UK Defence Capability

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Russia remains a significant and persistent threat to the UK and to Euro-Atlantic security through its war in Ukraine, hostile cyber activity, disinformation and sabotage against the UK and many other NATO allies. The Government have increased transparency around these threats, as seen through the recent exposure of covert Russian operators near UK waters. The MoD rigorously assesses the risks to the UK and to Euro-Atlantic security and takes action with our allies accordingly.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our Armed Forces and our defence industries are, I believe, teetering on the brink of disaster due to lack of investment over certainly the past 15 years but actually even longer and lack of decisions recently about spending the money that apparently is being released for defence. There is no doubt that they are in a very parlous state.

As an aside, I must say to the Minister how proud I was to see him honouring a relative, who I think had exactly his name, who was lost in the fighting in Normandy. One has to say that things such as fighting in Normandy happen when you do not have sufficient defence forces and deterrence has failed. That is the position we have got ourselves into.

In 1982, Margaret Thatcher released £2.5 billion at 1982 prices when the Argentinians invaded the Falklands. Where she found that money I do not know because economically things were not good. What are we doing to identify where the money can be found quickly to cover what needs to be spent now? I know he is very loyal, but there is no doubt that he is scarred by the shambles of the defence investment plan. What are we doing about finding that money and getting going? Otherwise, we have a real problem.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It would be wrong of me not to say that I appreciate my noble friend’s remarks on Normandy. A number of us were there on Saturday; the relative of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was the day after. My uncle, who I am named after, was killed on D-Day, soon after landing on Sword Beach. I really appreciate my noble friend’s comments.

On the current situation, he will know that the defence investment plan is due to be published and the Prime Minister has made clear that it will be before the Ankara summit on 7 July. We are in discussions about the money. He will have seen that well reported. I cannot tell him exactly what the outcome of all of that will be, but there will be additional investment. My noble friend is right to point out the need for us to increase our capability, and we are doing that. In terms of countering the Russian threat as it stands at the moment, we are not standing still, we are taking action with RAF Typhoons and are with working with our NATO allies in the North Atlantic and the High North. With his naval experience, he will know that the carrier HMS “Prince of Wales”, following a bit of maintenance in Norway, is now out ready for Operation Firecrest and that a number of operations such as Nordic Warden and Arctic Sentry are taking place to protect our interests, take action to counter the Russian threat and protect things such as underwater cables. Of course, there is a need for more investment, more readiness and more capability, but we are taking action with the resources we have now to defend our country as well and as much as we can.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, wounds imposed by one’s friends are always more painful to bear than those imposed by one’s adversaries, so I shall try not to compound the Minister’s agony. The Chief of the Defence Staff has laid bare profound concerns about our capability. The noble Lord, Lord West, has encapsulated the problem succinctly, and I shall not repeat that, but at the heart of the chaos we find ourselves in is a fundamental difference of opinion between defence experts who get it and, arguably, a political leadership who do not. Can the Minister clarify precisely how and when this impasse will be resolved? We do not need talk about the defence investment plan; we need it now. We need to see the detail. It may or may not resolve the problem, but dither, delay and inertia are now completely unacceptable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I welcome challenge on these issues from His Majesty’s Opposition, my noble friend Lord West and my noble friends because it is important the Government are challenged on all these issues. They relate to the defence and security of our country and the defence and security of our continent and beyond so it is quite right to hold the Government and the Ministers who speak for the Government to account on this. The noble Baroness quite rightly asked me about the defence investment plan. I cannot do any more than say to her that the Prime Minister has said that the defence investment plan will be published before 7 July, which is the Ankara summit, the next NATO summit. That is all I can say to her. We hope to be able to publish it well before that, but all I can say to her is that work is ongoing. It will lay out the investments for the future as well as the type of capability that we need. All I was saying to my noble friend Lord West and I say to others is that we have already increased the amount of defence spending and are already increasing available capabilities and taking action where a threat is made against us to defend our country, our people and the alliances to which we belong.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, we still may sing “Rule Brittania”, but the reality is that our navy at present is, frankly, a national embarrassment. Obviously, we are glad that the “Prince of Wales” is now back in action, but will the Minister comment on newspaper reports that all our non-ballistic submarines are in dock and not available for current operations?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It has been well reported. I have said from this Dispatch Box, and the First Sea Lord has said it as well, that the availability of submarines is not where the Government would want it to be. That is why we are investing, for example, £4.5 billion in the dockyards in Plymouth. The dockyards in Plymouth need investment, the dockyards in Scotland need investment, and we are looking at that. We are also looking at original ways of seeing whether we can provide docking facilities to increase the availability of submarines by looking at various provisions that do not require building or rebuilding a whole new dock. The noble Lord is quite right to point out that we need to do better on the availability of submarines. Of course we do. We will not comment on exactly how, and the noble Lord would not expect me to, but of course availability needs to improve and we are looking at how we can do that.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the focus has been on the defence investment plan, which is, of course, crucial, but does the Minister agree that capability is not just about capital investment? Resources expenditure, which is treated differently, is crucial. It pays for the fuel and spares that our people need to conduct training that is fundamental to their operational capability and it pays their salaries and for the standard of their accommodation. Does he agree that any plan that the Ministry of Defence brings forward that does not fund resource adequately will just continue the hollowing out of our Armed Forces that has taken place over the past two decades?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for the question. In any investment plan going forward, obviously the emphasis tends to be on capital as the noble and gallant Lord says—how many planes will we have, what we will do with munitions, and those sorts of things. However, he is quite right to point out the resource element of the budget—the day-to-day expenditure that pays for wages, training and all those things—is equally important, otherwise we run into trouble, particularly mid-year if there is a need to rebalance and look how to resource the particulars. The noble and gallant Lord often points out that if we do not get the resource allocation right, it impacts on the morale of the very people who serve our country. He is quite right to point that out. Discussions about the correct split between CDEL and RDEL is also going on.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister drew attention to recent reports in the media about funding the defence investment plan. Given that we are only a few weeks away from its publication, assuming it does hit the pre-NATO summit deadline, does he think that what can only be described as a Cabinet whip-round to pay for the defence investment plan sends the right message to the adversaries that the Chief of the Defence Staff highlighted?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government are looking at how they can increase defence spending, which we all want to see, and how we increase the defence budget. There is a variety of ways of doing that. He will know from experience that Governments often set budgets and then reorder priorities within them as circumstances change. That is a perfectly legitimate, perfectly reasonable thing for any Government to do. I say to the noble Lord that if the Government were not looking at how they are raising the money, if they were not looking at how to reorder priorities to find the money the noble Lord expects—as I do—he would not have asked that question. He would have reversed it and asked why the Government are not reordering priorities to meet the demands of the country and to fund the defence plan properly. Let me answer him: we are doing that and we will do it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on this issue of reprioritisation, given the fiscal restraints we are operating in, it is pretty clear that some resources will have to be found from other expenditures in government. Does he think the Government are doing enough to get across to the public why this is so important at the moment?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The answer to that is that we need to do more on the national conversation. We are looking at how we do that. I have been made responsible for the national conversation. Should we have done more already? We probably should have done, but we will now. We need to persuade people and talk to them about the threats we face and what we need to do to tackle them. We have to bring people along with us. I think that one of the things that the Government need to do—working with others because it is a national effort—is to say to people: “These are the threats that we face, and these are the things we need to do”. It does require some reordering of priorities to do that. At the end of the day, the defence of the realm is really important, but that case needs to be made to the people of this country. We should not just assume that they will accept it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the SDR made it clear that the Russian threat is now not simply a threat from abroad in eastern Europe and the North Sea but is also a homeland threat. It suggested a number of measures for mobilising our domestic population and improving homeland defence and public awareness of it. Is that an MoD responsibility or one that other departments will deal with, and what priority does it have?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The overall lead for homeland defence is with the Cabinet Office but, clearly, the Ministry of Defence has a role with respect to readiness and—in answer to my noble friend’s question—in talking to the public about how we fund this and prioritise spending within all that. Homeland defence across all aspects of our country is a Cabinet Office responsibility but, clearly, the MoD has an important role within it.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, given that the threats are often cyber threats, which have not been mentioned so far, what investment is going into that? Is it in the Minister’s department or someone else’s, and how joined up is the thinking on all that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is a Cabinet committee that looks at cyber defence and the MoD has just reorganised its cyber command to deal with the very threat that the noble Baroness mentions. The really important point is that warfare is changing. In the past, the military was always thought of as being tanks, airplanes and troops—all those sorts of things—whereas the warfare that we face now is cyber, disinformation and threats to underwater cables. You have to address all of that when asking what capability you need. Cyber is certainly one of them, and there has been some reorganisation within the MoD and across government to deal with that threat as well.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, we have talked about resources. We have talked about money and everything. When it really comes down to it, I say to the Minister—who I know has, over many years, had deep feelings for the defence of this country, without question—that it comes back to people. Given that we are in danger now, not necessarily in five or 10 years’ time, does he think that we have the right sort of people to be trained to be prepared to live, work, defend and, if necessary, die for this country?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Yes, I really do. If people feel that their country, their livelihood, their families and way of life are threatened, and they understand that, I think people will. I am sure there will be a small minority who will not, including some conscientious objectors and others who may not have that view, but I take the view that the context is everything. If people feel threatened, I believe passionately that the British people, as they always have done, will defend their democracy, their homes and their family.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s point about the national conversation, only last week I was briefed on research showing that senior military leaders and the heads of the security services have a particularly significant impact with the public when they talk in the media about the threats that we face. Does my noble friend agree that it would be beneficial for the national conversation that he is now responsible for, and which we need to have, if we could hear more from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the other service chiefs?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have always been of the view that in many situations—my noble friend has served, so she will know this—a military uniform gives a legitimacy to things that are said. That is quite right because, over many centuries, people have felt that those in military uniform have earned the right to be heard, and they believe that those people speak with integrity. In direct answer to my noble friend’s question, using all military personnel—not just senior personnel but military personnel of every rank, in their local communities and areas, including the reserves, and even cadets talking to other young people—in terms of a national conversation would be an immensely powerful thing to do. I shall make sure that we do that.

Military in the Gulf

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the three members of the Royal Navy who died during a helicopter training exercise in the early hours of Wednesday near Sourton in Devon. The families have requested a period of grace before further details are released, but I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with their families and friends at this terrible time. This tragic news comes after the Defence Secretary sadly announced on Monday the death of Lance Corporal Freeman during a joint training exercise in Iraq. I am sure that Members of the House will want to extend their deepest sympathies to his loved ones and those of the American service person who died in the same incident.

The UK maintains a network of bases across the region. They include the United Kingdom Naval Support Facility in Bahrain and Donnelly Lines at Al Minhad Air Base in the UAE, while the UK Joint Logistics Support Base at Port Duqm in Oman opened in 2018, a port that is large enough to accommodate Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. This ongoing commitment to the region is demonstrated by our response to the current Strait of Hormuz challenge, where the UK and France are leading planning for a multinational military mission.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I join the Minister in expressing condolences to the families of the service personnel who have been killed in recent accidents. It draws the attention of the whole House to the risks that our service personnel run every single day of their lives.

Is it not the case that the events that overtook us at the beginning of this year, with the beginning of the Iranian war, demonstrate that even though we may have bases, largely there are certainly no vessels within them? We were not capable of providing protection to our allies in that area; indeed, we were not even capable of properly protecting our own bases in Cyprus. Is this not illustrative of a long-term, decades-long decline in our capabilities? What does the Minister believe will be the long-term consequences for our standing in that region when it was clear that we were unable to come to the aid of our very long-standing, close allies there?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. On the regional contact we have, as well as the other contacts from the Foreign Office, the Prime Minister and others, I have met virtually every single week the ambassadors and/or the defence attachés of the various Middle East countries in the Ministry of Defence to discuss what they require. As a consequence of their answers, we have provided further fighter jets, drone capabilities, radar and anti-air defensive capabilities, so we have done a significant amount of work already. There are 1,000 British service personnel across the region. There have been one of two issue that have arisen, but it is important to recognise the important military support we have given to the region, and they have been very appreciative of that.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real need in this area is for a far more effective maritime tracking system than we have today, for legal and illegal shipping, and for underwater and surface shipping? Armed in this way, something such as the Commonwealth, with a fantastic network of 34 island states and 12 coastal states, would be an excellent ally and supporter in developing a modern network for better control of the seas.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really significant point. The noble Lord will know that the First Sea Lord has talked about the hybrid Navy, the importance of artificial intelligence, and the importance of intelligence in guiding the systems of the future, including drone capability. In providing that capability, instead of necessarily having minesweepers, the idea is that we should do the sort of thing that the noble Lord is talking about. An example would be RFA “Lyme Bay”, which is moving towards the region. The autonomous systems that it has to operate above, on the sea and underwater to protect our interests is a template which we will follow. That requires intelligence and the co-operation of various nations.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I express our condolences to the families of those who tragically lost their lives this week. As always, we owe a huge debt to service personnel and their families.

The Minister has already said he has had much engagement with the ambassadors and defence attachés from the Gulf region. Is he able to say categorically to them that we have the naval capabilities to give them the reassurance they need? Or do we need to push the Treasury to move further and faster?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that those discussions with the Treasury continue. On the point she makes, of course they ask for various military capabilities. HMS “Dragon” is in the region at the moment to support any operations that may be needed. Alongside that, what they have particularly asked for, given the indiscriminate way in which Iran responded, is for anti-air defence. We have provided that in significant quantity, with jets and the capability to defend their bases. They have been very appreciative of that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that military means are not necessarily the best means to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and that one better way of achieving that might be to revert to the situation we have been in for the last 30 years, where the Iranians did not ratify the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea but they did not interfere with freedom of navigation? That would surely be a better way of restoring economic growth to the world than military action.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know from his own experience that diplomacy is the first option in any problem—any issue that arises. Certainly, one way forward would be for Iran to ratify that treaty. He will know also that, in terms of the multinational mission we are planning jointly with France, our belief is that needs to happen within a permissive environment, which is what we are seeking. We see the current ceasefires with Lebanon and Iran, whatever the tensions are around them, and we would encourage people to maintain those ceasefires and try to find a diplomatic solution to the situation we are in.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, under the last Government, we saw the hollowing out of our Armed Forces. Now we have started to invest in our Armed Forces again, but there are limits to that. Does my noble friend agree that those advocating spending lots more money need to identify where that cash will come from and what the effect of that spending will be?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed, we cannot spend without identifying where the money is coming from—my noble friend makes a really good point. Clearly, there will be an increase in the amount of spending on defence, and there is a discussion about how much that should be. However, as I have often said, it is not about the money just in one particular instance; it is also about how we spend that money and what we spend it on, and the new capabilities for wars and threats of the future.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. The naval support facility in Bahrain is an excellent facility, commissioned by the last Government specifically to support the forward deployment of frigates and ships in the Gulf. While it may be entirely realistic that there will be no more minehunters in the Gulf because the nature of underwater detection has changed to be autonomous, the forward deployment of HMS “Lancaster” until her decommissioning at the end of last year was crucial. I recognise that there are limited vessels that are able to deploy at the moment, but as more vessels come on board—frigates and destroyers—will it be a priority for the Government once again to forward-deploy a frigate or destroyer to the region?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his service in the command position he has in the reserves. This also answers the important Question from the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Of course, exactly what priorities we set in the region and how we move forward will be a matter for the Government to consider as they look to the future and the laying down of forces in the Middle East region. What I will do is ensure that the point he makes, about the need for basing autonomous ships that support that sort of uncrewed capability, is considered in the discussions that take place.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, despite all the noise about the imminent arrival of much more money, is it not now a fundamental fact that the biggest constraint on both the generation and deployment of British capability is affordability? If one was to look at the relative balance of payments of, let us say, the UAE and the United Kingdom in its December 2024 figures, one would see that the UK was running a $40 billion deficit and the UAE was running an $80 billion surplus. Might not there be scope for some agreement whereby the generosity of the UAE might help get the defence investment plan over the line this side of the Summer Recess?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As the noble and gallant Lord will have heard the Defence Secretary say in the other place, the Government are determined to ensure that the defence investment plan is published before 7 July and the Ankara summit. The noble and gallant Lord makes an interesting point. A number of noble Lords have made points about how we could raise money for this and for that in respect of defence. Clearly, we spend a lot of time talking to our friends and partners, in this case in the Middle East region, to determine how best we support them and work with them to provide the capabilities they need to protect themselves—in this instance from the indiscriminate response from Iran.

King’s Speech

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for those last remarks that she made.

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate today. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their Front-Bench contributions, and my noble friend Lady Chapman for her opening remarks. This is a huge discussion. I will not answer every question that has been posed to me. However, given the importance of the debate, and given the times in which we live, it would be remiss of me not to ask my officials, with Foreign Office officials, to go through the debate and write to everyone who has contributed, to make sure that we respond to everything in full. We will place a copy of that in the Library. I make that commitment to everyone because it is an important thing for us to do.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in something I know we all share in: paying tribute to our Armed Forces, their personnel and their families, including those who have served in the past—our veterans. It is important to do that and to continue to do so, and I am very pleased to do it. We should also reflect on the recent tragic accident resulting in the death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan of The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery in Windsor. We remember her and her family and friends.

We come together at a really difficult time. I say that because, as I often say, there are differences between us and there will be debates both within and across the Chamber about some of the issues that we are confronting today, but the important thing that should come out of this—this is the important point that I make time and again, because our deliberations are read and looked at by our adversaries—is that there is nothing disunited about this Parliament, whether in this place or the other place, in our determination to stand up for our country and the values that we uphold and to work with our friends, partners and allies across Europe, and indeed the world, to fulfil those. That is an important point that we need to continue to make, because, as I say, and as others across this Chamber will know from their own experiences, what happens in this Parliament is repeated back to us. We appreciate the democracy in which we live, and it is important that free and frank debate should not in any way be construed as weakness on our part in the pursuit of that.

I turn to answering particular points, which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will be delighted about. It took 40 seconds for the noble Lord to get to the subject of Chagos—I should have had a sweepstake on it. He is quite right to ask those questions. I said I would find out a couple of things for him, and I will read him those answers because I thought he might ask them. On why the Government denied humanitarian aid to the Chagossians on the island, I repeat what I said to him in answer to the questions he asked on that: the reporting of the incident that we have read is inaccurate. The British Indian Ocean Territory Administration has not refused humanitarian resupply. BIOTA engaged in good faith and expedited discussions over the Easter period to facilitate a resupply mission, approving a permit covering approximately 140 categories of items, including several items not essential for humanitarian purposes. Upon the resupply vessel’s arrival in the territory, BIOT customs and immigration officers discovered aboard a number of items that were not on the manifest. Had those been prepared for the manifest, they would almost certainly have been permitted, so what was on the manifest was allowed.

On the question of resettlement, as the noble Lord pointed out, I have written to clarify those remarks. The proposed UK-Mauritius agreement provides the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. Mauritius will be able to resettle the islands other than Diego Garcia, and it will be for Mauritius to set the terms of and manage any future resettlement. That may not satisfy the noble Lord, but it is the answer.

With regard to the landings on Peros Banhos, the individuals who landed on that atoll did so illegally without a permit. There is no legal right for anyone, regardless of their citizenship or heritage, to enter the islands without a valid permit, and there is a temporary court order in place preventing vessels from transporting further people on to the Chagos Islands. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord by answering the questions that I promised him I would the next time I had the opportunity at the Dispatch Box.

Moving from the specifics to more general points, I will start by speaking about the national conversation. Let us be clear about this, so that noble Lords know whom to hold to account. In terms of the Ministry of Defence—not the whole of government—I have now been given responsibility for the national conversation. I am all for accountability; I will not shy away from it, but that is where we are with it. It is quite right that the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Houghton, and others, raised the point, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris, Lady Royall, Lady Antrobus, Lady Rafferty, and the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Hannan, my noble friends Lord Forbes, Lord John and Lord Harris, and others. The national conversation is crucial. I will come to defence spending and to the defence investment plan in a moment. But the national conversation is absolutely crucial, which is why so many noble Lords have raised the issue.

A discussion that we are having now in government is about how that starts—it will start soon—and what that national conversation should be about and what script we should take to the British people to discuss with them. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, are right: we will ask other people about their views, and we will take advice so that we have an agreed way of speaking to the British public that is inclusive, which lays out the threat without being alarmist, and takes us forward. That is what we will do with respect to the national conversation, and it is absolutely crucial that we do that.

I cannot remember who, but somebody said that they were not necessarily frightened of Russian paratroopers arriving in their particular vicinity. The nature of the conflicts that we face, however, exist in the era of cyber, of grey warfare, of threats to underwater cables. These are all things that noble Lords in here will know. In that sense, we are already threatened; we are already being attacked. We need to do this for all of us and, of course, that requires resilience. What does this mean for us in terms of protecting our own infrastructure and protecting our own cyber space? What should we ask our population to be able to provide for themselves on an individual or family basis? My noble friend Lady Rafferty mentioned Defence Medical Services; again, we need to have a whole-of-society approach, not just in defence but in terms of medical provision and local authorities and all those things that each and every noble Lord would say are important.

On spending, I cannot and will not satisfy people in here about spending or about the defence investment plan, but, as has been pointed out a number of times, I think that if we are saying to our population that we require more money to be spent on defence, rather than on other things, then we require a conversation with them to address the fact that the prioritisation of spending—for this Government or for any Government —will have to change to a certain extent with respect to defence, and that will perhaps mean that less will be spent on this or that. We need to have that conversation and bring people with us to do that. No Government can shy away from that, and there will be differences of view. Your families may be different to mine, but we have good discussions sometimes in my own family about this, and that is a perfectly proper thing to do. Something that we will have to take forward is how we build that resilience. I understand the points that have been made about the defence readiness Bill that is being prepared at the moment.

Another general topic was soft power. The noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Howard, and many others, made the point about the importance of diplomacy. Of course it matters how many tanks, ships, aircraft and submarines you have, but one thing this country has that sometimes we do not give ourselves enough credit for is our enormous ability to influence across Europe, and across the globe, through our relationships.

When I go to other countries—people here travel all over the world—they want the UK stood beside them. This is a Foreign Office/MoD debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will know that having a British ambassador in a foreign embassy stood with British military personnel, going to discuss a particular problem, conflict or crisis —something that needs to be done—with the military-to-military and ambassador-to-ambassador co-operation and network, is fundamental to the architecture we have across the world. Nation after nation asks for that. I will tell noble Lords why I think they ask for it. The involvement of the British military, with the ambassador, gives a confidence, legitimacy and status to a particular Government who are seeking to do something to resolve a conflict in their area. The integrated global defence network that we run from the MoD, in partnership with our Foreign Office colleagues, is fundamental. We need to build and develop that.

On overseas development assistance, difficult decisions have been made. The only point I will make, which I think our population needs to hear, is that at current prices in 2026-27 we are still spending £10 billion on overseas development assistance. I will give noble Lords the figures; they will go down next year and I appreciate that. I am not saying it will not go down, but it will still be £8.9 billion. The year after, in 2028-29, it goes back up again to £9.4 billion. We can say that it should never have been reduced, but significant sums of money are still being spent by our Government—our country—to deliver certain things. I have lifted out particular things. The BBC World Service is receiving additional grants and the British Council grant in aid is also increasing. I appreciate the difficulties and points noble Lords have made. All I am saying is that, alongside that, we are still doing things.

On the defence investment plan, I cannot add much to the points I have made in the past. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lords, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Magan, Lord Hintze, Lord Leigh and Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Stirrup, made the points—

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

Could the Minister tell us whether the defence investment plan is likely to be published during the premiership of the present Prime Minister?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

No. I just cannot add anything further to what I have said. The defence investment plan will come forward and lay out some things, and that will be related to the spending we decide on.

On the UK-EU relationship, the Government’s position is quite clear. We have laid it out. There is a debate about rejoining the EU; I know the Liberal Democrat Benches want to lay out that we should rejoin. Our position is that it would be futile and silly not to say that we should have a close relationship. As my noble friend Lady Ashton pointed out, of course we should have a close relationship with Europe. It does not mean we are going to rejoin the EU. But we should have a relationship with Europe to defend Europe and work with Europe in terms of economic prosperity and military assistance to each other, given the fact that NATO is the fundamental defensive alliance for us. Of course we should do that.

The point was made by my noble friend Lady Royall about bilateral relationships. That is why we have signed agreements with France and Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Magan, was talking about Germany. It is why we have established and agreed a bilateral treaty with Germany, recognising the importance of that relationship. We have also done it with Poland and other countries. It is why we lead JEF. We have those relationships with Europe and we will develop and strengthen them. However, we will do it in a way that does not reopen arguments and get us into a sterile argument about whether we join the EU or not and whether we are respecting the referendum, when actually what we are doing and saying is that we need a close and proper relationship.

On the Middle East, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Howard, asked me specifically about diplomacy. We carry on with negotiation and diplomacy, of course. That is why my noble friend Lady Chapman went to Israel—and I think Gaza—last year, and it is why she met the Egyptian Foreign Minister yesterday, which the noble Lord asked about. Every single week, I have met defence attachés and ambassadors from the Middle East to talk about the supply of defence equipment and what we are doing to support them in a defensive posture with respect to the Iranian war. We have done all that. In answer to many of the points that noble Lords made, we retain that influence.

Antisemitism is an absolute national disgrace. To have what we have had happen is not just something awful; it is a national stain on this country. We must do all we can to ensure that that view, which the vast majority of people share, is heard loud and clear by the community. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of course Israel remains important to us. But as my noble friend Lord Dubs and many others in this Chamber have said, we will criticise that Government where we think they are wrong. There is nothing contradictory in that. The US criticises us, and we criticise the US. We value Israel, but we are not going to stand aside if we think it has done something wrong. Indeed, another noble Lord made the point that people hold Israel to account in the Knesset.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made a point about Palestine. Recognising Palestine was an important step. It was a way of saying that we want to move the negotiations and discussions forward. It does not in any way undermine the Government’s commitment to the two-state solution. Of course there should be a viable and strong Israel, but alongside that there needs to be a strong and viable Palestine. The only way of achieving that, however frustrating and demanding, and however many times we think it will not work and never happen, is through discussions and negotiations. Somebody mentioned how near we were to an agreement a few years ago. It fell at one of the last hurdles, but we need to recapture that optimism and hope for the future. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, made the point that sometimes we have to have hope to take these things forward.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made about genocide, the Government’s position is exactly the same as it has been for years. The UK’s long-standing policy is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on his point about what a disgrace antisemitism is. I will think about the invite to the event—if that is the appropriate word—that the noble Lord mentioned.

On Pakistan and the role it has played with respect to Iran, without saying too much, if you look at the military-to-military co-operation there, it helps enormously. On Sudan, what is happening is an absolute disgrace. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we are going to conference after conference to try to ensure that we move forward and deal with the crisis taking place. On Cyprus, I am very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, if he wants to. We have been delighted with the co-operation and support that we have had in Cyprus with respect to what has been going on.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the need to respond to not only China but Russia. He is quite right. It is important for us to consider the axis of Iran, North Korea, Russia and China and how we respond to that. His contributions in this Chamber are enormously helpful in holding the Government to account and reminding us of our responsibility on that.

As someone else said, it is an absolute delight that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, can say what he says to all of us, although most of us disagree with him. I say again that much of what we are doing is to defend the right of people such as him to say what they think without fear of the police. That not a smart or a sarcastic argument but an important one. I think, from my university days, it was John Stuart Mill who said that you must always remember that the opinion of one is as important as the opinion of a majority in being respected and listened to. When you look back over the years, you sometimes find that a minority opinion at a particular time becomes a majority opinion when you roll it forward 50 years. We should reflect on that.

I will abuse my privilege for another minute or two. I turn to the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Neville-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Magan. Let us be clear about this: the US-UK relationship is a fundamental strategic alliance that remains hugely important to this country and our global alliances. It is hugely important to NATO and to ensuring that we continue with our efforts. We will continue to work hard on that, however difficult and challenging it may be at times. The biggest strategic point is ensuring that NATO retains its credibility and importance, and we will continue with that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, mentioned the defence readiness Bill and the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, said that meeting strategic threats required political stability. All those sorts of things are important, and we continue to implement the strategic defence review.

If I have forgotten or missed out certain points that people have made, I apologise. We will go through the debate and return to them. I finish where I started and say once again that the influence of our country is enormous across Europe and the world. Europe wants us to stand with it, as do many other parts of the world. We have to have confidence and belief, whatever the challenges. We will in due course publish the defence investment plan and we will come to spending decisions that may or may not please different people, but, at the end of the day, it is significantly important that all of us are united in the determination to ensure that we play our proper part in the world and achieve what we all want: the defence of democracy, human rights and freedom in our own country, our own continent and across the world. All of us are united in that.

Motion agreed nemine dissentiente, and the Lord Chamberlain was ordered to present the Address to His Majesty.

Civil Preparedness for War

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Harris—it is very good to see her in person again—for bringing forward this really important debate.

On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about whether we can have a longer debate on these matters—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned this to me beforehand—let us see. That would be really helpful for all of us in taking this forward. Notwithstanding the King’s Speech, which will I am sure include a day on defence and foreign affairs—if that is agreed—there may be some other point to have that debate. I am sure that all the people who have spoken in this debate would value it, so that people can make longer contributions—so that is a very good suggestion.

Let me set out the context for this, because it is really important. A number of noble Lords made the point about the need to engage the public. For a number of years since what has been designated as the end of the Cold War, the country has focused on the terrorist threat—that is, on Afghanistan, Iraq and those sorts of threats to our country. The threat of the sort of conflict that we face now is, in many respects, something that people think is of a bygone age and not relevant to contemporary society. What we have seen recently—although we can argue what “recently” is—has been a rude awakening for all of us. This is not to ignore any terrorist threat, but there is a need to recalibrate to the state-on-state threats and the geopolitical change that there has been.

Alongside that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, it is really important to understand that warfare has changed as well. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others made the point that it not just a tank versus a tank or a fighter aircraft versus a fighter aircraft: it is the threat to underwater cables and threats of cyber attacks, fake news and all of those other types of grey-zone warfare that need us to respond. That is why it is so important to have this conversation with our population. In other words, the traditional perception of war is not as relevant to today’s threats as it would have been in the past; it is not irrelevant, but the threats have changed, so we need to build a multiplicity of responses.

As noble Lords will know, the Cabinet Office has the overall responsibility for co-ordination across government, with the home defence programme, but defence obviously has a very important role to play within that. The MoD, for example, has recognised that we need to respond to the challenge in the report and to move to war-readiness in order to respond to the changed circumstances in which we operate. We are, therefore, trying to do that.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the urgency here. There is this idea that nothing has happened, or that it has not happened quickly and needs to happen more quickly. I totally and utterly accept that, particularly in terms of the point that the noble Baroness and others made about the need for us to involve citizens. There was a recent meeting with 38 local resilience forums, which were brought together to discuss what they might do to respond to the changing circumstances. We need more of those sorts of thing. There have also been two big conferences of private industry chief executives to see how private industry might respond to all this. Again, more of that needs to happen.

We are drafting a defence readiness Bill to ensure that we have the legislative framework within which we can respond to some of the challenges that we may meet in future. I understand the impatience and the need for us to act as quickly as possible—we will do so. I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for bringing this debate forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, talked about the need to inform the public. I could not agree with him more. It is not only about informing the public through traditional media; we have to get into social media and multimedia, particularly if we want to speak to our young people. I am sure that many noble Lords have children, or, like me, grandchildren. They do not read newspapers. They get their information from social media, yet some of us still put out press releases. There is nothing wrong with that, but we have to get smarter if we want to get this information across to them.

I could not agree more with the point about how we use civil volunteers. Let us take this on. All of us have to be a bit more confident in talking about civil volunteers and all the things that we might use to support resilience. We have to ignore the barracking that we will get to do with “Dad’s Army” and all that. We have to get over that because the population understands that what we are talking about is, where possible, using people’s experience and ability to help in the face of a national emergency.

That is why, in the Armed Forces Bill, should it go through Parliament, we suggested increasing the maximum age of reserves to 65. Nobody is expecting a fully-fledged combat soldier of 65—though there may be one or two. The point is that a 65 year-old plumber, electrician, doctor, nurse, surveyor, architect, civil engineer, or any other member of all of those professional occupations and trades, could be of immense use. Yet the headlines in many of the papers were that the Government were seeking to recreate “Dad’s Army”. That is the sort of nonsense we must have the confidence to take on because, when you speak to people, they say that, of course, this is something—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I was saying, I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that this is a really important debate for which we certainly need more time. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Farmer, Lord Sikka—in a particular way—Lord Rogan, Lord Wallace and Lord Bailey, and the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chester and the Bishop of Manchester, talked about pride, patriotism, culture, self-worth and self-esteem. This is a big question for the Government and society, and I wonder whether we could sometimes be a bit more confident and strident in what we say about it. I say that because, just beneath the surface, there is patriotism, pride and a sense of self-worth and community.

I will give an example that I am sure many noble Lords in this Committee would use. In a few weeks’ time, on 27 June, it will be Armed Forces Day. I guarantee that, across our country, in all four nations and all regions, there will be numerous examples of pride in our country, in our Armed Forces and in what we do. That will be demonstrated and celebrated in numerous ways—not by everyone, but there will be a massive series of events that will celebrate and do all the things that we are talking about.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who talked about inequality and what we should do for a fairer society, but that debate takes place within a democracy that allows those debates to happen and in a society that allows us to freely express fundamentally different views, to freely celebrate different faiths and to worship in the way that we want. Those freedoms have not just been granted; at times, they have had to be fought for and defended. Events such as Armed Forces Day need to remind people about those things.

Of course, the biggest examples of that are Remembrance Sunday and Remembrance Day. Every single community has some sort of remembrance event where we do the very things that everyone here has said are important. At the heart of that are our Armed Forces, the cadets—which the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned, and which we are seeking to expand—and other uniformed organisations, such as the Scouts, Brownies and Guides, marching with pride through our streets with their parents. There is also wreath-laying at various memorials. That is the sort of thing we need to capture and to perhaps speak up about more than we do. It gives me the sense that we can do these things, and we perhaps ought to use them to remind ourselves of what they represent and speak to. It would be helpful if we could bottle that and use it more in many other examples.

Alongside that, if you look in the strategic defence review, we are going to talk to the Department for Education and others—we need to do this—about what we might do with our schools, colleges, universities and other institutions in order to take forward these debates and arguments, which are particularly important, in an appropriate way.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. She will know the Government’s position on deterrence, which is that we support the NPT. We will be going to the conference in New York to try to ensure that the treaty remains as strong and as important here as it has been over there.

I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about flood defence, climate change and the need to be resilient in the face of some of the challenges that we see around those issues. Of course, how we will do that will be part of any plan as well.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her offer of a meeting. Of course I will meet her and others to discuss how we can take the national conversation forward. She made points about our spending and military readiness. We recognise that we need war readiness. Various actions are being taken. The debate around the level of investment will continue; the debate that the noble Baroness has initiated will certainly be part of that.

As I have said before, a whole-of-society approach and effort is needed. This is about our freedoms, our democracy and our country, along with our friends and allies across the world, defending the sorts of things that we would all defend. That is in all our interests. Patriotism is not something that belongs to one party or one aspect of society. All of us can unite around pride in our nation.

I finish on this point. Sometimes, I think, we feel almost as though talking about patriotism and pride is something that belongs to a bygone age. I do not think that that is true. Patriotism and pride are perhaps of more relevance today than they have ever been. All we have done today is be reminded of that. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country and proud of the things we stand for; we should remember that sometimes, and a reminder of that for us all should be at the heart of any national conversation.

Committee adjourned at 4.52 pm.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have been under sustained attack over many months for inadequacy of defence spend, opacity as to what they are going to do about it and lethargy engulfing their defence investment plan. When the most acerbic criticism comes from a political friend and the Government’s defence adviser, that is painful, but it is also a piercing alarm klaxon; help is needed now.

I ask the Minister, whom I hold in respect and affection, two questions. Even if the Government do not accept that the Chagos deal is dead, although everyone else does, why not redirect the identified and assigned Chagos payments to the MoD? That money is not going to Mauritius any time soon. As the MoD struggles to fill a current £3.5 billion black hole, it must ruthlessly prioritise, so how about, above all else, urgently getting warships out of maintenance?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On the Chagos deal, the direct answer, fairly obviously, is that priorities across government are always being assessed and reassessed as policy develops or changes, but predicting that is very difficult. I cannot give a direct answer to what the noble Baroness has asked—as I expect she thought I would not be able to. On warship maintenance, the First Sea Lord is working extremely hard to improve the maintenance of warships to see how we can get them all ready and operational more quickly. It is not just warships but the whole of the Navy. He is working hard, as the noble Baroness knows, with respect to a hybrid Navy. He is also working extremely hard to improve submarine availability.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, first, is the delay in the defence investment plan partly due to the Government having to make cuts to existing programmes to provide for programmes that meet new and increasing challenges? How does that sit with the claim to be funding increased defence spending? Secondly, given that the SDR called for a “whole-of-society approach” to defence and security, when will the Government seek to engage the public and all political parties in a debate on the threats we face, how they are escalating and how we need to respond? At the moment, the public are not so convinced that increased defence spending is justified. Most of us know that it is, but we need to ensure that the public are carried with it. Will the Government take such an initiative?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is a debate in Grand Committee on Monday about defence resilience, so we can start the conversation there. Of course, there is a broader conversation that the noble Lord referred to, and we are working hard to deliver that as well. I accept that there is a debate about defence spending. However, in 2024-25, the total DEL was £60.2 billion. In 2028-29, it will be £73.5 billion under current plans. That is a £13.5 billion increase in that final year.

On the SDR, the noble Lord will know, notwithstanding the debate going on around it, that the Government are not waiting for the publication of the SDR. Significant investments are being made already. The Leonardo investment in Yeovil around helicopters was announced recently. Again on helicopters, just yesterday nearly £900 million was announced Boeing UK for Chinook and Apache maintenance. There is huge investment in shipbuilding in Scotland, which is immense for Scotland and something about which we can all be pleased. The nuclear deterrent is being renewed. We have ordered 12 F35As. All those things are important. We are not waiting for the SDR; we are investing already. The debate will no doubt continue on the total amount, but it is wrong to say we are not investing anything.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I offer my sympathies to the Minister for being put up, once again, to defend the indefensible. Would he agree that the people of this country have a right to expect their leaders to, well, lead? The need is not in doubt. The Prime Minister goes to places such as Munich and gives very eloquent speeches, setting out the urgency of the requirement, but back at home the issue apparently remains on his desk, where I assume it has been sitting for months. Could the Minister take the message back to his colleagues—it is a message with which I know he agrees, although he cannot say so—that the time for leadership is not now, it is long past? We need to get on with this. The situation is too urgent and too dangerous to permit a further delay.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The DIP is being finalised. As the noble and gallant Lord said, the DIP is on the Prime Minister’s desk, as he said recently at the Liaison Committee, and is being considered. The only point I make to the noble and gallant Lord is the one I made to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and often make to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. I accept the debate and discussion about the totality of the amount that should or should not be spent within the total the Government have available. Alongside that discussion and debate, significant change is happening and significant investment is being made. The defence budget is rising. I know it is not rising in the way the noble and gallant Lord would wish it to but, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and without repeating it to save time for other noble Lords to ask questions, significant investment is going into the defence industry and defence capabilities across our nation, of which the British public can be proud.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, in the current debate about the appropriate balance between welfare and defence spending, allegations have been made about the lack of defence expertise in the Treasury. Is this justified?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We speak to the Treasury all the time, so I hope the Treasury will understand the points we are making about defence and its importance. I know the Treasury and the Prime Minister understand that. The debate continues about the totality of the spending that needs to be allocated to defence. Those discussions with the Treasury, the Prime Minister and others across government will continue.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer. I thank the Minister for giving up his valuable time yesterday to meet senior Army leaders from the directorate of personnel. Reservists are the first echelon. The Regular Forces are now so small that reservists are no longer second echelon, but being, essentially, on a zero-hours contract our budgets are usually the first to be cut. What assurances can the Minister give the House that reserve budgets will be protected in the forthcoming DIP?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that the reserves are an essential part of the defence of our nation; they will be an increasing part of the defence of our nation. As such, they deserve a budget which matches the responsibility they are going to be given.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, on Tuesday, my noble friend the Minister called on all sides of the House to come together to deal with the threats we face. However, my noble friend Lord Robertson this week called out the lack of engagement of the Liberal Democrats and Reform, who did not respond to his offer—at least until this week—to brief them on the strategic defence review. The Green Party is at best, if I am being charitable, ambivalent about NATO. What needs to be done to bring all sides together in the face of the toughest compounding circumstances in decades? It is apparent, from recent conversations, that noble Lords on all sides care and think deeply about this issue.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The point I was trying to make on Tuesday—I am happy to reiterate it—is that the threat we face needs the country to respond as a whole. The Government’s responsibility, working with others, is to ensure that the population understand that threat and the increasing nature of it. I think that, in response to that, we can expect everyone to come together, as our country always does.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I say simply from the Liberal Democrat Benches that I cannot think how many times I have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in the last few months. We are fully engaged with this debate, as the Minister knows well. We are anxious that the defence review should be implemented. We regret that there has not been the national conversation led by the Prime Minister that we need. The idea that we are somehow not engaged with this is a little over the top, to say the least.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the noble Lord’s main point about the national conversations, as I have said to him and in this House on a number of occasions, that national conversation needs to begin as soon as possible, and plans are under way with respect to that. It is essential that it happens: we need to ensure that the British public understand the very real change in circumstances they now face compared with just a few years ago.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the effectiveness of expenditure is as important as the level of expenditure? Can he tell the House what the MoD is doing to improve the efficiency of defence spending?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, there has been a defence reform programme, which has led to the establishment of a national armaments directorate and a new national armaments director. Certainly, at the top of his agenda is ensuring more effective procurement and better value for money—all the sorts of things that you would assume are essential. But it is not only effective procurement; the other challenge for us all as a nation, and indeed our friends and allies, is what appropriate equipment to buy for the changed nature of warfare. The lesson from Ukraine is clearly that it is air defence, new technology and drones. It is about how we ensure a balance between what you might call traditional capability, which of course is still essential, and the new technologies that are emerging. That is also a challenge, as well as the nature of the procurement itself.

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.