the mine-hunting forces that my noble friend the Minister has mentioned.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. He will know that the Government’s approach is to try to ensure that we bring together a co-ordinated, independent and multinational plan to safeguard international shipping when the conflict ends. Of course, considerations will be with all our different allies and friends within the region. This morning it was announced that we will co-host a summit with the French to work on that co-ordinated plan. No doubt, some of the points that my noble friend has made will be considered at that summit, as well as at a further meeting at PJHQ in the next few days.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, when President Trump triggered the war in the Middle East, the sole naval response by the UK, to protect significant British interests in the region, was to belatedly order a Type 45 destroyer, in maintenance in Portsmouth, to be made sea-ready. It departed on 10 March and reached Cyprus approximately two weeks later, then to go into dock some days later for short-term maintenance to repair the onboard water supply system. That has been our naval response. The Minister will agree that this is as extraordinary as it is embarrassing. Although the new frigates in the Clyde and the Forth, ordered by the last Conservative Government, will be an important augmentation to the Royal Navy, I ask the Minister: is HMS “Dragon” back in deployment, what other naval assets are currently sea-ready, what are the Government doing to accelerate sea-readiness of the remaining naval assets, and is the elusive—indeed, now evanescent—defence investment plan not now pointless, completely overtaken by events?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know my answer with respect to the defence investment plan. As I have said, it will be published in due course. HMS “Dragon” is available in the eastern Mediterranean and, as she says, is currently undergoing some limited work—but is still available with respect to its air defence weapons.

I pay tribute to the last Government for the 13 ships being built in Scotland and their importance. With respect to what the Government are doing with the mine-hunting capabilities in the region, in the Answer I gave my noble friend Lord West, I spoke about the autonomous mine-hunting capabilities that are already deployed there. The noble Baroness will know, because she is well aware of these things, that the hybrid Navy that the First Sea Lord wants will ensure that we not only have ships but that the mine-hunting capabilities of the future will involve much more the use of drones. That was why I made the point about RFA “Lyme Bay” being made a mothership from which drones can be used to tackle a mine threat, although no decision has been made to deploy that yet. That is also a way forward. Of course, ships are important, but there are many other ways mines can be tackled as well.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said how important it was to open up the Strait of Hormuz. If the United States is threatening a second blockade of the strait, surely that is going to make the situation much worse. What conversations are His Majesty’s Government having to try to ensure that our closest ally is not actually exacerbating the problem?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We always talk to the United States and continue to do so. The noble Baroness will know from the answers that have been given that we do not support the blockade, as proposed by the United States, and we are seeking other ways to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This is why I have talked about the summit we will co-host with the French in the next few days, and why I have talked about the nations that will be invited to PJHQ to find a way that is internationally supported and co-ordinated and has the support of all regional allies, so that at the end of hostilities, we can reopen the Strait of Hormuz in a way that is sustainable and which will deliver the result we all want. Of course, we continue to talk to the United States. I make no apology for saying that the United States, whatever the current situation, remains a crucial ally of this country and in the development, peace and security of the world as we go forward.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Can the Minister give us some reaction from the Government to the legality, under international law, of the action being taken by Iran to impede passage through the strait? It does not belong half to Iran and half to the Omanis; it is a strait with international waters. Can he say what action will be taken and how this affects our own involvement in future?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s fundamental point is a good one. That is why the Government have consistently said that they will act in accordance with international law—and we call on all states to act in accordance with international law. I know that sometimes people find this frustrating, but what moral status would we have, when calling other nations to respect and to co-operate according to international law, if we ourselves do not respect it? This is the point that we are making: we will always act in accordance with international law, and we expect all other countries to do the same, not only in the Strait of Hormuz but anywhere in the world.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Does the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, agree with me that this is a very dire situation? I am not necessarily laying any blame at this Government’s door, but it is an awful situation where we do not have a single ship in the Middle East and we do not have any ships to send there. We are actually a rather sad Navy.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord has made his point about the Navy and the words he used will have been heard by everyone. The point that I am making in response is that, as we move forward, the question will be about not only the number of ships but the types of capabilities that we have to deal with the threats that we face. The Navy of the future will not be the Navy of today or of the past. That is why the conversion of RFA “Lyme Bay”—although I stress again that no decision has been taken to deploy it—in order for it to operate as a mothership for drones flying above, on or beneath the water, is a significant development. The noble Lord will see that the Navy of the future will include not only ships, submarines and other similar vessels but these types of developments—that is an important point that we all ought to grasp.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I commend my noble friend the Minister for his restraint in not pointing out to the Benches opposite that the lack of a surface fleet—and indeed of underwater vessels—is a result of a series of decisions taken not to invest in building, which has also had an impact on our shipyards. We are now making a recovery, but that cannot happen overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The truth of the matter is that we of course need more ships, and investment is going into that now to produce the ships that we need. We are currently trying to maximise the use of the capabilities we have available to us to ensure that we deal with the problems and challenges we face—not only in the Middle East but across the world, as we recently saw in the North Sea and the High North. It is important, as we wait for these new ships to be delivered and the investment to go in, to ensure that we have the capabilities we need to deal with the threats we face.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I think I have heard the Minister remind us from the Dispatch Box that the pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz are working and carrying, apparently, 7 million or 8 million barrels a day—I had thought it was 4 million barrels a day. Will he and his colleagues, when they have general discussions, keep that in perspective? When you add that to the fact that 70% of the oil going through the Strait of Hormuz will not be stopped because it is either Iranian or comes from Iran’s friends—and when you add the release of more Russian oil and the increase of shale oil—we are back roughly where we started. While it is infuriating to have the rule of law on the seas threatened by Iranian bandits—which is what they are—and while it is a very serious defence point, it is not as dramatic an oil point as some people seem to be making out.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord has huge experience in this area, and he is right to point out that it is interesting to watch the way in which the pipeline that goes across Saudi Arabia into the Red Sea and comes out through the BAM is being used. That is another way of getting oil out; certainly, that is one of the ways in which the Saudis and others have tried to maintain the supply of oil. I am sure that, in the face of the current threat in the Strait of Hormuz, people will look to see how we ensure the delivery of the oil and fuel we need. At the end of the day, that Iran is illegally closing the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping is of concern to us all and must end as soon as possible.

[Lord Peach (CB)]

I take the Minister back to the Navy of the future and agree with the proposition. In the world we are in, do we not need the Navy of the future even more quickly? Do we not need a different approach to industry and innovation? Do we not need to move even more quickly to adopt the new technology that we know we need?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I totally agree with the noble and gallant Lord, and that is why I was at the National Centre for Marine Autonomy in Plymouth last week, launching the growth deal. There I saw the small businesses that were developing the drone technology and drone capabilities that are needed. I know that the noble and gallant Lord is a big advocate of this. Of course, there is a role for the big primes and massive companies to develop these things, but there is a role for small and medium-sized businesses as well, which can act at the pace that the noble and gallant Lord is talking about. That is certainly something that we should encourage. When I was in Plymouth at the National Centre for Marine Autonomy, I emphasised that and it was very keen to adopt it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend’s question, does the Minister believe that there are any—or exclusively—military means by which the strait can be fully opened and restored to the level of shipping that was there before the unlawful exercise of President Trump? Given that the only diplomatic efforts that are now taking place are exclusively between the United States and Iran, and that President Trump has said that the United States will work only in the US interests, how are we involved in any diplomatic effort to ensure the long-term, sustainable openness of the strait?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Lord’s noble friend, we continue to discuss these matters with the United States. Of course, diplomacy is an important part of any problem or conflict that occurs anywhere in the world. There have to be talks and discussions. We know how important that is. We will continue to have discussions with the United States about that.

As far as the UK Government are concerned, that is why the summit co-hosted by the UK and France in a few days is important. It will bring together countries from the region and across the world. That is why the summit will be convened at PJHQ—to bring countries together. We know that, on the solutions to conflict and the problems that occur, in the end, whatever military options are considered or undertaken, those discussions give you the long-term basis for the security that you want. For us, it is the long-term security of reopening the Strait of Hormuz in a way that allows freedom of navigation—without tolls.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Will the Minister accept that the problem that both the US Navy and the Royal Navy have is that they do not have a ship that has adequate defences against massive attack from either missiles or drones?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I take the noble Lord’s point with respect to that. My understanding is that many ships have capabilities to defend themselves. I am not a military expert with respect to some of these things, but I believe that capabilities are available. Certainly, as the ships of the future develop, they will develop to meet the technological threats that they face as well. Many of the threats that will come, whether on land or sea or in the air, will come from uncrewed technology, and we need to advance our own technologies to deal with that as well.

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.