Qatar: Israeli Strike

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, of course, it is important to remember that Israel has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN charter. Yesterday saw further strikes by Israel, this time on Houthi targets in Yemen. We know that the Prime Minister met Israel’s leader, President Herzog, yesterday. Could the Minister tell us what was discussed in that meeting and what practical steps the Government are taking to contain the growing instability in the Middle East?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, Israel has a right to self-defence, but the Government are concerned by Israel’s strike in Doha, we condemn the flagrant violation of sovereignty and stand in solidarity with Qatar. I extend my personal recognition and respect to the Emir for his continued commitment to supporting peace negotiations. In discussions that the Prime Minister rightly had with President Herzog yesterday, he reiterated that condemnation of Israel’s strikes on Doha, which violated Qatar’s sovereignty and risked further escalation in the region. He pressed him to stop the famine from worsening by allowing aid in and halting IDF operations in Gaza City. He also shared his condolences for the horrific terror attacks in Jerusalem on Monday. They both agreed on the need for Hamas to immediately release the hostages, and the UK will continue its work to seek an enduring peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Could the Minister confirm whether there were British nationals within the vicinity of the strikes? What advice is being provided to British nationals in that part of Doha and indeed in Qatar overall?

The Minister must be aware that this has been a deliberate attempt to both undermine and end any negotiations. That must be heartbreaking for the hostage families. With this and the deliberate use of starvation of the civilian population in Gaza, the Netanyahu Government are now consistently breaking international law. So what practical, deliverable and meaningful decisions will the British Government make on our relationship with the State of Israel and the Netanyahu Government to ensure that the message is not just diplomatic but: “an end to business as usual in our relationship”? The breaking of international law is now consistent and is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not aware of any British nationals being in the vicinity of the strike. If that is wrong, I will write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library.

On the question of international law, we expect all countries to respect international law. With respect to what we have done specifically, we have supported, as the noble Lord will know, the calling of an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, which will take place, I believe, later today. We have said, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in meetings and discussions with President Herzog that we deplore the strike that took place. We have reiterated the need for an immediate ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid to enter into Gaza, and all the various other things that in the end will lead to talks that will lead to a two-state solution.

It is important to that we repeat our thanks to Qatar and the Emir of Qatar, who has shown great dignity and statesmanship in saying that he will not allow himself to be deflected from the course of peace.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I declare the interest of being involved in a consultancy which provides advice to the Government of Qatar. Is the Minister aware that, as is my certain knowledge, for many years now Qatar has provided a safe space for Hamas and Israel to negotiate safely within Doha, and that money paid to Gaza has been channelled in some part through the Israeli Government? What happened yesterday, after Qatar’s part in resolving a large number of issues, including the freeing of hostages, was a heinous betrayal of trust.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes the point for himself in his question. We have close and strong relationships with Qatar. I myself hosted the ambassador of Qatar at the recent military tattoo in Edinburgh, and met others around that to reiterate the points that the noble Lord has made. Again, as I said to the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the way that Qatar and its Emir have responded to this flagrant violation of its sovereignty is such an important statement about the Emir himself and the nation of Qatar, and they are to be congratulated on the fact that they are willing to continue with those peace negotiations.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I declare an interest as an adviser to the Council of Arab Ambassadors. The previous UK Government played a bridging role. Indeed, I remember facilitating the first engagement between the hostage families—I spent an extensive amount of time with them—and the Qatari Administration. The intervention of Qatar and other partners resulted in the release of 139 hostages. As has been asked, where do these events leave the status of Qatar today and the important role that it plays? Where are we on the important issue of bringing the war in Gaza to an end? Again, Qatar has played a key role, and the facilitation of the dialogue between Israel and Hamas in Doha was an important role that it was playing.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his question. The work that the current Government are doing is very much building on the work that he did when he was in government and the relationships that he established between this country and Qatar. I reassure him that we see Qatar as a continuing bridge between the different parties in the conflict in and around Gaza. Qatar is to be congratulated on the way in which it has tried to bring the two sides, Israel and Hamas, together to try to create a peace settlement. As the noble Lord points out, we continue to discuss with the Qataris how we might bring about an immediate ceasefire, see the release of the hostages and bring an end to what we are seeing in Gaza. Qatar remains crucial to that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is day 706 of the detention of the hostages who were abducted on 7 October. The need for settlement negotiations is even more urgent than it was last week. Will the Government do all they can to urge the Government of Qatar to continue their most valuable efforts to secure some sort of settlement of the appalling tragedy in Gaza?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. Part of everything I have said in response to this Urgent Question has been to highlight the crucial role Qatar has played, is playing and will play in the future. What should ring out from the questions noble Lords have asked and the statement I am making is that we are grateful. We admire greatly the Emir, his Government and the people of Qatar for the fact that they are willing, and have said so publicly, to continue their efforts to bring about the release of the hostages and that peace settlement. They are to be congratulated for that. We do not take it for granted, but we admire and respect their fortitude in the face of what happened.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with everything the Minister said about the Qataris, the Emir and the commendable restraint they are showing in the face of unprovoked provocation. Can I ask, specifically in terms of chronology, is it the Minister’s understanding that Israel let the White House know of the attack on Qatar as it was happening, before it happened or after it happened? If it was before it happened, what position were the Americans in to forewarn the Qataris?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to speculate on who knew what and when, but I think it is interesting to note what the White House said in response to the attack that took place. The President himself said that the strike on Doha

“does not advance Israel or America’s goals”,

and he feels “very badly” about it. I think those White House comments speak for themselves.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, despite the difficulties that have been caused by this recent action, does the Minister understand the frustration of knowing that the Hamas leaders, who planned the butchery on 7 October continue to know where the hostages are and be involved in that, stay safe? For many people in Israel and around the world, that is a source of frustration. At least understand that, rather than just simply having a blanket condemnation of Israel.

Secondly, there has been a lot of discussion in the press and among commentators as though even the aim of removing the Hamas leadership was illegitimate. I do not remember such discussions when it came to taking out Osama bin Laden. Although I do not want the diplomatic fallout from what has happened, I think the aspiration, at least, to remove the Hamas leadership is one that I have some sympathy with.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me just say this: there is no difference in this House about the condemnation of Hamas. There is nobody in this House who would support Hamas or any of its aims and objectives. It is important to remember that. I understand the point that the noble Baroness is trying to make, but you cannot have a situation where a sovereign nation has its sovereignty ignored in the way that Israel ignored the sovereignty of Qatar, particularly, I would say—I think the majority of us would say—when Qatar has played an absolutely crucial role in trying to bring different parties and factions of Israel, Hamas and others together to try to resolve this conflict. I say again that the fact that they are willing to continue with those efforts brings nothing but admiration for them, the Emir and the people of Qatar.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who has such expertise in this area. We on these Benches also welcome the Government’s announcement of this new defence industrial strategy. We support the objectives of both boosting defence capability and increasing economic activity within our country. As someone who has worked in the sector—I no longer have an interest in it—I can say that, in the main, the jobs in the defence sector are high-quality jobs that pay well over the national average, so they are very worthwhile jobs for our citizens. More than that, they will contribute in large measure, we hope, to the resilience and security of our country.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I will focus on procurement. I will not repeat the questions that she has already asked, although I am very interested in the answers. It is clear that an improved framework is needed and that, in the Government’s own words, waste, delay and complexity have prevailed. Big changes are therefore needed. We also support the aims of involving more SMEs and driving innovation. These are important, but how? Section 7 of the strategy sets out some details of process, but I would suggest that, as well as process, this all requires an entire change of culture across the sector, from the MoD to the primes and the SMEs. How will the Government fast-track the necessary culture changes that we need in order to move at pace?

The implementation of a UK offset regime is welcome and the sections in the strategy are encouraging. I appreciate that consultation is needed, but I also note that there are—we hope—contracts being let already before this regime is put in. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how any offsets will be gained from contracts that are let before then?

Similarly, a buy British focus is really good and very important. However, some contracts are being let at the moment that do the exact opposite. They are contracts that may call into question the future of established capacity in this country: capacity that, once lost, will not be regained. Can the Minister therefore ensure that these are reviewed as soon as possible to ensure that permanent damage is not being done before this strategy is implemented. I will be happy to discuss further details on that with the Minister.

In the Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves confirmed an extra £2.2 billion of UK military funding. This increase will be paid for by cuts in overseas aid, which the Minister knows we deplore. This strategy contains spending of £773 million on the Government’s estimate, but can the Minister confirm that this is not in fact new money, but money out of the pot that was announced in the spring by the Chancellor? At the time, the Chancellor also announced the new Defence Growth Board. Can the Minister say what role this will play, and indeed what role it has played in the preparation of this strategy? How does this fit with the new defence investors advisory group that is announced in the strategy?

I also seek information on the whereabouts of the Defence Growth Partnership, which has been in place for some time and shares many of the same aims, particularly around SMEs and innovation. What is its role? Is it still working and how does it contribute?

A key drag on the success of this strategy will be the lack of available skills. Part of this announcement includes skills investment, which is largely focused on five new defence technology colleges. This is also welcome, as is the emphasis on apprentices. However, what is the role of Skills England in all this, given that it was supposed to be part of the picture on the national skills programme.

Following events, it is very clear that things are moving very fast globally, and moving in the wrong direction. They underscore the vital importance of working alongside our European allies in securing the UK’s defence. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, we continue to play key roles in JEF, E3 and other groupings, while NATO is of course our foremost security defence relationship and always will be. However, more can be done to deepen the co-operation and integration with our European allies. They share security challenges and together we can build scale to rearm at pace. Will the Government, for example, now agree to seek the UK’s associate membership of the European Defence Agency?

While EU institutions have a more limited role in defence, the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—defence fund is being established by the EU Commission. Recognising the opportunity that SAFE presents, the Minister of State, Stephen Doughty, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Monday:

“It is a €150 billion instrument. It is very significant and could lead to significant opportunities for our defence industries”.


Can the Minister therefore update your Lordships’ House on the UK’s discussions with the Commission and the nation states on our participation in SAFE and tell us whether UK industry will be eligible to bid in the first round, which I believe is in November?

I have lots more queries, but I close by saying that this strategy is a first step and I absolutely concur with the noble Baroness that implementation is key to its success. We will happily support and work with the Government to help deliver the strategy and its objectives.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive comments about the strategy and the important questions he asked. I know it is from a position of support for our overall direction. I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie; I know that her questions are from a position of overall support for the strategy, but seek clarification on how we can improve it in the interests of our country and the nation’s Armed Forces. I very much appreciate the comments from both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

Notwithstanding the points that have just been made, sometimes we, as a nation, do not praise some of the things that are happening. Yesterday I was at DSEI at the Excel centre, which I know the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be aware of. It was a phenomenal statement about UK industry and UK business—small, medium and large—and what a phenomenal statement about the projection of British power across the globe. Many noble Lords have told me they have been, or will go, to DSEI and they too have been overwhelmed by the number of foreign visitors, armed forces and businesses that are here.

So, yes, there are questions about our strategy and how we might do better, but I challenge anybody—and this is for the audience out there, rather than in here—to not say that we have an awful lot of which to be proud in this country when we look at DSEI. I know that is a view shared by everyone, and it is an important starting point.

The strategy seeks to do more in different ways. I will try to run through many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Yes, it is about trying to get to war-fighting readiness. We cannot have a situation, now or in the future, where we cannot do what we want to do because we cannot produce the equipment we need at the pace we need it. We must do better than we have done, and part of that is building our sovereign capability. Of course we will work with our international allies, but sovereign capability has been something that we have not given enough attention to over the past few decades. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about the implementation plan. A whole chapter is dedicated to implementation. In each part, there are matrices about being held to account. The noble Baroness is right that on page 30 there are things that have yet to be implemented. I would point out that the strategy was published on Monday, but we are doing our best to get going.

On implementation, can I read directly from a note I was given, since I asked about this? An implementation team headed by a senior civil servant has been created. The Chancellor and the Defence Secretary—note to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—will hold the department to account via the defence growth board, and the Defence Industrial Joint Council will monitor delivery with our industry partners. The defence growth board will continue to exist to try to ensure, through the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, that all the various things that are outlined in the strategy are delivered.

In relation to what the noble Baroness said, we are working hard to try to protect jobs with respect to Typhoon. We have allocated £6 billion to munitions factories over the lifetime of the Parliament, with the six additional munitions sites, to try to ensure that we can have the munitions that we need. The defence investment plan will be this autumn.

The 10% reduction in the Civil Service headcount that the noble Baroness referred to is the aspiration. The new boards and bodies that are set up will see others disappear, others amalgamated, but all of it trying to give a greater focus. The noble Baroness went through some of the new bodies. They are not in addition to the existing bodies; they are going to be more directly focused to deliver the outcome we want and will subsume some of the existing bodies. We wait to see how that happens.

On the national armaments director, we have an interim director who will be in post for a period while we recruit the new director. I am not certain of the exact timetable for that. In terms of intelligence spending and defence spending, I think the amalgamation of that is not a smoke and mirrors; it is to try to reflect the reality of the new geopolitical context of our time, where we talk about homeland defence, cyber, and the importance of our security agencies working with our Armed Forces. The totality of the defence and security of our nation encapsulates all the above, and that is the totality of the spending. The noble Baroness and others can debate whether it is enough, but that is the concept behind joining those two together—to give us a sense of how much is being spent in the sphere. I know my noble friend Lord Beamish is behind us and will know the importance of some of the work that intelligence does to keep us safe, particularly from a homeland perspective.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about fast-tracking cultural change. I totally agree with that. Let me give the noble Lord one example of that. Why does the urgent operational requirement operate only when there is a war or a crisis? Why can we not bring that same culture—I think the noble Baroness asked this when she was a Minister—that same process and that same attitude to the situation when it is not a crisis or a war? It is not about being flippant; it is not about disregarding proper financial process, but it is about saying: “Come on, let’s get these decisions made; let’s give some certainty; let’s give a drumbeat to orders”. If we can do that, we will do ourselves a favour. I am perfectly happy to meet the noble Lord and others, if he wishes, with my colleague. I will volunteer him for it with the Defence Procurement Minister, and we can discuss the point he made about offset.

Offset is a really interesting concept as we go forward—the idea of trying to have mutual benefits. If we buy abroad, how can we ensure through offset that we do not lose any benefit that may accrue or that a complementary benefit accrues to UK industry? I take the noble Lord’s point, which was on what happens before the offset system comes into effect, and we will consult on that. What happens if decisions are made now? I will take some advice on that and talk to the noble Lord and his friends.

The noble Lord also mentioned skills. Skills is a massive issue for our country. If a cultural change is needed anywhere, it is in trying to ensure that skills-based occupations, skills-based learning and skills-based opportunities are seen to be as valuable as some of the other opportunities. That the skills option is not seen in that way has bedevilled our country for decades. We are trying to deal with that through the defence technical colleges. We are going to work with Skills England and the devolved nations—he will have noticed that the devolved colleges are here.

On working with our European allies, of course we will work with them. We have the EU-UK security and defence partnership. I say to the noble Lord that we could not have entered SAFE without an EU-UK security partnership. The fact that we have that means that we can start to answer all the questions that the noble Lord has asked.

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their support; I hope that I have answered many of the questions that they asked. This is an exciting time. At the end of the day, the defence industry is on the front line with us. If we want to defend our democracy, we need to improve, extend and develop our industrial capability as well.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce UK, I am absolutely delighted with the defence industrial strategy. Back in 2019, we debated the 70th anniversary of NATO. I was the only Peer in that debate who said that our defence expenditure should be 3% of GDP, rather than 2% as it then was. I am delighted to see that the strategy says that we are going to go up to 3.5%. Does the Minister agree that, sadly, with the world that we live in now, it will probably need to go up to 5% very soon?

The strategy is very good, but it does not talk about global strategy. I am co-chair of the India All-Party Parliamentary Group. Given our skills that the Minister spoke about, is there not an opportunity to partner with countries such as India, which has defence manufacturing as a priority, to our benefit as well?

The Minister spoke about skills. What about universities? As a former chancellor of the University of Birmingham, I have seen first-hand the power of business and universities working together. There is huge potential here for defence.

Finally, on defence procurement—which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spoke about—should it not be compulsory for everyone in defence procurement to be qualified through the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, which is headquartered here in the UK?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will take that last point about procurement to my honourable friend Luke Pollard MP, who is the Minister in the other place. On defence spending, the debate continues on how much it should increase, but I am glad to see that the trajectory across Europe is towards increased spending. I will focus on the global strategy. Within the department, we are also working on a refreshed defence diplomacy strategy that we will see in due course.

On India specifically, I have been to India and spoken to officials about the relationship between our two countries and the trade that may take place. The noble Lord will know that the carrier strike group is visiting India on its way back. Again, that is part of the development of relationships between us and other nations. All that is focused. Whenever a Minister goes to another country—I am going to the Philippines next week—we put defence exports and business at the forefront of what we do. The carrier strike group had defence business activity all over it when it was in Tokyo Bay just a few days ago.

We are making progress, and I know that that progress is supported by everyone. Is there more to do? Yes, but there is an awful lot happening, particularly with countries such as India.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this strategy. It is the first proper defence strategy that we have had since the strategy produced in 2005 by the noble Lord, Lord Drayson. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: the pace at which it will be delivered is important. I must say to my noble friend that my heart sank a little bit when he started reeling off the list of committees that are going to oversee this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right: we need a cultural change. A possible idea would be to give each of the Minister’s civil servants a copy of the excellent book, Freedom’s Forge, by Arthur Herman, which talks about the rearmament of America in the last war. Can the Minister give assurance on the pace of delivery, and that regions such as the north-east, which, along with many others, has a proud history of supporting the UK’s Armed Forces, will be able not only to respond to it but to get investment from the MoD and suppliers?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely take my noble friend’s point on the need for pace. Even though I listed some committees, they will be the result of an amalgamation of certain bodies, so I hope that will be of some reassurance.

I thank my noble friend for his comments on the need for defence jobs and defence investment to be not only in the south and south-east but across the regions. He has been a brilliant champion of the north-east for a number of years in the other place. He has spoken to me about other industries, such as shipbuilding, with respect to the north-east and other areas of the country. As for the defence growth deals, we have seen two in England, in South Yorkshire and Plymouth, and then those in the nations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Such growth deals will ensure that the defence investment taking place will be spread across the country and benefit the whole country.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this Statement, with its intent to create British jobs across the UK and make defence an engine for economic growth. I especially like—this will come as no surprise to the Minister—the reference to a union dividend. I want to probe the Minister a little on how SMEs across the UK—including in Northern Ireland, where we have a history of innovation and flexibility—can be practically helped to be part of the supply chain in those huge announcements, such as the one we saw last week with Norway. How can we practically help those companies to become part of the supply chain in those enormous deals? I congratulate the Government on that as well.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comment about the Type 26 success that our country had and the frigates that will be built on the Clyde. It is a massive success for our industry. I also thank her for her continued efforts with respect to small businesses, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the UK.

I hope the noble Baroness will notice that in the defence industrial strategy we tried hard to make sure that all the regions and the nations of the UK were properly represented. In one diagram on page 33, the noble Baroness will see the number of jobs in Northern Ireland: a total of 3,300 MOD-supported direct industry, civilian and military jobs. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that we need to make sure that it is not only Thales in Northern Ireland which is of benefit, important as that is, but the small and medium-sized businesses. I do not want to incur the wrath of my noble friend Lord Beamish, but we have set up a specific body to drive small business growth and made a commitment to ensure that billions of pounds-worth of investment in the industry is directed towards small and medium-sized businesses.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, but some noble Lords will be used to that. I strongly support industrial policy, but the coupling of defence and industrial strategy needs some thought. It suggests that industrial policy is driven by military needs, whereas in fact the case for industrial policy needs to be made apart from that. To a student of economic history, it is reminiscent of military Keynesianism, which was born in the Second World War, continued in the Cold War and dropped only with the end of the Cold War. There seems to be a pattern here.

Is the Minister entirely comfortable with basing the case for industrial policy on the need to rearm, as developed in the strategic defence review? I support industrial policy, but I would not want to hinge my whole argument on the need to rearm. That itself is something that needs to be discussed quite independently of the case for industrial policy.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord has an opinion that not many people agree with, including me, but I appreciate that he puts it forward time and again in a respectful, calm and intellectual way. He is to be congratulated on that.

My argument to him would be this. There is a need to rearm and a defence industrial policy has to be geared towards the rearmament that needs to take place. I will give him one example, with which I know he will disagree. My premise is that it is a good thing that we are supporting Ukraine. Despite what we have been doing, with the defence industry as it was, we—not only us but other European countries—were not able to deliver the equipment necessary for Ukraine to do all that it wanted to do as easily as it could. That is a difficult, if not dangerous, position for us and our allies to be in.

I made this point at DSEI yesterday. I said that, as a Minister of State for the UK MoD, I do not want to be in a position where I believe in supporting Ukraine but read in the paper—as I did, going back probably a year—that Ukraine had had to withdraw because it did not have the necessary military equipment to continue the fight. That is not a situation we should be in. Part of dealing with that is to develop our defence industry and improve its capability and capacity, so we are not in a position where we cannot support those we would wish to support.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests re the defence sector. As has been said, there is much to welcome in this document, but we need a full day debate on the subject. To try to rush everything in 40 minutes or so is, frankly, ridiculous and an insult to the importance of it.

There is a small number of specific questions I would like to put to the Minister. First, there is no mention in the document—I found this disappointing—of the need to reduce the bloated number of civil servants already employed by the Ministry of Defence. What plans has the Minister got to streamline defence procurement personnel? Secondly, the very important role of the new National Armaments Director is a massive job and probably will be one of the most important in the UK. What sort of salary level are we talking about to attract the top people available? Page 18 of the strategy document, on resilience and reducing supply chain vulnerabilities, talks about an additional £1.5 billion in an “always on” pipeline for munitions. Could the Minister give me an indication of how that is arrived at? Finally, and this has not been touched on at all, have hugely important production sites in the UK, such as at Barrow, that are vital to our national defence. Is any thought being given to the protection of these key sites in the deployment of anti-missile systems and similar? There is nothing that I can see in the document about this and it is something we should begin to focus on.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. On his first point, about personnel, and his last point, about the security of sites, this is not the only defence document. There are defence documents that deal with personnel and what we might do about that. Similarly, there are reviews concerning the security of sites, partly because of Brize Norton but partly because we recognise there is a need for investment in that. He will see, over the next few months, various announcements made about the better protection of not only industrial sites but military bases—as he will with respect to personnel. That is the point I would make: not every single thing to do with defence is in the defence industrial strategy.

The National Armaments Director pillar exists only because of the defence reform we have introduced to create four pillars within the Ministry of Defence, of which the armaments director is one. The noble Lord is right about its importance. I do not know the exact figure—I can look it up and write to him—but it is the necessary salary. I remember looking at it and thinking it was a lot of money, but that is based on my idea of what a lot a money is. I thought it appropriate, let us put it that way.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

Will the Minister write to me?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will put that in writing for the noble Lord.

The “always on” pipeline is about trying to ensure that we have a situation where we can always, if we need to, step up our production much more quickly, rather than be in a situation where we have to wait two years before we can do this or that. An “always on” pipeline means, in essence, that we can get the equipment and munitions we need quickly.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, this is a very welcome strategy; I give it my full support. I will give it even more support when its theory and proposals have been turned into practicalities. The problems and delays that we have experienced in replacing war stocks that have been passed to the Ukrainians are well known and underline the need for proper resupply and resilience. One of the issues is around the recently announced building of six new munitions factories. Is the Minister in a position yet to say where they will be and when they will come on stream? Also, who is going to meet the cost of setting them up?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The state will work with others to support the establishment of those munitions factories. I am not in a position at the moment to say to the noble and gallant Lord where those six places will be; that is still a matter for discussion. As far as I am aware, that has not been resolved yet, but, if I am wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord. As of this evening, I believe that there is no news on exactly where those six places will be; if I am wrong, I will write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library to correct the record.

On the noble and gallant Lord’s more general point about munitions, he is right—this goes back to a point that a number of noble Lords have made—that we have to be in a situation where we can manufacture the equipment and munitions that we need. We must be in a position where, if we need to fight, we can fight because we have the sovereign industrial capability to do it. We are not in that situation at the moment. We are not in the place where we need to be, particularly given the current situation. The entire industrial strategy is about ensuring that the UK has the military industrial capability and capacity to do the things it needs and to fight the wars it might have to fight. I hope—I know that the noble and gallant Lord supports this—that we reach a situation where, by preparing for war, we deter war.

[Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)]

My Lords, one area where the UK has a unique specialism is demining. We are home to the world’s two largest demining organisations: the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. It is important that we continue to build on this world-leading expertise, as the unprecedented rise in global conflict means that the need for mine action has never been greater. Will the Minister consider what more His Majesty’s Government can do to uphold and strengthen the UK’s commitment to the global mine action programme?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have met members of the Halo Trust; I am perfectly happy to meet them again if that would be of any help.

We are committed to demining and all of the various treaties on it. We are proud to be a part of that. We will continue to pursue the objectives of those treaties and of bodies such as the Halo Trust, which try to prevent mines being placed in the first place, as well as supporting demining; we are very supportive of all of that. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing up a subject that is slightly different to some of the things that we have been discussing but is still hugely important to both our country and various other countries around the world.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming the Statement, I want to press the Minister further on the role of SMEs in defence, innovation and supply chains. Will the Government ensure that the UK’s space economy, which is vital for secure communications and situational awareness, is embedded in defence planning and procurement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course. That is a really important point and another aspect of the development of an industrial strategy. On small businesses, when we launched the defence industrial strategy on Monday, I deliberately went to Drone Evolution, a small company in Caerphilly, to highlight the importance of small businesses and the contribution that they make to the security of our country. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister suggests that campaigns to boycott and target defence firms, particularly on university campuses, are based on misunderstandings. Does he acknowledge that the campaigns occur in the context of British arms sales to dubious—and worse—regimes around the world? There is Israel, of course, under the dark shadow of the indescribably awful situation in Gaza. There is also, notably, Saudi Arabia, which is infamous for its internal human rights abuses. Saudi Arabia is on track this year to beat its own awful record of executions; Reprieve reports 241 to 5 August. Then there is the slaughter that it is linked to in Yemen, as well as the abuse of women’s human rights. Yet, in the first three months of the Labour Government, £1.65 billion of arms exports to Saudi Arabia were approved. Does the Minister agree that there will continue to be resistance while such sales occur?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me give a general answer to the variety of points made by the noble Baroness. Of course people can campaign against what they see as the arms trade and against what they see happening in various places across the world. Of course they can campaign about Israel and Saudi Arabia; they can campaign about a whole range of different things. What the document says, however, is that the defence industry is a perfectly legitimate way of doing business in the country.

People like me, and many others, take the view that preventing people being able to offer jobs and opportunities to people at universities or through various trade fairs—that is, the inability of people to do so without fear of intimidation—is not right, either. So it is a dual responsibility. I perfectly accept that, as long as the noble Baroness or anybody else conforms to the law and is non-violent, they can protest. As we saw, there are protesters at DSEI every year—although some went beyond. They are perfectly entitled to protest as long as they keep to the law. However, people are also perfectly entitled to go to DSEI, to purchase defence weapons, and to look at and discuss with other people what more might be done to ensure that we have the equipment we need. That is the only point I would make.

There is not a moral certainty on one side or the other here; that is the point that I want to make. I am sorry to go on about this. It is the same with respect to whether the Armed Forces can go into schools, to defence fairs and all of those things. Of course they should be able to do that. All of those things are really important. It is not a case of, “These people can protest but those can’t”; it is about people mutually respecting each other’s rights to pursue legitimate activity. I respect the noble Baroness’s right and that of others to protest against what I stand for and what I say, but I also recognise that I and many other people have a right to express our view as well.

Nuclear Regulatory System

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the interim report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published on 11 August, what steps they are taking to improve the UK’s nuclear regulatory system.

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

My Lords, the report identifies barriers to timely delivery of nuclear projects, including duplication and inefficiencies in environmental and planning assessments. The Government welcome the interim findings and continue to work with the regulators to understand opportunities to streamline the regulation of nuclear projects while upholding high security and safety standards. We are already taking steps to update the UK’s planning framework and aim to designate a new draft national policy statement on nuclear energy generation, called EN-7, before the end of 2025. The task force’s final recommendation will be published in autumn 2025 and the Government will respond in due course.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer and welcome him to his new role. He will know, from defence, how we have been producing small nuclear reactors for over half a century, and we were world leaders in nuclear energy. Fortunately, the Government have now made a decision on small modular reactors, after years of dither and delay by both Governments. We cannot permit further regulatory delay to progress. As he has identified, that is clearly the message of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, but can he be much more specific about when it will actually get on with it? “In due course” is not sufficient.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I should have read the Answer I read out more carefully; I thought that when I read out “in due course”. The serious point, I say to my noble friend, is that the report outlines the fact that recommendations are needed. Those recommendations will be made in autumn 2025. The Government are already discussing, across government, how they should respond to that. There will be a task force, there will be cross-government working to ensure, as my noble friend says, that the report is not just something we all read and agree with, but something we read and act on. It is our desire to come forward with concrete steps. We will bring those forward, and my noble friend will be able to see them for himself, but speed is of the essence.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the main finding of the interim report is the need for a firm steer from the Government to establish a strategy for nuclear safety, because the current policy does not address a strategic direction on safety management. As the report recommends an immediate start on this, and the publication of a consultation paper alongside the task force’s final report, will the Minister commit today to such a timetable?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend, we will do everything as speedily as possible. We will move forward on this. I say to the noble Lord: safety is of paramount importance, of course it is, and there cannot be any compromise on that, but we have to get on with this. In the mid-1990s, 25% of our electricity was generated through nuclear; it is now 15%. Even with the new power stations that have been agreed, unless we do more it will go down. That is not good enough; we have to do better than that—with the small modular reactors that my noble friend talked about and with the new power station that was recently agreed by my right honourable friend Ed Miliband MP. There cannot be any compromise on safety, but neither can there be the situation where, time after time, decisions are delayed and nothing happens. The consequence of that is that our economy suffers and jobs are lost. That is not good enough and we are going to do something about it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, we should concentrate on and give priority to building smaller nuclear reactors, as the Minister’s noble friend has suggested, which can be built in two years, rather than building the gigawatt giants, which apparently we are dedicated to doing, which take years to build and are far more politically risky and far more likely to raise political dangers.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree up to a point with what the noble Lord has said. Our big power stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley Point C are part of the answer. He is quite right to say that alongside that the small modular reactors are necessary. He will know that Rolls-Royce has three which have gone through the generic design assessment. Two additional GDA requesting parties have met the threshold to enter and there are others at other stages of the process. He is quite right to point out the need for small modular reactors, which can be done more quickly and are part of the answer to our energy needs, but nuclear has to be a part of that. Small modular reactors will be a part of it, alongside the big stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. The report rightly mentions the planning system environmental regulations, as the Minister said, as a barrier to the nuclear rollout. Of course, we have a legislative vehicle for any changes going through your Lordships’ House at the moment in the form of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to really join the dots between those two things and ensure that we take the opportunity with that Bill to ensure that it delivers on some of those recommendations? If we have to wait for a future planning Bill to come through, we simply cannot afford that time.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that and the Government are responding to that request. We are not waiting to legislate through the planning Bill. EN-6, the current framework within which these decisions are made, listed eight sites designated for nuclear applications. EN-7, as I mentioned in my Answer to my noble friend, will be published as a draft, as I understand it, by the end of the year and will soon be put into place. That will change those planning regulations to ensure that any site can be used to be apply for a nuclear designation. Of course, it will have to go through the planning process and be subject to all the safety regulations, but it will open up a number of sites for people who want to have small modular reactors or other nuclear provision—sites that, at the moment, they are excluded from applying for. I think that is good progress.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about SMRs as opposed to major gigawatt developments? Does he accept that we need both and that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite wrong in his criticism of Sizewell C? It is going to supply 6% of our electricity generation. It is a replica of Hinkley Point C so a lot of the risks are being ironed out. We should be giving our support to this fantastic development.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and in answering my noble friend, of course it requires the big nuclear power stations such as Sizewell C and Hinkley C, as my noble friend has said. They are clearly part of the answer to providing our energy needs through nuclear and these big power stations. Alongside that, of course, we need the small modular reactors. They can be put in place more quickly and can be a part of the contribution to ensuring that we can meet our energy needs. Rolls-Royce, Holtec, GE Hitachi and a number of others are all trying to take this forward and, as my noble friend says, they are part of the answer, as well as these big stations.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this interim report. It highlights the need for international collaboration to standardise and harmonise industry and regulatory approaches, the costs and time delays of which can be terminal to many innovative nuclear technologies and projects. We speak a lot about SMRs, but we must not forget the perhaps more interesting AMR technologies coming soon. It is imperative that the UK leads this effort, given the vast power demands of tech companies which really want to work with the UK. Who from the Government will lead the charge alongside our excellent chief inspector so that vendors have the trust and confidence they need to create investable projects?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course, the charge will be led by the Government. The Government believe in nuclear and in international collaboration. The Secretary of State, along with others, will provide a whole-of-government response. We welcome the support of industry, the Opposition and across the House and this Parliament for achieving that. Of course, it will be what we do nationally, but there will be international collaboration as well. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this because together we can sort out this energy problem, deliver much more quickly, and ensure that our planning process supports delivery to meet the needs that we have for energy, whereas sometimes it gets in the way.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that if this Government want a renaissance of nuclear power, they must also take reasonable measures to deal with the historical legacy of nuclear waste? What plans do the Government have to address the problem now that the Treasury has described the plans for a geological deposit facility as unworkable?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand the need to deal with nuclear waste. If you look at defence, which I primarily have responsibility for, there is a huge amount of work going on with respect to the dismantling of waste from nuclear submarines. We are looking at a whole range of options to do with that and we recognise the importance of dealing with waste.

Ukraine: Negotiations

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current state of negotiations for ending the war in Ukraine.

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

My Lords, before I answer the Question, let me quickly pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins for all the work he did with the Foreign Office and wish him well in the future.

We remain focused on putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We welcome President Trump’s efforts to end the war and are working closely with the US, Ukraine and our other partners to achieve a just and lasting peace. We continue to work with partners to ensure that Ukraine is able to defend itself against Russia’s aggression. The UK has committed £4.5 billion in military support this year alone, and we continue to ramp up economic pressure on Russia to get it to stop the killing and engage in meaningful talks.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I press him more fully to explain what contribution he thinks our country can and should make to the peace process? The Government have insisted on the need for British and European forces to be stationed in Ukraine to guarantee the integrity of any ceasefire and, indeed, of the peace settlement. The Russian Government have said that they would not accept the presence in Ukraine of boots on the ground from that source. Given this, does not the Government’s insistence on the need for such a force imply that they expect the war to continue indefinitely? If not, how and when, and with what result, do the Government expect the slaughter to end?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. The first point that needs to be made is that it is up to Russia as well to engage in meaningful talks, and it is up to Russia as well to be sincere in the efforts that it is making to bring about the ceasefire and, in the end, to come to some agreement. The contribution that we have made is by insisting that Ukraine has a voice in whatever solution we can come to an agreement about; to keep the US involved, which is crucial to the integrity of any agreement or settlement that is reached; and to move towards what we are calling a reassurance force, as the noble Lord will know, to ensure that the security guarantee that Ukraine has after any settlement is real and meaningful. That is what we are trying to do to ensure that we end the war as quickly as possible. We are supporting President Trump in his efforts to do that, but I say again that it also requires Russia to enter the talks meaningfully.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We enjoyed our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I know that he spent many years shadowing the job in opposition and only too briefly enjoyed it in government. We wish him well for the future. We are pleased to hear that he is still on the Front Bench.

In recent months, we have seen a massive increase in the number of Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets, often involving hundreds of drones and missiles. Ukrainian air defences are often overwhelmed, as we saw earlier this week. Therefore, can the UK Government can do anything to supply Ukraine with additional military aid, specifically to support its air defences in the light of those attacks?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point about the need for air defences and their crucial nature. The UK, with our friends and our allies, including the Americans, who have just provided Patriot missiles as well, is seeking to ensure that we do everything we can to maintain the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. The noble Lord makes a really important point. While we were negotiating—while the Alaskan talks and other negotiations were going on—we saw an increase in the attacks on Kyiv by the Russians using those missiles. We will certainly do all we can to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, as ever, children are paying a terrible price in this conflict. We know about the forcible deportation of some 20,000 children from Ukraine to Russia—it is probably a lot more than that—and deliberate attempts to erase their identity. Most recently, we have heard press reports of an adoption database featuring Ukrainian children categorised by their hair and eye colour, described by an NGO as a

“slave catalogue of Ukrainian children to adopt”.

What assurances can the Minister give that the UK Government will use every means possible with their international partners, including the USA, to ensure that the fate of those children will be a red line in any peace deal?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Is it not unbelievable that, in a war in Europe, a nation is using children to further its objectives? How deplorable is that? Sometimes, words fail us. In this awful situation, we are doing everything that we can. We have made monetary provision to support the agencies working to bring the children back; we have provided millions of pounds for that. We continue to raise this at the United Nations. In all the various other international bodies on which we are represented, we continually raise this issue; we will continue to do so. It is barbaric; it is an outrage. We should all do everything that we can to protect those children and bring them back.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add a tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins. What struck me was his support right across the House and the authority that he brought to his role both in opposition and in government. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that Ukraine cannot be expected to agree to a peace settlement if there is not a proper security guarantee for its future? No leadership and no country could be expected to agree to a settlement in these circumstances without the necessary guarantee, as he mentioned.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree absolutely with that, and I think the majority of people do so too. For any ceasefire or any agreement to be meaningful, it has to be such that the security of Ukraine is guaranteed and the integrity of whatever settlement is reached is guaranteed. One thing we are sure of is that, in any plan that we take forward, we must try to do all we can to ensure that the Americans are involved as well.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will join me in welcoming the warm and strong words of support by President Trump for Ukraine, but will the Government remind the United States Government that the warmth of President Trump’s welcome in the United Kingdom in a few days’ time will be increased by his words being turned into deeds?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

New to the Foreign Office brief as I am, let me try to say that we are very pleased that President Trump is coming and look forward to making his visit a success. Our intention is to continue to say to the United States that it remains an important partner—our most important partner—and that we will continue to work with it to bring about peace and security in Ukraine as in other parts of the world.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first join in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I sparred with him for over seven years as a Minister. His support both inside and outside the Chamber was not just welcome but often very important to ensure the unanimity of the focus of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the country on issues such as Ukraine. Specific to Ukraine, what engagement has taken place directly with countries such as China and India, which, clearly, with the recent meetings held in China, have leverage with Russia?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We continue to raise these issues and make the case with all countries. There are regular meetings with respect to China where all sorts of issues are raised, including international matters. We also raise these issues with India. We continue to make the point on what we believe to be the correct approach in respect of Ukraine and the defence of freedom and human rights, and that that approach is in the interests of us all. We will continue to raise it with those nations.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the brute fact is surely that President Putin will continue his illegal war until he is forced to pay a much larger price than currently. What are the prospects of his country having to pay that price in relation to the effect on his economy of sanctions imposed by the US and by the European Union, and by the freezing and use by Ukraine of Russian assets abroad?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say is that we have sanctioned numerous individuals. We have taken action in all sorts of ways to deal with the shadow fleet. As far as seizing Russian assets is concerned, negotiations continue with other nations, because we need to get international agreement to do some of that, but we will take action economically to try to punish Russia as well.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I thought his view of the prospects for peace was somewhat glossy. Is not a better strategic assessment, first, that Putin shows absolutely no intention of seeking a protracted or final peace, perhaps other than a temporary pause for his own tactical or strategic advantage; that, secondly, the general trend of American policy is to slightly lessen or reduce the security guarantees to Europe; and, thirdly, therefore, that the security of and support to Ukraine will increasingly rest on the European pillar of NATO? I must now defer to the outcome of our own defence review. Although in many respects it was an excellent review, the resources are simply not going to be in place in time to deter Russia effectively.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble and gallant Lord and to the House. I did not intentionally try to gloss over the seriousness of the situation that we face; I was just trying to point out the necessity for us to continue the actions we are taking to try to achieve as successful an outcome as we can. As part of that, our involvement with the Americans is extremely important. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, we know there are sometimes issues and points made either by President Trump or on behalf of him, but we try extremely hard to be positive and to build a relationship with him, because the involvement of the United States in Europe and beyond is essential to the peace and security of our nation and our alliances. We will continue to do that, and I know the noble and gallant Lord will appreciate that as well.

On spending and the European pillar, the noble and gallant Lord will know that for many decades all of us as a European collection of nations simply did not spend enough on defence. We are now starting to see increases in spending right across Europe, including in our own country, which will allow us to deal with some of the challenges that we will face. As for our own nation, I know the noble and gallant Lord wants us to go further and faster, but he will know the commitment has been made for 2.6% by 2027, with an increase to 3% in the next Parliament should the circumstances allow, and he will have read in the Defence Industrial Strategy published yesterday about the aspiration for defence and security spending to reach 5% by 2035. So, there is a trajectory. It is not as fast and as much as the noble and gallant Lord would want, but, across Europe, we are seeing an increase in defence spending which we can all welcome.

UK Defence and Aerospace Facilities: Protests

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Austin of Dudley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of protest movements targeting UK defence and aerospace facilities and exports, on the UK’s security and economy, and the supply chains and reputation of the defence industry abroad.

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

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence tracks risks to the defence sector as part of its routine monitoring of supply chain resilience. Some UK defence companies have faced costs and disruption due to criminal damage and staff intimidation by groups such as Palestine Action. We are working with the police to address those offences and mitigate future risks. Although individual businesses have been affected, the overall impact on defence has been limited, with no significant effects reported on the defence supply chain or the reputation of our world-leading defence industry.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the defence industry is vital to our national security and our economy, not least when we must do more to increase support for Ukraine. It provides thousands of highly skilled and well-paid jobs. We have to stand up for it and support it and the people who work in the industry. It is not just buildings and equipment that have been attacked; workers have been intimidated and police officers have been injured as extremist groups have smashed their way into factories. This is not peaceful protest; it is a violent national campaign. Will the Government put in place a robust strategy to support the defence sector and get the people responsible for those attacks before the courts more quickly, as they were able to do with other examples of public disorder?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. Let us use this opportunity to state that it is totally unacceptable for people to act as they have. There is legitimate protest, which this country is proud to facilitate, but we will not allow our bases to be broken into, people to be intimidated and protests to stray into the realms of illegality and violence. None of us in this Chamber would accept that. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action and why we see people before the courts. We work strongly with the Home Office, the police and others to ensure that those who think that they can do that will face the full force of the law.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the activity to which the noble Lord, Lord Austin, rightly refers is de facto sabotage of our critical defence capability. In Napoleonic times, setting fire to a naval dockyard was construed as such and punishable by death, which was abolished only by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Does the Minister agree that any sabotage activity of the type described is profoundly serious, and is he satisfied that the criminal law is adequate to deal with the appropriate charge and penalty in such grave circumstances?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know that the British media are always concerned with accuracy, so let me start my remarks by saying that, whatever I say now, we have no intention of restoring the death penalty—let us get that out of the way first; whatever review may or may not take place, that is not on the table. The noble Baroness who speaks for the Opposition makes an important point. This is a very serious matter. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action. That is why we will take the action necessary to protect our defence industry and to stop intimidation and do all we can to support our world-leading industry. We will always continue to discuss with our Home Office colleagues and with others across government whether more needs to be done. Let us be clear: there is legitimate protest, which is perfectly acceptable, but some of the things that have gone on are totally unacceptable.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there seems to be an issue with public opinion at present about a failure to understand the importance of defence. Recent polling has suggested that many people of service age would not be willing to fight for our country. What are the Government doing to engage in the national conversation that the strategic review said was necessary to help people understand the importance of defence to our country and that any attack on the defence sector is also an attack on our own resilience?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point and, by asking the question, she starts to raise the conversation that we need to have as politicians about having more confidence to speak to the British public about why, as a country, we do the things that we do—and why it is extremely important that we do them. On a practical level, to make that rhetoric a reality, one thing that we are doing is to talk about the need for national resilience, the importance of protecting our critical national infrastructure and the importance of the reserves as well as the full-time personnel. The noble Baroness, who follows these matters closely, will also have seen the massive expansion that we are bringing to the cadet organisation in this country, which I think will help to make a very real difference.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, it is welcome to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the defence industry. Does he share my view that it is completely unacceptable for anyone who says that they support working people in industrial settings and, most of all, those who claim to represent working people to seek to excuse and underplay the level of intimidation and fear caused to workers in defence factories, who have been terrorised for many years? Those people who defend that should have no place in the Labour movement. Is that not right?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know the point that the noble Lord is making, but the general point is that nobody should face intimidation for going to work. That is a completely unacceptable way of behaving. The noble Lord has done a lot of work in this area and has defended the right to protest and the right for people to make their views known, but to do so in a way that is acceptable and according to the law. It does not matter what hat people have on when they speak about this; we all need to encourage people to behave appropriately and properly when it comes to protest.

[Lord McCabe (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that smaller suppliers, essential to our defence, often lack the resources to withstand sustained intimidation and sabotage? Will the Government provide targeted support against extremists to ensure that those companies can continue to deliver critical components to our Armed Forces and maintain Britain’s reputation as a reliable defence partner?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Obviously, the deployment of police resources is a matter of operational independence for the police, but my noble friend makes the important point that, whether it is a large business, a small business, an international business or a business located in a small rural area, they all deserve protection, whether they are the workers or the business overall. The important point of principle is that we are proud of our defence industry and, whether they are small, medium or big businesses, we will support them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, have the Government made an assessment of the impact on the UK’s reputation of not imposing sanctions on arms deals with Israel when the Palestinian people are facing genocide?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an example of what I have been saying: the noble Baroness, in terms of freedom of speech, has been able to get up and say something in this Parliament about Palestine—this is something that we should point out—and to challenge the Government on what they have done with respect to this in an appropriate and proper way, as she always does.

The noble Baroness knows that the Government have made comment about the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages and all the things that the Foreign Secretary made a Statement about just a few days ago and has continuously made Statements about. She has also heard what the Prime Minister has said with respect to the recognition of Palestine unless Israel meets certain conditions. She will also know that, last September, the Government changed the export rules so that we stopped exporting arms to Israel that were going to be used with respect to Gaza. I know that the noble Baroness does not think that goes far enough, but the Government have taken proportionate and reasonable action to say to Israel that this is what we think is acceptable and to stand up for that while we also pursue the two-state solution that we all want.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain how a relatively unsophisticated attack was able to put out of action an RAF aircraft?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have sought to explain that. We have said that the security in place at that time at Brize Norton was not good enough. The noble Earl will have seen that since that incident we have been looking at what we do to improve and enhance security in the short term in our military bases, and in the longer term. The point that needs to be reiterated is that the people at fault are those who thought an acceptable way to protest was to break in—whatever the rights and wrongs of how they were able to do that. We all agree that it was unacceptable that they could do that. Why on earth do some people think it is acceptable to break into an RAF base and put at risk this country’s national security? It is not, and I am glad that through the proper processes people have been charged and we will see what the outcome of that legal process is.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the criminal penalties for violence and intimidation are perfectly adequate; what is necessary is for the police to identify the ringleaders and the perpetrators quickly, for the prosecutions to be brought to court without delay and for the courts to impose severe sanctions that deter those people?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord provides my answer in the point he makes in the question. Of course, that is the right thing to do. Through the appropriate legal processes established in this country, in a democracy, the police investigate according to the priorities they set, and we see this as a very real priority. An investigation is held and if the police have the evidence and believe that the charging threshold is met, they will charge and then it is for the courts to determine guilt or not. The court will then put in place the appropriate punishment. That is the division of responsibility in this country. That is what we are standing up for in Ukraine and across the world and, going back to the noble Baroness’s point about young people or others and fighting for our country, I think democracy, freedom and the rule of law are pretty good things to fight for. They are not bad things to stand up for.

Republic of Ireland: Defence Co-operation

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in 2025 there have been a number of discussions between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on defence. The Permanent Secretary visited Ireland in January; the Chief of the Defence Staff visited in February, marking the first visit of a Chief of the Defence Staff to Ireland since 2016; and the Second Permanent Secretary visited in April. Irish Ministers met UK Defence Ministers under the wider coalition of the willing meetings held over the course of the year.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Does he agree that it is important that the British public understand just how much support the Irish Government get from the United Kingdom and NATO for their defence capabilities, and that they keep their neutrality without having to pay any contributions? I am not asking the Minister to send them a bill, but does he agree that there could be more co-operation on other aspects? The hostile state of the Irish Government is taking the United Kingdom to court on the legacy Bill and refuses to be involved in trying to get much more information about some of the terrible atrocities, when the IRA went across the border. The next time he meets the Irish Government, will the Minister tell them that co-operation is a two-way process?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I start by saying as a Defence Minister how proud we all have been of the contribution of the British Armed Forces to what took place in Northern Ireland. That is the starting point for any discussion. The noble Baroness will have seen the comments by the Northern Ireland Secretary at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this morning, where he talked about being close to an agreement with the Irish Government on dealing with the legacy of the past. As far as the broader points on defence co-operation that the noble Baroness makes, she will be pleased to know that we are seeking to establish a new memorandum of understanding between the UK and the Irish Government by next year.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, to echo the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, it is the case that our defence capability exists primarily for the protection of this country and to enable our contribution to global security, particularly through NATO. Indirectly, the Republic of Ireland has benefited greatly from that strategic stance over many years. If, as the Minister has indicated, there is now an intention to enter into discussions with the Republic of Ireland, perhaps to refresh and renew the memorandum of understanding, does he agree that that would require to be underpinned by an appropriate financial arrangement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that there has been a memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the United Kingdom since 2015. Michael Fallon and Simon Coveney signed an agreement in 2015 on defence co-operation between the two countries, while respecting Ireland's neutrality and the fact that it is not a member of NATO. Like many countries across the whole of Europe, whether in NATO or outside, Ireland has been forced to confront the reality of what we face. Like every country, including our own, it is increasing defence spending and looking at what more it can do, not least, as I say, through a refreshed memorandum of understanding between us and the Irish Government, which we hope to be in place during 2026.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentions that Ireland might increase defence spending. There is no doubt that, through the Second World War and the Cold War, in effect the United Kingdom made sure the defence of Ireland was secure, with almost no contribution from Ireland. We are now in a very dangerous world. If one looks at Norway and Ireland, which have about the same population, one finds that Ireland has 719 people in its navy while Norway has 4,000, and that Ireland has four coastal patrol craft while Norway has 69. Is it not time that we made it clear to the Irish that, in this globally dangerous world, they have to make an appropriate contribution to defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are witnessing the recognition on the part of Ireland that the changed environment in which it finds itself requires attention. These are decisions for the Irish Government. Like all Governments across Europe, they are looking at the changed geopolitical environment and the strains and stresses that puts on the defence of their own country. Discussions are taking place, in an appropriate way, between us and Ireland about what we can do around, for example, critical underwater infrastructure. Ireland is also looking at establishing its own radar capability. There are signs that Ireland is looking at what it can do to enhance its own defence and security.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the UK and the European Union had a rapprochement over security and defence in May of this year. Is there scope through that to begin to work bilaterally with Ireland within the realms of Ireland’s ongoing neutrality? That might be a way of ensuring that Ireland can begin to step up to the plate without saying to it, “Please write a cheque”, which seems to be mood of some of the Benches in your Lordships’ House. Keir Starmer is probably not going to be able to say to the Taoiseach, “Please can you sign a Eurocheque?”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Keir Starmer and the Taoiseach agreed, just a few months ago in Liverpool, that there should be a new memorandum of understanding, one pillar of which should be defence and security. That is a major step forward. It is important not only for the security of Ireland—and those are choices that it makes for itself—but for our security and the defence of Europe.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to the register and declare my interest as chair of a precision engineering company in Northern Ireland. In Policy Exchange’s excellent paper Closing the Back Door, there is a very clear acknowledgement of the strategic importance of Northern Ireland for the defence of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Minister knows well the defence scene in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, as well as geography, Northern Ireland has much to offer the UK defence strategy, especially as the SME supply chain moves into the UK defence scene?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree very much with the noble Baroness on the importance of Northern Ireland, with respect to not only its geography but the skills and commitment contributed by the people of Northern Ireland to industrial development. This is from not only the big companies we talk about, such as Thales, and the multibillion pound investment going into it, but the small and medium-sized companies which also make a massive contribution. The noble Baroness is a great champion of those and she should continue as such.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, the matter of transparency affects not only the people of the United Kingdom but the people of the Irish Republic. Does the Minister agree that it would help the debate—which is now more sophisticated and intense in the Irish Republic—about NATO and neutrality if we could be very open in the United Kingdom about the scale of the work that already goes on, which includes the areas that have been mentioned and many others, in which the United Kingdom helps the defence of the Irish Republic?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. The memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the Department of Defence in Ireland, in which a whole range of co-operative measures about how we work together were laid out and agreed by two sovereign Governments, was done in 2015 and was updated and refreshed in 2025, so that we have a fresh memorandum of understanding for 2026. That is something to be celebrated in Ireland and in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, given the relative military and defensive weakness of Ireland on our western flank and the enhanced nature of the threats that we currently face, does the highly respected Minister agree that, in view of its contribution to our defence, Northern Ireland remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom is a vital strategic interest?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows the arrangement with respect to Northern Ireland and its place within the United Kingdom. On his broader point about the importance of the Armed Forces, I was in Newtownards to celebrate and mark Armed Forces Day, and there were over 50,000 people there. I know the noble Lord has done similar things in the past.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions have taken place between the UK Government and the Irish Government regarding the protection of the ECHR and the Good Friday agreement, both of which are intrinsic and inseparable? Following suggestions by a Member of the other place that the Good Friday agreement could be renegotiated—which in my opinion is total nonsense—what is the view of the UK Government?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her point. Last week, the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said—I quote directly—:

“Let’s be clear: the ECHR underpins key international agreements on trade, security, migration and the Good Friday agreement”.


That encapsulates government policy on this and answers very clearly my noble friend’s question about the importance of the ECHR.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 2A in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3, and do not insist on its Amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of that amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2D.

2D: Because the Bill creates an effective regime for the investigation of matters of concern to service personnel and their families, Amendment 2A makes appropriate provision to protect the anonymity of individuals who raise such concerns, and the additional provision inserted by Amendments 2B and 2C is unnecessary and inappropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, with permission, I will say something that I should have said at the end of the defence review debate. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who, as we know, has now left your Lordships’ House. We wish her well in the future and have valued her contributions over many years.

I also note, as I know the noble Baroness opposite and the Liberal Front Bench will too, that today is our last opportunity here to mark VJ Day, which will be on 15 August. We know that the nation will commemorate it in the appropriate way, with respect to all of that.

I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to your Lordships’ Chamber ahead of the Summer Recess. I thank all Members of this House for their expertise and insight and the time they have generously given in critiquing this landmark Bill.

During Commons consideration of Lords amendments on 2 July, the amendments on whistleblowing tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, were put to a vote and were disagreed to. The Government’s proposed Amendment 2A was reinserted. While we have debated the wording and legal functioning of the amendments in question at length, it has become clear that both Houses agree on the importance of a robust and transparent process for service personnel to raise their concerns and blow the whistle. We want our Armed Forces and their families to have confidence and trust in the system and to feel empowered and protected to come forward with their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the Bill is a major step forward, but, throughout its passage, having been a veteran of every Armed Forces Bill for the last 20 years in the other place, I have been reminded that this is yet another attempt to get it right. That is the challenge. We have to ensure that this works, because if we do not, people will become very cynical. It is important that we not only select the right Armed Forces commissioner but that they are given the space and support to get on with their job if we are to embed what I think is really at issue here: a cultural change within defence.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this short debate at the end of our discussions on the Bill. I want to comment briefly on a couple of the points that were made. On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about the Written Ministerial Statement, we expect to do that in the autumn, when the terms of reference are concluded. We intend to consult on all that. Some of the detail that she asked for will be in the process of setting up the review, so we will need to come back to her and others on that.

We will seek the views of service personnel in a variety of ways, but it will be essential that we do so no matter where in the world they are. It will be important to seek them out, but, above all, to give them the confidence to come forward and be part of that. We will closely communicate with service personnel. There is a new defence voices panel, as well as existing Armed Forces networks, so we need to use some of the new procedures that have been set up. One reason that Minister Carns is good is his recent ex-military background. I think that gives him an advantage in seeking some of those views and giving people the confidence to come forward.

The findings of the review will be published and laid before Parliament—the noble Baroness asked about that. We intend to do that as quickly as possible. Therefore, any interim findings may not be made with the full picture of whistleblowing, but when we reach the conclusions and the review is finalised, yes, of course we will publish it and it will be laid before Parliament.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments and support. Her contributions have been very worth while and helpful to all of us. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Stansgate got his name on the annunciator, but he has been here a lot through our different debates, and I have been very pleased about the support that he has given to us as well. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beamish. He is absolutely right about the need for cultural change and that being crucial within the Ministry of Defence. It is very important. We made the commitment—in fact, I think, in response to one of his amendments in Committee—that we will of course involve both the Commons Defence Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Beamish was also right to say that this should be seen as an opportunity and not as a threat.

As I said, we will need to firm up some of the details, and we will do that in discussion and negotiation with others across the House. I am pleased that the Bill has now come to the point where we are in a position to pass it. It is a significant reform and will make a real difference. I just say in closing that we do not intend to use this review, as Governments sometimes do with reviews, to kick something into the long grass and as a way of securing support. This is a very real review. It is too important an issue for that to happen. I am sure that many in your Lordships’ House would hold me to account were that to be the case. With that, I commend the Motion.

Motion A agreed.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 June be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.

Motion agreed.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is a great privilege to wind up this debate, which has been, as usual, of a very high standard and very interesting. I start by saying to my noble friend Lord McCabe that we came into the other place at the same time, and we have followed each other. I slightly smiled when he said that he found it quite sedate in here: that has not been my experience. So our paths have finally diverged. It was an excellent, outstanding maiden speech, and we all both enjoyed and learned from it. What was particularly powerful was his ending, when he spoke about British values and the importance of those to our debate today. We all welcome him and wish him good luck with his career here.

I also say to my noble friend Lord Robertson that it would be remiss of us not to thank him formally from the Government Front Bench, along with General Barrons and Fiona Hill, for the work that they did, plus all the other people that he mentioned. It is a hugely important report. It challenges the Government, the country and our alliances as to how we move forward. In our parliamentary scrutiny here, noble Lords have accepted the premise of the report in this debate, but the challenge for the Government is how they take forward the recommendations that they have accepted in full and how they make them a reality, which is the important task for all of us.

The truth is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and from the Liberal Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, and as all of us recognise, this report would be important whenever it was written. But the fact that it is written in 2025, with all the challenges that we see: with the war in Ukraine, other challenges such as the stresses and strains in the Indo-Pacific, the change in the nature of warfare, cyberwarfare and with the need for homeland resilience—which I will come to in a minute—we see that all those issues are of crucial importance.

One thing that I have said, which many noble Lords have said in this Chamber, is that we are debating issues now—let alone the Cold War legacy with respect to money—that we never thought we would be debating again: war in Europe and threats to the homeland and attacks on it. Four, five, six years ago—you can argue about the number of years—many of us would have found that difficult to predict. That is what makes the report so important.

I will start to deal with some of the points that have been made. I apologise in advance if I do not answer every single question; no offence is meant to any particular contribution that has been made. If anybody wishes to take anything up afterwards in particular, I will be very happy to meet them and discuss that.

On money and trajectory, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord De Mauley, Lord Soames, Lord Dannatt, Lord Hannay, Lord Stevens, and many others, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—I will come particularly to the point about urgency—I will say this as a starting point. When the Government came into power, we were spending 2.3%. The demand then was about when the Government were going to spend 2.5%. Up until three or four months ago, I was being criticised in this Chamber for not committing the Government to 2.5%. I do not say this in my defence because at the time, all of us thought we needed to get to 2.5% and that the debate would then be about where it would go to after that. For a Government taking decisions about proper financial and fiscal management, these are difficult decisions—I will come to the national conversation about that in a moment—but clearly that was the debate then.

At that time the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was demanding more, as were others, but also talking about the urgency of it. So we got to 2.5%, and then it came to, “What about this and what about that?” I say to the noble Baroness, and I do not often do this, because we all know that sometimes press releases reflect a particular point of view, that I thought the press release that came out from No. 10 Downing Street specifically outlined the agreement to meet the NATO commitment in 2035—my noble friend Lord Robertson referred to that commitment. Specifically, that was not the Government making the figure up; it was NATO, demanding of each and every one of its individual countries to come to a 5% commitment by 2035. Is the trajectory clear as to exactly how that will be arrived at? It is not, and it says in the press release that the trajectory will need to be thought through. NATO itself has said it will need to come back to that.

The importance of the 5% figure in the debate we are having—I will come to national resilience in a minute—is, of course, that 3.5% is for core defence. I take the point of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about urgency, but 3.5% is the NATO figure for core defence. The demand from all of us, and from the report by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is, what about national resilience, national security and critical national infrastructure? That is why, for the first time, it is included in the NATO target.

The press release was released on the same day as the national security strategy, which is a hugely important document. These are the words of our Prime Minister. In the same way that Prime Minister Sunak would have made commitments, you have to believe that, when your Prime Minister puts something as explicitly as this, he means it. The Prime Minister said:

“That’s why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation’s wider security and”,


as I said to my noble friend Lord Harris, resilience.

The argument will be that this needs to happen sooner, and people will ask, when will it happen, how are we going to pay for it and what will we do with the money? Those debates and discussions will have to take place, but the commitment is there. A year ago, I would not have said that the British Government would commit to 5% on national security and defence. I am delighted that that commitment is now there, as I am sure nearly everyone in this House is, because it is responding to the changed context and more dangerous world in which we operate. That is a real and important commitment, and I look forward to all the noble Lords whose names I read out, including the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, talking to us about the urgency of the situation and asking when it will happen.

The noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord De Mauley, Lord Soames, Lord Hennessy, Lord Howell, Lord Alderdice and Lord Tugendhat, and my noble friends Lord Harris and Lady Goudie, who made a very important point about women, spoke about the whole-society approach and the need for us to defend underwater sea cables. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, asked whether it is a 360-degree approach. The answer is yes—there is not much point defending sea cables in one place and being vulnerable somewhere else. Defending them, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, pointed out, is crucial. We are looking, within the defence review, at how we do that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that part of the issue about spending is that we have to be clear about what we will spend the money on. That is what the defence review is for. We will bring forward a defence investment plan in the autumn. Those discussions are taking place now.

The noble Earl brought forward the point about drones. Of course we need more attack and surveillance drones, and we need to develop our small and medium-sized enterprises to do that, but what is the balance between our drones and the number of tanks, fighter aircraft and ships that we have, or indeed the type of ships that we have? What do we do about radar and all the other technology we need? Of course we have to spend that money, but we also have to make sure that we spend it wisely and appropriately on things that will make a real difference. There will be a debate and discussion about that. I suspect that if we had that debate in here now and I said, “There’s £10 billion. What are you going to spend it on?”, there would quite rightly be a discussion about that. The important thing is that there is a rationale to it that delivers the strategic objectives that this country, with its allies, wants not only in Europe but across the world.

On the defence readiness Bill, I will have to resort to the traditional formula when you do not really know, which is “when parliamentary time allows”, but we are developing it. The important point is that a defence readiness Bill is being prepared and there is ongoing consultation on it, and we will come forward with it when we can.

On the national conversation point, I cannot think of anything more crucial. Sometimes I feel a bit more optimistic about it. One reason is that we just need to be a bit more creative. The relationship between the public and the Armed Forces, when we have things like VE Day, as we had, or last night’s military extravaganza on Horse Guards Parade, which I attended with thousands of the public and people from other countries watching the musicians and the other things that were taking place, is very strong. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and others—the noble Lords, Lord Soames, Lord Harlech, Lord Glenarthur, Lord Bailey and Lord Wallace—have mentioned the point about cadets. At many of the Armed Forces events that I go to, there are, if not thousands, numerous young people and cadets there, and that is in every region of the country. I was in Northern Ireland recently and there were lots of young people at the Armed Forces event, and no doubt when I go to the military tattoo in Edinburgh in a couple of weeks’ time there will be lots of young people there.

So that relationship is there, and we need to be more creative and think more about how we talk about the fact that, while that relationship is important, there is also the serious matter of what we have to have our Armed Forces for. Maybe we need to think more creatively about the fact that the Armed Forces are also about the deployment of hard power and the service that we need.

I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord De Mauley and Lord Harlech; I have promised a meeting about the future of the reserves. I very much appreciate their thoughts about how to deliver the target with respect to reserves, which are exceedingly important, when we move forward. I take the point about the estate and about parity, which the noble Lords and others have mentioned. We need to think about how we do that. The defence investment plan will have competing priorities, but maybe that will be one of the ways forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, made the point about soft power. In the report by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, there is a specific commitment to a defence diplomacy strategy, which we will deliver in due course. That will be about soft power and will take forward many of the other things that are particularly important.

The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, all mentioned soft power, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bates, along with the importance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have a real commitment to that treaty. We will try to take it forward and try to stop the expansion and proliferation of nuclear weapons—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned Iran and North Korea—and we will take action in respect of all that. We do that within the context of believing that our own independent nuclear deterrent is essential to the defence of our own country and the defence of the alliances to which we belong, and we will continue to do that.

I also take the point about the reinvigoration of the P5 in the context—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, or the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made this point as well—of us being allowed to have nuclear weapons under the international laws and treaties that allow that. There is still a responsibility upon us to continue to ensure that things are as stable as they can be. So I take the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, notwithstanding the point that at present our posture remains the same.

I should have also mentioned the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, about health. I take that point, about the necessity of individual health; it is really important.

Various noble Lords mentioned the regions of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned the western Balkans. I met the Defence Minister from North Macedonia the day before yesterday. It is a new member of NATO, as noble Lords will know. We talked about the importance of the western Balkans and, as others will know, the importance of Bosnia. The noble Baroness will know that I met two of the three Presidents from Bosnia. We continue to understand the importance of that region.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that we have said very clearly that we have a NATO-first policy, but not a NATO-only policy. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, that we recognise the importance of Estonia and the Baltic states, which are right on the front line. I was talking to the ambassador from Finland, another country with an extensive border with Russia, only last night. As JEF nations, they know the commitment we have to them. Obviously, choices are sometimes made about the movement of various military units but, at the same time, our commitment to them remains absolute. I thank him for raising the point about NATO.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made the point about NATO first, the Commonwealth, and not NATO only. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, spoke about alliances and the importance of Europe as well as NATO, and we count that.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has always mentioned Japan. He will know the importance of Japan to us with the GCAP treaty. He knows that the carrier strike group is going there in the not-too-distant future.

I say to others that, notwithstanding the unreliability—as some have put it—of the US, we see the US as our strongest partner. It is a crucial relationship, and we will continue to maintain it.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned procurement. We understand the need for change there. We hope the new armaments director will make the difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, made the point about the need for sovereign capability, and she and I have been in discussions about the space launch possibility. We can continue to discuss that. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, also spoke about the importance of space, as did other noble Lords. We will continue to take that forward. I have covered a number of points. I want to leave myself a minute at the end to take up something, but noble Lords made other points. If I have missed anything, I will deal with it.

I want to come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. I have never had the privilege to meet him, but he talked about where we should finish in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, spoke about law and order and the international rules-based order, as did many others. The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, referred to it as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have not mentioned it. I have not heard that. I think the Prime Minister has mentioned it a lot, as have most senior politicians in this country, and as has nearly every noble Lord I see in here. Maybe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, had just reminded us about. Increasingly, this Parliament and our leaders have said clearly that we are at a crossroads. Every now and again history brings crossroads, and we are at one of them now. The international rules-based order is facing a challenge from various countries, and sometimes you have to stand up.

That is why people have, in many cases, talked about the importance of deterrence and the awfulness of sometimes having to prepare for war to stop war. That is one of the places we are in now. I am proud of our Parliament. We are standing on the shoulders of giants in what we are trying to do: the leadership we have provided in Ukraine under both the last Government and this Government, and the various attempts now to rearm to get the defence industry and the war-fighting capability that we need—however we have got to this particular point and whatever the reasons for that. I think that if those people from the past looked at us now, they would say, “At last, they’ve woken up and are now trying to take the actions that they should have been taking”.

Why are we doing this? It is because, at the end of the day, we all believe in our democracy, in the values we stand for, in freedom and in the rights of women across the world. We want those values and rights to be available in our country and our continent, and we want to stand with like-minded peoples across the world. That has been our history. That is part of our culture, and we have always stood, and will continue to stand, for that.

It is a privilege to meet the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, even if it is in this strange way. I thank him for reminding us that, sometimes, we have to go back to why we do things and why we bother. We bother because the democracy, freedom and values that we stand for are as important now as they ever have been.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

Will the noble Lord be kind enough to write to me with his response to my points on the Defence Academy and the issue to do with Afghan interpreters?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

On behalf of all of us, I thank my noble friend for his excellent speech. To follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it was very reassuring of my noble friend to make the further NATO commitment to raise our defence expenditure to 5% by 2035. But these are peacetime calculations, and if—

Afghanistan

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for a briefing yesterday. It meant that, temporarily, I was under a super-injunction. I was a little surprised when I was summoned to the MoD. On Monday afternoon I received a message asking me to come in for a confidential briefing. I had no idea what to expect, or of the magnitude of what we would hear in the Statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday.

It is a matter of extreme seriousness for a variety of reasons—the risk into which an official and the MoD placed Afghans who were already vulnerable, but also the fact that Parliament was entirely unable to scrutinise His Majesty’s Government on this issue for almost two years. The media reported immediately after the super-injunction was raised yesterday at midday; they had spent the last 22 months gathering evidence that, of course, they could not publish. There is a whole set of questions that are probably beyond the remit of the Minister who is responding today on behalf of the MoD, including what scrutiny Parliament is able to do and what the Government feel is appropriate regarding the media. Were the media being suppressed?

Lest anyone think that I am being cavalier about the lives of Afghans, it was absolutely clear that the United Kingdom had a duty to those Afghans who worked alongside His Majesty’s Armed Forces, including the interpreters and those who worked for the British Council. In light of that, the ARAP and ACRS schemes, which we all knew about, were the right approach. Yet we already knew, from open source material and cases that were brought to this House and the other place, that breaches of data had caused fines to be paid.

At the time of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, it was clear that many people were left behind, and that the helplines were not necessarily fit for purpose. The hotline for parliamentarians and their staff did not necessarily act as a hotline at all. I certainly left messages about cases and received no follow-up or reply. I was not alone in that and, although I believe that I was not part of this data breach, some parliamentarians were.

We began to acknowledge our debt to some of the Afghans, but not all. Then a data breach, about which we knew nothing, happened over three years ago. That in itself is shocking. Has anybody in His Majesty’s Government taken responsibility for that? We understand from the Statement that it was reported to the Metropolitan Police, which believed that there was no criminal activity. Has anybody taken responsibility for this catastrophic data breach that potentially put many tens of thousands of lives in Afghanistan at risk and caused considerable concern to Afghans who were already in the UK, having come over as part of the ARAP scheme?

The former Secretary of State, Sir Ben Wallace, has said that the super-injunction was not a cover-up, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Yet Mr Justice Chamberlain, who finally lifted the super-injunction yesterday, said in November 2023 that a super-injunction

“is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court’s processes are being used for the purposes of censorship … This is corrosive of the public’s trust in Government”.

Does the Minister agree? Can he confirm that this Government would not seek to use a super-injunction or, in the event that it was felt that a super-injunction was an appropriate course of action, that it would not last for more than 600 days but could be for a very limited amount of time while a particular, specific policy needed to be undertaken? The substantive policy change that was brought in—the Afghanistan response route—seems to have been very sensible. Had it been brought to your Lordships’ House and the other place, parliamentarians may well have thought that it was the right policy and been happy to endorse it—but we were never asked, because of the super-injunction. We knew nothing about it.

Could the Minister tell us whether, in future, the Intelligence and Security Committee might be briefed in camera? What role would Parliament and the media be allowed to play? If the courts, Parliament and the media are not deployed appropriately, that raises questions about our own democracy that need to be considered.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their comments and their words about the way in which the Government tried to inform His Majesty’s Opposition and the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. We tried to ensure that as many Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as other people in the other place, were informed as appropriate. I apologise if that did not happen with everybody who may have expected to have been informed, but we tried to ensure that everybody was consulted and spoken to.

I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, in the apologies that His Majesty’s Government, through me, again make today for what happened, which was totally unacceptable.

Before I answer the specific questions, I shall make a couple of opening remarks. The whole House will agree that the UK owes a huge debt of gratitude to all those Afghans who fought alongside us and supported our efforts in Afghanistan. Although I appreciate that there is significant parliamentary and media concern around these issues, and rightly so, let us not also forget that we are talking about human lives.

As noble Lords will know, a major data loss occurred in February 2022, involving the dissemination of a spreadsheet containing names of applicants to the ARAP scheme. The previous Government responded by setting up a new assessment route—the Afghanistan response route—to protect the most at-risk individuals whose data was disseminated. The data, and the lives that sit behind them, were protected by an unprecedented super-injunction, which was granted by the High Court, based on the threat posed to those individuals. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made: it is the court that grants an injunction, and when the Government asked for an injunction they were granted a super-injunction.

It is our view that the previous Government acted in good faith to protect lives. However, when this Government took office, Ministers felt deeply uncomfortable —to go to some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made—with the limits that the super-injunction placed on freedom of the press and parliamentary scrutiny. As a result, we therefore commissioned a reassessment of the situation, led by a former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, Paul Rimmer. Mr Rimmer, following a comprehensive review, found that it is

“unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting”

by the Taliban. He also found that there was no evidence pointing to Taliban possession of the dataset. We have therefore decided, as have the courts, that the risks have reduced, and that the existence of the scheme and its associated costs should be brought into the public and parliamentary realms for the appropriate scrutiny. Therefore, we expect and invite parliamentary scrutiny for these decisions.

I will deal with a couple of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me how this happened. I do not normally do this, as noble Lords know, but I will read out from my brief so that I get it factually right. In February 2022, under the previous Government, a spreadsheet with names of individual applicants for ARAP—the resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan—was emailed outside of official government systems. This was mistakenly thought to contain the names of a small number of applicants, but in fact the email contained personal information linked to 18,700 applicants of ARAP and its predecessor, the ex-gratia scheme, or EGS. The data related to applications made on or before 7 January 2022. A small section of this spreadsheet appeared online on 14 August 2023, which is when the then Government first became aware that the MoD’s ARAP casework and spreadsheet had been mistakenly included with the original email. The previous Government investigated that and a report was sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I repeat that the Government reported this to the Metropolitan Police, which found that there was no malicious or malign intent by the individual responsible.

The noble Baroness asked whether we believe that the systems have now been adequately changed. In a statement yesterday, the Information Commissioner’s Office said:

“We’re reassured that the MoD’s investigation has resulted in taking necessary steps and minimised the risk of this happening again”.


I hope that will begin to reassure the noble Baroness with respect to her point about how the leak happened, the measures that have been taken and the way it has been looked at and investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has now reported in a statement yesterday that it believes the MoD has, as far as it possibly can, taken the necessary action to prevent such a terrible and unfortunate incident happening again.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of course it is of great concern that parliamentary and media scrutiny had, essentially, to be stopped. Parliament and the press have not been able to scrutinise the activity and decisions in the way that they should. When we came into office, we were, fairly obviously, uncomfortable with that. We looked at the facts and the situation and, in January this year, as the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State asked Mr Rimmer, a former senior officer at Defence Intelligence, to investigate.

Noble Lords will have seen Mr Rimmer’s report. There are a number of important facts in its key conclusions, including that:

“No evidence points clearly to Taleban possession of the dataset”,


and the fact that the policy

“appears an extremely significant intervention, with not inconsiderable risk to HMG and the UK, to address the potentially limited net additional risk the incident likely presents”.

In other words, with where we are now, after the passage of time and the various assessments of the risk in Afghanistan, Mr Rimmer now believes that it is appropriate for the Government to apply to the court to lift the injunction. With the evidence provided in the Government’s presentation, it was lifted at Noon yesterday. The Government have decided that the time is right to make a Statement about what has happened, put as much of that evidence as possible into the public domain, and invite public, media and parliamentary scrutiny of it. That is the right thing to do.

At the end, in government, there is always a balance between making decisions about how to protect lives in a particular situation and recognising that you must have parliamentary and media scrutiny. The previous Government acted in good faith. We have looked at that again and believe that now is the right time for us to come forward, to publicise what happened and to invite comment from everyone. I hope noble Lords will accept that explanation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, if the reporting is correct, I understand that the date of the super-injunction was 1 September 2023 and that it was granted at the instigation of the then Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps. Eight months later, in debates on the safety of Rwanda Bill, I repeatedly moved an amendment to exclude from deportation to Rwanda Afghans who had served with British forces but had arrived here via irregular routes, no safe route being available. As these debates were taking place, some of the very people I was trying to exclude were being flown here by the United Kingdom without almost any Member of this House or the other place being aware. Why was I not told? Why was your Lordships’ House not told? If that was due to the super-injunction, why did the Government not accept my amendment? If my noble friend cannot answer any of these questions because he was not in government at the time, can he guarantee that we will have a chance to ask those questions and get them answered?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. My understanding—and there are better lawyers in here than I—is that the Ministers would have believed themselves to be subject to the injunction and the super-injunction, and that would constrain what they would or would not be able to say. But now that we have gone to the High Court to say that we believe the time is right for that super-injunction to be lifted, and the court has agreed with us, we are able to debate and discuss the very points that my noble friend has raised. No doubt these are the questions that, over the coming days, weeks and months, I and others will be asked to account for—quite rightly.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, it has been stated again and again that the person responsible for the loss of data thought that the spreadsheet contained a small number of names, whereas it actually contained a very large number of names. Surely this is irrelevant. It is the fact that it was used on a non-departmental system, not the number of names, that constitutes the breach. This has been presented as an individual failing, but one cannot help but notice that it seems to have originated in the same part of the Ministry of Defence which contemporaneously was making some rather questionable judgments and decisions about the so-called Triples, which must raise questions in people’s minds about the overall degree of supervision and direction of that part of the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister reassure the House that this is being looked at in that wider context?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for this important question, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, also asked, as to how on earth this could have happened. First of all, it was really important to ascertain whether there was any criminal or malign intent. The previous Government were quite right to refer that to the police for investigation. As I have already said, the police found that there was no evidence of any criminal or malign intent. Alongside that, it was referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The answer to the noble and gallant Lord’s question is the whole of the statement that the Information Commissioner’s Office made yesterday about its investigation into what happened, and into the way in which the Ministry of Defence has changed many of the processes that it had in place and its management arrangements to ensure as far as possible that we would not see that again. The importance of that is the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office looking at what the MoD was doing, rather than the MoD marking its own homework.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence described the super-injunction as

“unprecedented, uncomfortable and, in many ways, unconscionable”. —[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/25; col. 160.]

Given that, does the Minister agree that if, in the future, super-injunctions are sought, or their renewal is sought, the application will be made only with the consent of not just the relevant Secretary of State but the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, with his legal understanding and background, makes an interesting point. I cannot confirm whether that would be the right process and way forward but it is certainly something that should be thought about and considered. I will ensure that that suggestion is put into the process, but I cannot guarantee that it is the right way forward. I would need to talk to other colleagues about whether it is, but I thank him for his suggestion.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and Min AF for their briefing to me yesterday in my role as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. At that briefing, Min AF said that Defence Intelligence undertook an assessment of those individuals who were at risk. We now know from Paul Rimmer’s report that other assessments were taken forward by Defence Intelligence. The Intelligence and Security Committee is the only committee of Parliament that can actually look at these detailed intelligence reports. Contrary to what the former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, said on Radio 4 this morning, the Intelligence and Security Committee has full oversight of Defence Intelligence and does and can receive current intelligence. I therefore ask my noble friend: will the MoD now release these reports to the committee, or do I, at the meeting of the committee tomorrow, have to formally require the Government to produce these reports to the committee under our powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend, as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, points to its important role. I would think that every report should be made available to the committee, given that it was set up specifically to give parliamentary scrutiny to difficult intelligence decisions, but under the protection of the way in which it operates. I say to my noble friend that I would expect that to happen—I hope that there is not some process of which I am not aware that means I am not supposed to say so. In all openness, and in trying to be transparent about this, I would think that the Intelligence and Security Committee, given the way in which it operates, should have everything made available to it so that it can consider it and, where necessary, question Ministers and others.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, there are those in the other place who are spreading misinformation about the nature of the checks that were undertaken for those coming from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. It is in the Statement, but it would be helpful for the House—and the public—if the Minister could reassure us from the Dispatch Box that every individual coming to the United Kingdom under all three of the schemes that were set up, including the one that was not made known until yesterday, was subject to proper national security checks to protect the public.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed. Under both the previous Government and this Government, the fact that you are deemed eligible with respect to the Afghan resettlement programme does not mean that you do not have security checks made upon you. Let me be clear: that is for everybody who is said to be eligible under that scheme to come to the United Kingdom. I remind noble Lords that, if someone comes to the United Kingdom under that scheme, they automatically get indefinite leave to remain. I further remind noble Lords that the second part of that is for people to undergo security checks to make sure that they are not people who would come here and commit crime, or worse. On the particular individual to whom the noble Lord referred, who has made those allegations and said what he has said, if he has specific allegations, he should—as many have said—go to the police to report them, rather than just cast aspersions.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

I think noble Lords in this House would agree that the last Government and this Government acted properly in handling this, in every substantive respect. Unfortunately, that is not how this case, at least in part, is being presented in the media. Part of the media is still presenting this as if there has been some kind of cover-up at some stage, to protect the politicians who were in power at the time. Can the Minister categorically assure the House, on the basis of the evidence he has seen, that that was not the case and that, in looking at this issue, the previous Government acted entirely properly—as have this Government, in my view—at every stage?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others, the last Government acted in good faith in a way that they believed would protect people who had been put at risk by the data breach. They also went to the court for an injunction. The court itself granted a super-injunction, the thrust of which was to try to protect people from the consequences of having their names inadvertently put into the public domain. The previous Government did that. When we came to power, we decided that we needed to look at this to see whether it was still proportionate and how we should act. On the basis of the Rimmer review, we changed that. I sometimes wonder what the consequences would have been for any Government had that happened and lots of people had been killed.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, the logic behind the basic injunction to protect these vulnerable people in the wake of a catastrophic data breach is understandable and the application is laudable; the super-injunction is less so. Is my noble friend the Minister able to open up a little more? Has he been briefed on the rationale behind the super-injunction, or at least on the Government of the day not applying some time ago, if not immediately, for the super-injunction, which did not protect the sensitive data but the fact that there was a breach? What was the rationale for not seeking to suspend the super-injunction? That is where the constitutional concern lies, for the then and future Government.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand my noble friend’s point. I respond with trepidation, because I do not want to get into a legal discussion with her, as her legal knowledge is far greater than mine.

My understanding was that the previous Government asked for an injunction and then the court decided, on the basis of what it was told, that it was necessary for there to be a super-injunction. That was granted by the courts because of the threat that people faced. It was then renewed over a period of time. In the summer of 2024, the High Court suspended the injunction and gave the last Government 21 days to appeal. The Government appealed and the Appeal Court allowed the reimposition of the super-injunction. I can only presume that that was on the basis that the court was persuaded that the threat still existed for those whose data had been inadvertently put into the public domain.

On the basis of knowledge we accumulated over a few months, we decided to undertake the Rimmer review, which gave us the evidence to go back to the court and say that we no longer believed that the injunction was necessary for the protection of those individuals. The court accepted the Government’s new evidence, from the report, that the super-injunction was not necessary. At 12 pm yesterday, the injunction was lifted, and at 12.30 pm, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary made a Statement in the other place, and we have come here today to make a Statement, which I have no doubt will be the first of many.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there are a number of Afghans who are on the run from the Taliban, some of them in Pakistan, terrified about being sent back. The Taliban threatened to hunt down any woman who had played a public role. Could the Minister tell me whether there were any Afghan women on the list that leaked?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are trying to contact anybody on the list, whether they are in Afghanistan or Pakistan, who has been designated eligible for the scheme, to ensure that they understand that we will honour the commitment we have made to them. Whether they are in Pakistan or in any other country, we will honour the commitment we have made to them and try to ensure they get passage here. The noble Baroness will understand why I will not say any more than that, as it would compromise people we are trying to bring here.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I say, if I might, how encouraging it is that the Government are working so closely with the Opposition on this issue. It helps increase respect for and trust in the British political system. It was absolutely right that there should have been a super-injunction. My question is related to the effect of lifting the super-injunction at this stage. The Rimmer report says that there will be no added risk and a human judgment has to be made about whether or not that is the case. Undoubtably, the huge amount of publicity about registering the super-injunction is going to have an effect. Will anybody in the MoD be looking at the lifting of the super-injunction to see what kind of result there has been and whether there has been a significant effect which has increased the risk of vulnerable people?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will keep everything under review and look to see what the consequences of the decision we have made are. Following on from what the noble Baroness said about women in Pakistan, our initial focus is to try to ensure that, for everybody who is eligible for the various schemes, we honour the commitment that we made to them. There are still hundreds of people; the number of people still to be relocated under the Afghan response route, which is the scheme that was not publicised, is 600. We are trying to ensure that we know where they are and to bring them here, with approximately 2,700 family members. That, along with our other commitments, is our first priority: to try to ensure that we bring to the UK those we have made a commitment to.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether my question is for my noble friend the Minister or for the party opposite. While I can totally understand why an injunction was sought to protect the content of the leak and to protect lives, I would like to understand—perhaps my noble friend can explain—why an injunction was sought to prevent our media reporting the fact of the leak.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is difficult for me to comment exactly on the motivation of the last Government, although I believe they acted in good faith. If I put myself in their position, I think the motivation behind the injunction would be to protect not only the names but the fact that the dataset exists, to prevent people looking for such a dataset through the various means by which they would. For us, that was an argument that was made, and, over a period of time, we got to the point where it no longer held. As soon as we had the independent evidence to go to the court, we went to the court, to enable the parliamentary and media scrutiny that there should be of the actions that were and are being taken.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I am afraid I am a little less sanguine about some of this than others. This catastrophic cock-up—and it was a cock-up, not a criminal event—is a direct consequence of us getting involved in a war in which we should never have got involved in the first place, which we did not have the political will to see through, despite all the efforts of our gallant military, and which left the country in a worse state than it was when we arrived. If it were a one-off, it would perhaps be understandable, but this is a pattern of British policy over the years, from Iraq to Afghanistan and, of course, to Libya. I express a little prayer that we have learned the lessons of that deeper malaise.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think that we all need to learn lessons from anything that has happened in our history, whatever steps or decisions have been taken. The only thing I would say is that non-decisions and not doing anything also have consequences. It is about balance, and that is a debate and discussion that needs to happen. In terms of the content of today’s debate and future debates, the concentration has to be on what we do both to learn the lessons of what happened under the ARAP scheme and to make sure that we protect as many as possible of the people who stood with us in Afghanistan, whatever the rights and wrongs of that conflict.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, further to the point raised earlier by a noble Lord opposite about the lies, misinformation and fake news being spread, let us not pussyfoot around: it is by Nigel Farage and other members of Reform UK. Can the Minister confirm that this could actually put some of the people concerned in further danger?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point. Let us be clear: these are people who stood with us, fought with us and, in many cases, died with us. I think that the British public understand and welcome that.

By the end of this scheme, some 56,000 applicants under ARAP, plus their family members, will have been relocated to this country. There is some difficulty in terms of transition when they originally arrive, and so on and so forth—where they are placed and as they assimilate into society—but my understanding is that the British public understand that and are generally very supportive of these people. They are not asylum seekers. They are people who have come to our country because they stood with us; that is an important distinction to make.

The answer to those who would exploit that is to stand up to them and say, “You’re wrong. You’re actually not right. You are not speaking for the British people. The British people understand what we are doing and why we are doing it with respect to Afghanistan”, and so on and so forth. As I said to the noble Lord, making allegations and aspersions about all those who have been resettled under the Afghanistan scheme—“They’re all like this, they’re all like that”—is a total nonsense and not true. That is what I think the majority of people in this country think.

Let me say this: if there is an individual who has raped somebody, stolen from somebody, or worse, that person, whether they are an Afghan or not, should be prosecuted in the courts and sent to jail. I say again, as I said to the noble Lord, that, if the said person has evidence of it, they should go to the police and get them prosecuted, because that is what the British public want as well.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, before I call further business, some noble Lords might wish to take this opportunity to leave.