Defence Investment Plan

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is clearly a very delayed and extremely underfunded plan. As we have heard, at £15 billion it falls well short of the £28 billion requested by the defence chief to keep our country secure. But we know that it actually falls even shorter than that, as nearly £5 billion is unfunded and some £11 billion or more relies on undetermined efficiency savings. So, after months of paralysis, resignations and Cabinet chaos, the Government have short-changed the Armed Forces.

However, we should remember that it was the Conservatives who hollowed out our military, leaving the Army and Navy smaller than they had been for hundreds of years. The Tories failed to look after service personnel properly, through a lack of suitable housing and poor mental health support—that was unforgivable.

This Statement is a long way from solving these vital issues and many others. It is a political choice made by Sir Keir Starmer and the Treasury, and it leaves us less safe. Furthermore, it undermines our reputation as a leader in NATO. Last year, all NATO countries pledged substantially to increase investment so that we all hit 3.5% of GDP by 2035. But, even if the missing money is found, the share of GDP that we spend on defence by the end of the decade will be only 2.7%. In media interviews today, the Procurement Minister, Luke Pollard, said that the spending review next year will describe a pathway to 3.5%. That review will need to find an extra £25 billion per year to get to our stated target. Given where we are starting from, this is hardly credible.

This lack of credibility is not just a domestic phenomenon. When I attend NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings, I can sense the reputation of the UK falling back. This is more than just worrying. So I will suggest some ways to increase investment and leverage what resources we have more effectively. The Liberal Democrats’ plan for defence bonds would provide an additional £20 billion at least, funnelling in private sector investment. This is not pie in the sky. Poland’s armed forces support fund, for example, was established in 2022, with the main source of funds being issuing bonds. For context, last year Poland spent 4.7% of its GDP on defence.

There are better ways of leveraging our existing defence spend. The UK could take part in the nascent defence, security and resilience bank. This ticks a number of important boxes: it would be multilateral; it would work with a greater number of allies; it would help project financing to span election cycles; and it would cost-effectively pull in private finance, multiplying our state investment by many times. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, is a major proponent of this initiative. He met with Sir Keir’s envoy, Gordon Brown, last month to discuss it but, disappointingly, there seems to have been no progress.

The Government could also take bolder steps towards working with our European allies. Last month, the Lib Dems announced a plan for a UK-EU defence pact, including our intention to join Security Action for Europe—the SAFE programme. Andy Burnham is quoted as having said favourable things about both defence bonds and the DSR bank. He has also been historically in favour of closer relations with the EU. Does the Minister agree that the new Burnham-led Government should issue defence bonds, work with Canada to deliver the DSR and join the SAFE initiative in Europe?

There are also ways of making our spend on big ticket items go a bit further. For example, GCAP currently involves the UK, Japan and Italy. Canada, Saudi and possibly Germany have been mooted as additional partners. Can the Minister confirm that, through adding to the GCAP group, money could be diverted to other UK defence needs?

Much has been made of the headline spend of £5 billion for advanced uncrewed systems over the rest of this Parliament. I am sure this is welcome, as these systems are at the heart of modern warfare. However, to put this into context, the three-year £5 billion investment is only a tiny percentage of the plan’s £298 billion spend over four years.

We welcome the commitment to establish six new energetics factories by 2030. However, the nine-month delay in publishing this spending plan has frozen procurement and put many SMEs in peril. Now that we have a funding plan, how will the Government change the procurement process to give SMEs the certainty to invest and the cash flow to thrive?

Finally, last year’s strategic defence review rightly stated that national resilience cannot be bought with military equipment alone. It stressed the need for a comprehensive national conversation to shift our mindset and prepare the wider British public, local government and business for the hybrid, cyber and non-traditional threats that we already face. This is a whole of society challenge that spans far beyond the MoD, so what concrete progress is the Minister making with his government colleagues to initiate this national conversation?

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their contributions and important questions.

I will start by dealing with the question of spending, which goes to the heart of what both noble Lords were saying. Let me put on record some of the things that were said about the defence investment plan. I will make only one political point—that there will be a 27% real-terms increase in defence spending between 2023-24 and 2029-30—because all of us have at heart the security and defence of our nation and how best we should do this.

As both noble Lords and the House will know, the Government have set out plans for an agreed £15 billion increase in spending. This is outside the normal spending review process. That is not necessarily the way that Governments normally do things, but I gently remind the noble Baroness that it is not unheard of for Governments to take action outside the new spending process and to refer to the next Budget as the place where the detail will be confirmed. Indeed, the previous Government announced their five-year NHS plan in 2018 outside the Budget and the spending review. What did they say when challenged about it? I think the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will know: “We will be able to explain exactly where every penny is coming from, but we will do it in the next Budget”.

I will also refer to when the Conservatives published the integrated defence review in 2020. What did they do? They said that they would set out the funding at the next spending review. So, let us drop the idea that this is an abnormal process. It is important that the Government have taken the decision outside the spending the review to reprioritise and reallocate spending between spending reviews.

We have said that we will lay out the process for the 3% in the next Parliament. We will come back to the 3% and, indeed, the 3.5% at the next spending review, which will be next year. That is not an abnormal process; that process of taking action outside the spending review is one that Governments have taken over the past few Parliaments. That is an important point to make. Indeed, the foreword by the Secretary of State refers to the commitment until 2035 as a “promise”. It is laid out in there. He and I would expect all of us to be held to account with respect to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned defence savings. I will be clear about the efficiencies, or the savings—whatever we want to call it. The allegation seems to be that the efficiencies are to be taken out of the spending power that the department would have. To be clear, the increase in our spending power is not conditional on these efficiency savings. That is a really important statement for us to make. Who would expect the Treasury, under any political party, not to require a department to have some sort of target for tackling fraud? Who would not see the use of increased efficiency through the use of AI or better technology as bringing about savings that could be reinvested? Who would not expect the Treasury to say, “We would wish you to find efficiencies through an increased reliance on consultancy”? Who would not expect efficiencies to be dealt with? Many noble Lords opposite have called on me in the past to find a way to make sure that we have the most efficient use of the workforce that we have.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked me about housing. Over the next 10 years, the Government, having spent nearly £6 billion to bring Annington Homes back into public ownership, will spend nearly £9 billion over the next 10 years on improving military housing. That is hugely significant.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned reputation. I often say that this country faces challenges, but the idea that this country is not respected in Europe or across the globe is not true. In fact, this country is hugely respected in Europe and across the globe. Do not take my word for it: read what the Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, said about the defence investment plan. He welcomed it; noble Lords can read that in today’s and yesterday’s papers.

With respect to the important contribution that we make to NATO—I do not want to risk the ire of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—I just remind everyone that one of the most important contributions that our country makes is through the nuclear deterrent. That is a huge contribution that we make to the security of NATO and of Europe, and to our defence.

On GCAP, of course there is always a need to look at new partners. A few weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and many other noble Lords questioned whether GCAP would actually be in the document. Now the accusation is that we are spending it too late—it is over £8 billion-worth of money—and that it is not being spent quickly enough. A huge amount of money has gone into GCAP. Of course the Government will negotiate on new partners, but that has to be agreed not only with us but with Italy and Japan. That is important for us as well.

There is a whole section on SMEs in the defence investment plan; it is not only on the big primes but on the SMEs. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that all the chiefs are content with the defence investment plan and have been involved in bringing it forward.

A number of noble Lords asked me about private finance initiatives and how we can bring that on board. I know that the Government are looking at the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and whether that is a good way forward rather than necessarily defence bonds, which count as borrowing. No decisions have been taken about that, but we are of course looking at alternative ways of bringing that in. I say to the noble Lord that we tried very hard to get into SAFE, but we failed—we could not get into it. So it is not a question of trying to get into it; we tried and we will try again, but we were not successful. But in the meantime, the country will obviously continue to do what it can to build up its own defences.

The defence investment plan is a huge contribution to the defence of this country. It points to a way forward, it is transformative and it improves our readiness. For any investment plan brought before this House and indeed this country, that is quite an important statement of where we are.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, all European countries are struggling with coming to terms with new realities and what that requires for their defence and equipment to be appropriate to modern warfare. However, irrespective of the money and the percentages spent, if we do not start the national conversation—which we have been talking about for several months, if not years, now—the British public will not accept that they will have to accept cutbacks in other areas to defend our borders and our airspace, and, above all, the sea around us. Let us not forget that we are a nation, and our resilience and our capability to defend ourselves is not just about money; it is all about the support of the people. Can we start with that now?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed, we will come forward with proposals and plans with respect to a national conversation. The noble Baroness is right in her suggestion. We can see—many Members of this House will know this—that some of the ways in which the Government have asked different departments to contribute to this uplift in defence spending are already starting to cause some angst among certain communities. For example, in the east Midlands, where I live, the building of some roads is now being delayed, which is causing people to say, “Where’s the money going? What’s it being spent on?” Of course, having a national conversation is right, and the Government and all of us in here will have to make the case that defence is a priority, and that may require us to reallocate resources from one budget to another. We started that process, but as part of that process we must have the national conversation the noble Baroness refers to.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome part of this plan—it obviously has some holes in it, as we have already heard. I also welcome, as I do every time I hear the Minister speak, a great deal of his comments and his profound thinking. However, I wonder today whether the brief he has been given really tells the whole story. Not only have we heard about the deficiencies on the arithmetical and budget side but in the Second World War, for instance, our military spending rose to 69% of our total budget, and here we are, talking about 3% and 3.5%—it may be rather more than that when we look at the unfolding scene. I just wonder whether we should not be a bit more frank with the British people—or whether our briefing or the Government’s words should—in reminding them that we are beginning to move towards a total war footing. The late Lord Skidelsky often reminded this House that this is the way we are going, and we will have to seriously consider the sort of percentages that I am talking about. I am not sure that term comes through at all in the blue paper that we have all been given to read.

I am very pleased that we are reaffirming the huge global combat air co-operation between ourselves and Japan and Italy. This link with Japan and Japanese industry is hugely important. It is one of our ways into the giant consumer markets of Asia, which is where all the action is going to be. So good on that, but let us have a brief that honestly faces the fact that we are moving towards a war footing, and that that will cost far more than we are considering now.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and his comments, which come from a great knowledge and experience, and I thank him for his remarks about me. Just to reiterate, the GCAP programme is extremely important, and as he just said, that is outlined in the money allocated within the paper. The debate is about how quickly we move towards increased spending, and I have outlined—without repeating myself—how the next spending review in 2027 will look to 3% but that the absolute commitment is to 3.5% to reflect the change in the security environment in which we are operating. In addition, I mentioned the nuclear deterrent, and across this House we have mentioned the importance of preparing for war, because one of the ways you deter war is to prepare for it.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

First, I welcome this Statement, which this House has been waiting on for some time, and share my concerns about the funding, which I hope will be sorted out under new leadership. However, I welcome the fact that there is an emphasis on innovation and supporting small businesses, and I hope to see that coming through. In terms of the detail of the plan, I note that there is £330 million to be spent on investment in critical underwater infrastructure protection to tackle hostile activity within UK waters. I have raised this issue with the Minister before. Can we expect the Republic of Ireland’s Government to pay towards helping with that undersea capability, because, as he knows, it is as important to the Republic of Ireland as it is to the UK?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness an assurance about what the Republic will pay for, but let me just say that there has been improved and increasing co-operation between the Republic and ourselves where it is in both our interests to do so. She will know that underwater cables and underwater infrastructure are important to the Republic and to the whole of the UK, so it is in both of our interests to work together. I cannot give her a commitment about paying for that, but I can give her the commitment that there is increasing co-operation and working together to deliver the shared objectives we would all have.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the publication of the defence investment plan and the recognition in it that science, technology and innovation are going to play a very big part in the future. Does my noble friend agree that it is not just a financial challenge that faces the defence investment plan; there is also a credibility challenge? We are going to have to explain to the public more effectively than perhaps we have been able to do so far exactly why we need a funding plan to reach 3% of GDP by 2030 and 3.5% by 2035.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed, as I said to the noble Baroness, of course we need a conversation to more fully and carefully explain to the public why we need to increase our expenditure on defence and security and, alongside that, to help them to understand why that might mean changed priorities for budgets within the sort of priorities that people would have. Whether that means less spending on this area or that area of government, I think we would all agree that the increase for defence and security is essential, and there will be difficult decisions ahead. As part of resolving that, we need to talk openly to the British people.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the unfortunate realities is that the United States is moving away from the defence of Europe. Whether we like it or not, this is not just for this Administration; it is a danger that is likely to happen in future as well as the US looks to the Pacific. We understand that, and we understand that Europe should take more effect of its defence, but there are a number of capabilities that are not replaceable if the United States is not there—strategic airlift, a lot of the space intelligence, ISR and missile defence. I see nothing in this strategy or this expenditure report that tries to replace that. Clearly, one sovereign nation cannot do that, so how does Europe, together perhaps with Canada, ensure that we can defend ourselves into the future?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is a lot in the strategic defence review and the Defence Investment Plan about building up a greater sovereign capability in some of the areas that the noble Lord has addressed. But I think it is important in every debate to say that the alliance between the United States and our country and the alliance between the United States and Europe, notwithstanding the fact that the President has called for Europe to do more for itself, is absolutely essential to the defence and security of our country. The noble Lord may disagree, but I am telling him what the Government’s view is. The Government’s view—and, I am sure, the view of the vast majority of your Lordships’ House—regards the alliance between ourselves and the United States as absolutely essential for the security of this nation, so we have to be very careful about that. Of course there are challenges and difficulties, but the document refers to how we build up some of the capabilities to which the noble Lord refers. Of course Europe needs to do more, but it also needs to stand with the United States, not only in Europe but across the globe.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I share widely the view that this belated DIP comes nowhere near funding the strategic defence review, but the DIP does make clear the Government’s commitment, together with Japan and Italy, to the next-generation Global Combat Air Programme. This is welcome news, given the inevitable withdrawal of the RAF Typhoon air fleet from front-line service due to airframe fatigue and age in the early 2040s. Following the recent break-up between Germany and France on their similar programme, what political approach are the Government making to Germany to get them interested in GCAP?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord is right to point out the importance of GCAP and how it offers a sixth-generation option for us after 2040, when Typhoon is expected to go out of service. There is money in the defence investment plan for the upgrade of Typhoon to ensure that it has the capability that it needs until 2040. Regarding other partners in GCAP, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we are open to discussions with anybody who comes to us with proposals or desires to join that programme, but that will be a matter for international negotiation between ourselves, Italy and Japan, although we are not opposed to looking at having further partners as part of that scheme.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, may I say that this is a disappointment, to put it mildly? I am on the same side as the Minister on this. This, I assume, was what led John Healey to resign—I suspect that it was the same document. Given that, does he think that any other Minister should resign, given the appalling lack of money in the Statement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is an additional £1.5 billion, and there are also some changes with respect to the way in which there is a greater emphasis in this document on autonomy, AI and the transformation of the Armed Forces to have more new types of aircraft, vessels and capabilities. For me, that is as important as the amount of money, compared with not spending on new capabilities. But I would just say to the noble Lord that it requires difficult decisions to do that. On replacing the Type 45, we have scrapped the plans that we had in the document in favour of replacing them with new, uncrewed vessels. That requires us to make really big decisions, and there are a number of those sorts of decisions all through the document. Of course there is a debate about the amount of money, which is why I have talked about the 2027 spending review, but it is also about the type of capabilities that we need. The document shows that we are not afraid to make big decisions around that to give us the capabilities that we need in the future as well.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not clear that this is a welcome step forward, but that it cannot be the end of the story? We have to reaffirm our commitment to 3% by the end of this decade, and 3.5% by the middle of the next decade, as firm commitments of this Labour Government, and that in the period ahead we will carry out the kind of national conversation that was referred to earlier, and find a means of getting there. With due respect to noble Lords opposite, you cannot achieve this just by welfare cuts.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In terms of the spending, I have made the point about the 2027 spending review, and that the document lays out that we will come back to the 3% commitment at the 2027 spending review, and, of course, the 3.5% commitment is laid out in the document as well. That lays out what the Government’s plans are.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has just alluded to the elephant in the room, which is that there are no cuts to the £333 billion welfare bill, which would go a long way to helping with additional support for the defence industry. My worry is that most of these cuts are unknown, and they are optimistic efficiencies, but I know that the £2 billion being cut from the BEIS budget is a worry. How is this going to affect Mr Miliband’s ambitions for net zero?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know about the ambitions for net zero. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that, of course, spending is important, and increasing the amount of spending on defence is important. Whatever decisions are made will require the reprioritisation of budgets for what the Government plan to do. That is the reality of finding more money for defence. We are ensuring that everything in the current plans, and the defence investment plan, is funded. The spending review will come back to how it is funded beyond 2029-30, and how that is done will be a matter for that review.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I was head of the Treasury’s defence division, and I welcome all this concentration on the money, but the document is actually about investment and where the money is to be spent. Ukraine is making, using, and losing 7 million drones a year. The life cycle of any particular model of drone is under three weeks, because they have to be continually reprogrammed because of countermeasures, so I rather like the emphasis in this document, in section 3.2, on industrial agility. I hope that the Minister can deliver on industrial agility, as it is crucial that the Ministry of Defence gets away from operational requirements that are negotiated for months and fixed for years, and accepts that there has to be an open partnership with business, and a two-way flow of intelligence and innovation. From now on, the weapon is the production facility, the drone is only the bullet and the only constant is change.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. In the document, it talks about the need for the transformation of our Armed Forces, and much of that will be around uncrewed capabilities and drones. It is not only about big primes; much of this, including in Ukraine as the example, is delivered by small and medium-sized businesses, which have that particular agility to which the noble Lord refers, and we need to develop that.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, much of our debate today, as in the many months leading up to the defence investment plan, has focused on the bottom line and where the money is coming from; we have, unfortunately, had far less debate about how the money is being spent. I note that less than £10 billion over four years is set aside for homeland defence in areas such as cyber security, air and missile defence, and undersea infrastructure protection. By comparison, about £100 billion is being spent on nuclear submarines and jet fighters, AUKUS subs and cruise missiles. As the leading article in the Guardian said today, we are still binding our force structure to an American-led posture. Is that not deeply dangerous in the current geopolitical circumstances of an unstable, uncertain America?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

“No” is the answer to the noble Baroness’s question. Homeland defence runs all the way through the document: how we have better air defence, what we do about improving the use of reserves, and various protections for our critical national infrastructure, which is really important. As I have said before, on our alliance with the United States, the development and maintenance of things such as our nuclear deterrent are really important, not only for our defence and security but for the defence of Europe and beyond, and we should continually reiterate that.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I put it to the Minister that it would have been better to have had the conversation with the public before we put out the policy, so that we had rolled the pitch and people understood the nature of the threat. I welcome, therefore, what he is saying about the position going forward, but can we also make sure that the public understand the chronic neglect of our defence capacity that took place under previous Governments—notably the Annington housing and the neglect of maintenance—not least the failure to order nuclear submarines and the six-year delay between 2010 and 2016, which has left us in a very difficult position regarding our deterrent and our crew? Will the Government be making clear who the guilty men and women were?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The catastrophic decision to pick out of what my noble friend said—given the importance that I, the Government and Members across this House attach to this—was the delay in 2010 for a number of years in renewing the nuclear deterrent. That was a really bad decision, and as a result our nuclear submarines are at sea for months and months. That is a problem we have to deal with, as is the fact that renewal of the deterrent, which is included in the defence investment plan, will be later than we would wish.

My noble friend talked about Annington Homes. It was a disastrous decision to privatise it, and we have brought it back in at a cost of £6 billion.

I know that a number of people who wanted to ask questions were unable to. We have the Armed Forces Bill on Monday, and if noble Lords and Baronesses wish to ask a question then on the defence investment plan, I am perfectly happy for them to do that, so that they do not feel that they have missed the opportunity to ask about something which is massively important to the defence and security of our nation and beyond.

Palantir: Public Service Contracts

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the human rights and reputational risks presented by their public service contracts with Palantir.

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

My Lords, government departments operate within a robust procurement and assurance framework, ensuring that contracts are awarded only where requirements are met and no exclusion grounds apply. Palantir’s software is used globally across public and private sectors. Within the UK Government, its use is governed through established legal and assurance frameworks. In defence, Palantir supports data integration and AI-enabled analysis, providing timely insights that improve operational planning, decision-making and effectiveness.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am perennially grateful to my noble friend. If we are to avoid a future Fujitsu-style scandal of even greater proportions, how can our public money, personal data, national security and reputation be safe in the hands of a company credibly implicated in gross human rights violations, both in Gaza and ICE operations in the United States?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right to challenge the Government on these incredibly important issues around human rights and how the Government establish their contracts. To be clear about the UK Government, we are talking about a relationship and contracts that are negotiated with Palantir UK. The contracts that we operate with Palantir UK have strict protocols in place. We retain full ownership and sovereign authority over all defence data, including how it is stored, how it is accessed and how it is used. Contracts with suppliers include legally enforceable provisions to ensure that data sovereignty is maintained. I understand the points that my noble friend raises, but with respect to our contracts with Palantir UK, we ensure that the correct provisions are in place.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given the Government’s decision to partner with Palantir as part of their defence modernisation programme and the role that advanced data and AI capabilities will play in future warfare, does the Minister agree that such technologies are critical to delivering the strategic defence review, strengthening the UK’s ability to respond to hostile state threats and supporting the Government’s wider objectives for growth, innovation and defence-industrial capacity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. Many people across this Chamber will know that the responsibility of government requires difficult decisions to be made. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has rightly raised, there are sometimes difficult decisions and difficult dilemmas to be resolved. Alongside that—my noble friend asked about defence—we have a responsibility to ensure that with the AI capability and the data management capability, we can take forward our strategic defence review and can give our Armed Forces and those who work with them the best possible tools to ensure that we deliver the objectives of His Majesty’s Government. That is what we seek to do, while recognising the moral responsibilities we also have.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for his lucid and authoritative response. When I was a Minister, I saw how Palantir’s technology helped to save lives in the NHS. I saw how Palantir helped to ensure that those fleeing persecution from the Ukraine war could have a safe home in this country. I also appreciate that Palantir is playing a role in defending democracy, not just in the Middle East but in Ukraine. Is it therefore not a matter of regret to the Minister, as it is to me, that the Mayor of London has specifically ruled out Palantir helping to fight crime on the streets of London when the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has made clear that, as a result of the Mayor of London’s decision, our citizens will be less safe?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding is that the mayor and the commissioner have now reached an arrangement with respect to the activity of Palantir within the Metropolitan Police, where there will be a 12-month period to establish a proof of concept as to whether Palantir can move forward. The mayor and the Metropolitan Police commissioner have agreed that because, as the noble Lord says, the commissioner believes it will help fight crime. It is a matter for them to resolve that, but it seems they have found a way in which both are happy to try to take it forward.

I do not want to underestimate the moral questions that Governments sometimes have to answer. The noble Lord knows the issue of education particularly well, but let us look at the issue with respect to health: 41 ICBs and 171 trusts have signed up to use the NHS federated data platform; more than 100,000 extra patients have been seen; hundreds of thousands of patients have been safely removed from the waiting list; and nearly 94,000 patients have been supported on their cancer journey. That is the sort of dilemma that Governments need to resolve to try to find the best way forward.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we understand the importance of the Armed Forces modernising, including with AI. My understanding is that Palantir received a £240 million contract without the MoD going out to tender. While there are clearly national security exemptions for genuinely exceptional cases, is the Minister concerned that this could just move towards being a way of avoiding competition rather than helping national security? Will the next contract go out to procurement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite wise to raise that point; it is a question I asked too. Officials told me that it was the only company—the only available platform—that could provide what the MoD needed and give us the operational capability that was required. Under the single tender regime—I cannot remember the exact title—where there is no other option available, it is okay and legal for the Government to operate in that way. That is why the Government did that. Of course we are looking at whether other people can provide the sort of expertise that the noble Baroness refers to, but there was no point going out to procurement when the only provider was Palantir.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, by common assent, Palantir’s technology has rapidly and dramatically improved the Ministry of Defence’s logistics and operational planning systems without either human rights or reputational risks. Given that the current challenge confronting the MoD is recognised in the SDR, which recommended achieving a 10% efficiency saving by greater use of AI systems, what progress has been made on that objective to date?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will see in due course some of the ways in which we are taking forward AI, but she is quite right to ask about this. AI is crucial to the future provision for our Armed Forces and to enabling them to have the capability and capacity they need for the conflicts of the future. Palantir is one example of the way in which we seek to take that forward. Other options will be brought forward as part of the defence investment plan. Clearly, AI is the future of much of the technological co-operation that will be needed both within government and with our allies.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is quite right to resist attempts, which happen quite regularly, to demonise individual companies rather than looking at the underlying reality. He is also right to look at results. In this very fast-changing world of information technology, the company leading this year may well not be leading next year or even in six months. I recognise that Palantir has a major presence in the UK, which is welcome, but other companies are available. I caution against the department and the Government becoming overdependent on individual companies that almost become too big to fail, as we have seen in other sectors.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. Palantir provides us with the capability that we require at the moment, but he will be reassured by the fact that, alongside granting this contract to Palantir for the next three years from this April, we are seeking to look at options with small and medium-sized and other companies that could provide the same capability, so that we have a competitive process in future. That also answers the noble Baroness’s point. I suggest that will keep Palantir on its toes in the marketplace as well.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government considered applying a fit and proper person test to owners and managers for public sector IT contracts, particularly those involving Britons’ private data, with particular attention to their respect for human rights and the rule of law? If they do not have that, the contracts will not be worth the paper they are written on.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, but the point I made at the beginning is that these contracts are with Palantir UK. Anyone who has been a Minister knows that contracts signed on behalf of the Government have to have a fit and proper process. We will not take on people to run things for us who have criminal records of a particular sort, do not pass the monetary test or have other considerations around them that mean we see them as a security threat—of course we would not. The people who have gone through this process and been given the contracts have passed the tests set for them as part of the risk assurance process.

The noble Baroness is perfectly entitled to her opinion, but taking the decision not to grant Palantir the contract would have consequences as well—many patients now being seen would not be seen, many crimes being solved would not be solved and the operational abilities and capabilities of our Armed Forces would be undermined because no one else can provide that capability. That is the side that I am on. The noble Baroness can take the side that she is on.

Russian Shadow Fleet

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the boarding of the “Smyrtos” was conducted speedily, efficiently and without any casualties. It is a real credit to our Armed Forces. We all agree that it was a very impressive effort, and we should be grateful to them, but it is the first that has happened, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. My understanding is that the “Smyrtos” was operating under a Cameroonian flag, but Cameroon abruptly purged 36 shadow fleet vessels from its shipping registry last week. Can I ask where the other 35 are, and indeed who is pursuing them, and who is going to take any action to block them, deter them or prevent them from completing their journey towards Russia? What are we doing, either by ourselves or in co-ordination with others, to ensure that collectively we stop this shadow fleet? If you are talking about that number of ships, there is a huge amount of oil that is still being got through to Russia and that Russia is using to finance the Ukraine war.

On the oil that has been seized—which I think is 100,000 tonnes—what will happen to that? I assume that it will be sold on the market, but will those funds go to Ukraine to compensate it for the war? I hope the Government will consider that. Does this not also raise the case to lift the waiver on Russian fossil fuels now, rather than at the end of the year? Is it not quite ironic that we are launching military escapades to capture shadow ships while at the same time allowing oil to go to Russia legally? That is a huge contradiction, and a total lack of common sense. So I ask the Government: what are we doing to try to eliminate this shadow fleet—not by ourselves, but collectively with our allies? What are we doing to end the Russians’ waiver and apply the sanctions? Can we ensure that any oil seized is used for the benefit of the Ukraine war effort?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the comments that they have made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness for her thanks—and I know it is a sentiment shared by us all—to our Armed Forces for the work that they did. It is important that we recognise that, as well as the military, specialist officers from the National Crime Agency were involved. I know that noble Lords will join me in thanking them for the work that they did as well.

I will share a factual update which may be of use to the House, before I come to the questions that have been posed by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. One Indian national who was the captain of the ship has been arrested and is currently at Bournemouth police station. There were a further 24 Georgian and Indian crew on the vessel. The ship has been seized and is currently off Weymouth, and all those 24 members of the crew remain on the ship. The ship, having been seized, is now under the control of the Department for Transport. Many noble Lords will be aware of some of those facts, but they are worth repeating for the awareness of noble Lords, and there may be questions that will come from them.

I am not sure that I am going to do a lot better than my right honourable friend in the other place—I am not sure that the noble Baroness expects me to—but the situation is that the Prime Minister made the statement about acting when all the circumstances aligned, and when preparations were made. It was based on the briefing from the military and others that this was the right time to act, and it was a time when we could act. In the way that it was conducted, no shots were fired, and nobody was injured or hurt, but it was the right time to act, and that is why we did. That is the answer to the noble Baroness’s question; I am not sure that she will be totally satisfied, but that is the answer.

As far as I am aware, there has been no problem with respect to the law or being held back because of the law. The Government have always said we will act in accordance with the law, and there has been no barrier to action with respect to that. This operation was conducted totally in accordance with the law.

In answer to the noble Baroness’s question about whether this was a one-off, no, it was not a one-off. This was a purely UK personnel operation, and we will take action at any point, should it be appropriate. If the advice that we receive from our military and others is that it is appropriate, of course we will act.

The noble Baroness is right to say that the action was a deterrent. Some ships were immediately rerouted, with some veering off around the English Channel past Cornwall. It is my understanding, as she is right to point out, that other ships moved around the top of Scotland. We keep under consideration any other activity that we may wish to undertake.

I stress the importance of the noble Baroness’s point that we must show that we will act. It is important for others to hear that from this Chamber. We will act when all the circumstances are right, when all the legalities are in place, when the military capability is there and when the military advice that we receive says that it is appropriate to do so. None the less, the noble Baroness’s point about deterrence is really important, so I say again that this should not be seen as a one-off. The Government will act, with the support of everyone, where that action is appropriate.

More generally, on the noble Lord’s point, we have sanctioned 570 ships and we assess that some 200 of them have been restrained to port—in other words, they have become non-operational. I am aware of the actions to which the noble Lord referred, but sanctioning ships is also important.

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, of course we always work with others. We liaised with others on this operation, but it was led by the UK. He will know of other operations off our own coast, where we supported the Americans, and recently in the Mediterranean, where we supported the French. There is a lot of work going on, in which we act in the way that the noble Lord suggests.

We work hard to ensure that we do all we can to impact Russia economically. In this respect, it is oil, but there are other ways to ensure that we undermine Russia economically to have an impact on the war in Ukraine and to ensure the defence of our own country. What happens to the oil will be considered by the Department for Transport, which will no doubt have heard the noble Lord’s point on that.

The noble Baroness made a point at the end of her question about resources. I cannot add a lot to what I have already said on that, other than to repeat a point that I often make: the defence budget has gone up. From memory, it was approximately £60 billion in 2024-25, and it will be £73 billion in 2028-29. That is before we get the uplift from whatever happens with the DIP and, following the Prime Minister’s comments to the BBC, the spending review in 2027, when defence will be the number one priority.

We should be under no illusion about the actions that we have seen recently and the many others that we have seen in the Middle East and the north Atlantic, and the various other operations that take place. Notwithstanding the debate about resources and their adequacy or not, it is important to recognise, as I know your Lordships do, the significant amount of activity that our Armed Forces conduct on our behalf, in Europe and around the world. It is important to recognise that, notwithstanding the present challenges.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

While the Minister may have handed this off to the Department for Transport, can he comment on the likely fate of the crews of the ships that are being detained and on the future expectation of what will happen to the oil and to the ships themselves, many of which may be poorly maintained? I have a vision of our anchorages becoming full of these oil-filled rust buckets, which pose a real risk to our maritime environment. Anyone who remembers what happened with the Armada will know what happened to the ships that tried to go around the north of Scotland and down the coast. That poses a substantial environmental risk to us, should one of them come to grief. Could the Minister comment on that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can comment on the environmental risk. Obviously that is important, and we will do all we can to ensure that we do not see any adverse impact or consequence of what we have done in that respect. As I have said, apart from the captain, who is in custody with the police in Bournemouth, the 24 others remain on board. The only legal way that they could come on to the UK mainland would be if they were to be repatriated—in other words, if they were coming here to be sent back to their country of origin. That answers that specific point. As for the ship, then noble Lord will remember the “Bella 1”, which was interdicted a few months ago. It was just off the coast of Scotland for a time, but, as I understand it, it is now in the Caribbean, far away from our shores. That is, I hope, an example of how, while we deal with the specific consequence of the interdiction, we are mindful of the potential environmental consequence. We are also mindful of what we do with the crew, but we do not want any environmental damage from the ships. However, that should not alter the fact that we will take action where we need to do so.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

To deter these ships, surely it is important that the Government tell them what would happen to their cargo and what would happen to their vessel if they persist.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise that. Let us be clear that the Department for Transport will ensure that the way in which the oil is dealt with in no way benefits the Russian war effort. That is a matter for the Department for Transport. One of the important things is to make sure that we as a country stand up for the law. The noble Lord will appreciate that the really important point is for Russia to understand that we will not stand idly by, whether that means sanctioning ships or taking action where we need to.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister has stated that the reason why this ship was stopped and many others were let through was that the circumstances aligned. Does he mean to say that, when all the other ships went through our territorial waters, for none of them did the circumstances align?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without going into the criteria, which would benefit only those who seek to circumvent the work we are trying to do, all I can say to the noble Lord—he will know this from his own experience—is that I receive advice from people who are much more qualified than I am to say what is and is not an appropriate way to act in the circumstances. We had advice from a wide range of people that this was an appropriate sanctioned vessel for which we could take action, at minimum risk to our own personnel, ensuring that we could be effective in what we did.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

I join my noble friend in commending those who were responsible for this remarkable operation and the success that it represents. I also commend the Prime Minister, who today announced further sanctions on Russia, tightening further the screws on Vladimir Putin and his regime. Can we be assured that the Government will continue now to look at any of the loopholes that may be being used by people to provide money that allows Vladimir Putin to continue this dreadful war against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. He is right to point out that this is an important action by the Government, but it has to be seen alongside all the various other actions that were taken, which I know are supported by all noble Lords in this House. I agree with him about looking at any loopholes that might exist, as well as at what further sanctions we might take. The Government and the Prime Minister are keen to do that. It is important to say that, notwithstanding what is happening in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, our determination to continue to stand with Ukraine in defence of its territory against the illegal invasion by Putin—I know this is a sentiment shared by all—remains absolute. That is a really important point.

Let me also just say this, because I think it is sometimes not forgotten but overlooked. Putin did not expect to be fighting a war in Ukraine in 2026 after his illegal invasion. His policy objective, and what he believed would happen, was that within three or four days he would have taken Kyiv and established a puppet regime there to act as a barrier between NATO and Russia. He has failed in that objective, and we will continue to do all we can to support the Ukrainians in their fight, which is a fight for our democracy and our freedom, as well as a fight within Ukraine for their democracy and their freedom.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

The Minister has several times failed to give any clear answer to the question of what is going to be done with the oil and the ship. He dodges that and, for some peculiar reason, the Department for Transport is now considering these important matters. Do I take it that this very skilful military operation was carried out with nobody having any idea of what they were going to do with the ship and the oil once they seized it? If they do not know what to do with it, will they consider the very sensible suggestion that, as this whole military operation is for the benefit of Ukraine, they should be sold and the proceeds given to the Ukrainians?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry to have been such a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. I cannot really do any better. It is the law and the way the country has operated for many decades, including when the noble Lord was a senior Minister. The Department for Transport retains responsibility for these actions, and it remains responsible for what happens to the oil and the ship.

I say to the noble Lord that the most important consideration, in deterring Russia and in taking action against Russia, is for them to understand that they cannot sail around the world with impunity and that we will take action against them where it is appropriate, where we can, to interdict these ships. Alongside that, we have sanctioned 550 vessels—that is alongside what other countries have done—and stopped Russia having more than 200 vessels available because they have been kept in port. I take the point the noble Lord is making, and no doubt the Department for Transport will hear that, but the action we have taken will have a deterrent effect on Russia, and that is what is important.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

When the Department for Transport decides what to do, will we be told?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I shall make a solemn commitment to the noble and learned Baroness, who is one of the most esteemed Members of this House. It will no doubt be noted by many of those who support me in my ministerial role that I am making a solemn parliamentary commitment that I will ensure that the House is informed of what happens to the oil, the ship and the crew. There we go. I cannot do much better than that.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

One of the problems is that we do not know where these hundreds of ghost ships are at any one time or where they are going. There is a need to identify that. We should have a better system of international port links, possibly working with the Commonwealth, to achieve that.

While I am on my feet, I add that, having heard the mention of Lord Howard of Effingham keeping the Armada to the windward side of Britain, with the result that the ships all got smashed up and their goats and ships are on the islands of Scotland to this day, we have in this House his descendant, my noble friend Lord Effingham. We should be very proud that our contribution shows that the descendants of these brave people who saved England again and again is memorised and enshrined in that fact.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have not got that in my briefing, but it is important to recognise the contribution that many have made through the ages, which is reflected in their families and their descendants today, and I take the noble Lord’s point. Alongside that, it is important that we look at how we more effectively work together across the international community to ensure that the sanctions regime is implemented much more effectively. As many people know, through history, economic sanctions and the denial of economic benefit to a country undermine its war effort, so we have taken action to do that. Can we do more working with our international allies? Of course we can.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, it is reported on Sky News that the “Admiral Grigorovich”, a Russian warship, has fired a warning shot at a yacht in the English Channel. Should we regard this as being a sign of an escalation in the tensions between us and Russia?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will not expect me to say too much on, as I understand it, an ongoing incident that clearly is potentially very serious, as I do not know the full facts of what has happened. I know it has been reported; I have just found out about it through a text on my phone, so I say to the noble Lord that he will realise why I do not really want to say much about it, given that I may, unfortunately, just add to the problem. It is certainly a developing story, as they say, and will need to be reflected on. As soon as I go back to the MoD, I will ask for a full briefing on what is actually going on.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister know whether the Russian shadow fleet, in so far as it is coming in and out of northern Europe, is going into the Russian Baltic or to the Russian Arctic? If the Russian Baltic, the strait between Sweden and Denmark is a lot narrower than the Strait of Hormuz, so what are we doing to interdict the ingress and egress of Russian shadow oil tankers through that strait? That seems to be a much more practical way of dealing with things with our allies in NATO in Scandinavia and Germany. Equally, what are we doing to patrol the north Atlantic in the Arctic region to prevent ships coming in and out of, for example, Archangel?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Clearly, we work with our international allies and colleagues, whether it be in Scandinavia or anywhere else in Europe, essentially to deal with the sort of issue that the noble and learned Lord has raised. However, he will know that the UK is sending its aircraft carrier, HMS “Prince of Wales”, up into the north Atlantic with allies and friends in order to assert the rule of law in and around the seas. I think that is an important statement of where the UK Government, with our friends and allies, are with respect to all of this as well. Clearly, we work with others to ensure that, wherever the shadow fleet operates, we do all we can to ensure that we take the necessary action to prevent it happening.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, this high-level procedure obviously took place in UK national waters. Do the Government believe that there would be legal justification for taking similar action against a sanctioned vessel in international waters? If the Minister is not clear, might he write to me?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding from the briefing that I had is that the action took place in international waters, and then it was brought back into UK territorial waters. An important point to make, just as a statement, is that the English Channel, although called the English Channel, is an international waterway; it is perfectly legal for legal ships to operate and to travel—even for warships, frankly—to go through the English Channel, providing their intent is not malign. That is an important comment for us to make. Then, of course, we have the territorial waters of our own country and the territorial waters of others in Europe. But as a specific answer to my noble friend’s question, my understanding is that the interdiction took place outside our territorial waters and the ship was then brought back into our territorial waters.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as being half Danish. The Danes have been especially concerned about this, and not just because of the damage it is doing to the war effort against Ukraine. Obviously, they live a lot closer to Russia, as do other Scandinavian countries, and we have had the build-up of troops on the Russian side of the Finnish border. Is it not the case that it might be easier for a big country such as Britain to board these vessels than a small country such as Denmark? To what extent can we co-operate through JEF and other international efforts in this regard? It would cause a catastrophic environmental incident if one of these vessels were to beach on one of the Scandinavian coasts.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. On what we may or may not do, we work very closely with all our allies, of course, including Denmark, but the noble Baroness makes a broader point about the importance of JEF and its work. In JEF, both in the maritime sphere and on land, we work with others to co-operate. She will know that we have troops in Estonia. I have also mentioned in the House that, only a couple of months ago, I was in Finland as part of a NATO operation. We were talking about the border between Finland and Russia. When you get within 30 or 40 miles of the Russian border and talk to people who live there, as I am sure many noble Lords have done, you understand the very real threat that they face; you understand the prospect, and their fear, that what is happening with respect to Russia in other parts of Europe might happen to them.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in commending the crew that carried out this operation. It appears, technically, to have been piracy on the high seas, but the Minister has made very clear to the House that it was legal. I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister could explain in a short way the difference between what appears to be piracy on the high seas and a legal operation.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The legal basis is that the ship was falsely flagged. As such, it loses some of the protections that it would have were it to be properly and legally flagged according to the rules that operate in the maritime environment. Also, the Attorney-General made clear that it was legal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. From both points of view—the United Nations law of the sea, under which the Attorney-General was satisfied, and the fact that the ship was falsely flagged—it loses some of the protections that it would otherwise have. That means it is not piracy. The ship does not avail itself of the protections it would have were it properly flagged.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the role of Greece with the Russian shadow fleet? Many of these ships appear to have been previously Greek-owned, and we have the ship-to-ship transfers of oil that are taking place in the Aegean Sea. What discussions have we had with our European partners in that respect?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We talk to all our European partners, including Greece, about how we ensure that the sanctions with respect to Russia are as effective as possible. We highlight all the time the importance of ensuring that the efforts of Ukraine to repel the illegal invasion are successful. That obviously requires the support that we give militarily but, as I have said in answer to many of the questions that noble Lords have posed, the ability to undermine the strength of the economy of Russia should not be underestimated. The shadow fleet is playing a role in trying to support the economy of Russia; the more we can do to undermine that, the better.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

The Minister has said on several occasions that we will continue these operations of interdiction where circumstances align and where it is appropriate. I struggle to think where it would be inappropriate but, as for where circumstances might align, is that a reference to available resources? If there were an increase in the defence budget, would these interdictions become easier to conduct?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is not a question of resources. Where a sanctioned vessel is identified as having a false flag—to answer the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig—it is about understanding what its registration is or is not. When that is done, we get the military advice that it is possible to do X, Y or Z. Other criteria are also taken into account, some of which I do not want to go into. All I will say to the noble Lord is that, where we can and should, and where all the various criteria come together, we will take the action necessary to deter that shadow fleet from operating. In answer again to the question put by the noble Baroness at the start—Is this a one-off?—no, it is not a one-off. We will take action where we can, as often as we can.

Defence Investment Plan

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Chief of the Defence Staff has today given the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House stark evidence of what funding is needed and why we need it to maintain our defence capability. Does the Minister agree that, whatever ends up being in the defence investment plan, there must be an emphasis on funding ongoing operational activity such as boarding sanctioned tankers, paying for drones, equipping our serving Armed Forces personnel with everything they need to maintain operational readiness, and ensuring that our reserves are trained and equipped to optimise military and national resilience support? Does he accept that these are priorities?

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

The priorities, and the moneys for the future, will be laid out in the defence investment plan. The noble Baroness is right to point out some of the important capabilities we have to protect our country and to work with our allies. She was right, for example, to point to the importance of the reserves—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, here—and to the ability to maintain our operational requirements. This goes back to a question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place. As the DIP goes on, an important thing that will have to be wrestled with is the relationship between RDEL and CDEL, which is crucial to the way we will operate in the future.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to increase defence spending to 3% by 2030 and to 3.5% by 2035. But what is required, and is chaotically missing, is a clear timeline that would enable the MoD and the defence industry to budget, plan and procure. Even if the DIP is published, as promised, before the NATO summit, it will not end the uncertainty. Holding out unspecified prospects for future spending does not really cut it. So when will the Government make a clear medium-term to long-term decision and remove damaging uncertainty for our defence industry and for other departments, which fear cuts, in order to fund what they do not know is happening?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Money for defence is already increasing, notwithstanding what happens in the DIP, which will further increase defence spending. In answer to various questions yesterday about defence spending going forward, I simply referred to what the Prime Minister told the BBC on Friday afternoon. The Prime Minister laid out that defence will be the number one priority in every spending review, including the next one, which, I remind the noble Lord and the House, will be in 2027. There is the additional commitment, which I made at NATO last year, to get to 3.5% by 2035. The commitment laid out by the Prime Minister to the BBC and Chris Mason was important.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, I have £50 billion in my back pocket. In 11 years’ time, my noble friend the Minister and every Member of this House will be able to get to Birmingham 20 minutes faster. Some £102 billion is due to be spent on HS2 going forward. If we cancel this project now, it will cost us £33 billion. The net saving will be somewhere between £50 billion and £70 billion. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take this away and see whether he can persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to chop HS2, which is utterly useless, is going nowhere and was a bonkers vanity project right from the beginning. I invite him to do so.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is the most difficult question I have had. The serious point, notwithstanding the debate around HS2, is the question of priorities within government. One of the issues that has caused some debate and discussion—I was asked a question about it—was that when the Government made the initial defence spending increase, it was funded by a reduction in the overseas development budget. Now, the debate and discussion are about how we can reprioritise within the existing government spending envelope and use money from other departments, particularly from capital, to spend in the defence investment plan. There is always debate and discussion about priorities within government, and, no doubt, that will continue.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, might not the Government find it a bit easier to deal with their problems explaining defence spending if they distinguished much more clearly between the overall defence of the nation—where the budget spreads across many departments and takes a variety of new forms that change all the time—and the MoD budget, which, just like general spending, is always in trouble? I see in today’s newspapers that more trouble is coming along.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is an interesting idea. Indeed, the strategic defence review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, pointed out the contribution that many departments, not just the MoD, will make to homeland defence and the protection of critical defence infrastructure. In terms of what happens to the budgets, there will clearly have to be more co-ordination and work between government departments if we are to ensure that homeland defence and the security of our nation is what we want it to be.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the answers he has given so far. I want to ask a question about service personnel retention; I declare an interest as the father of a soldier. The defence investment plan primarily addresses equipment, procurement and investment in research. However, one of the greatest challenges we face with the Armed Forces is retention and the general health and well-being of service people. Currently, the outflow before the end of their agreed engagement or commission stands at around 6%. What more can the Minister and His Majesty’s Government do to retain and support our service community?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are taking a lot of action on recruitment and retention. To give a couple of examples in the short time I have, the announcement last week about the further increase to Armed Forces personnel pay was important, showing that the Government support and respect the work they do. There is also the work we are doing on military housing; that is an important statement as well. We are taking a variety of measures in a variety of ways to ensure the value that we all place upon our Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

One way of achieving the objectives that my noble friend spoke about, to give some certainty, could be for the UK to join the defence, security and resilience bank. In answer to a Question I asked on 19 May, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, said that the Government had “no current plans” to join that bank. However, the Canadian High Commissioner said late last week that Gordon Brown had talked to Mark Carney about the UK joining the bank and that talks were ongoing between it, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister clear up for your Lordships’ House whether we are or are not seeking to join that bank?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I cannot say that we are seeking to join that bank, but within the MoD and across government there are considerations of what other mechanisms we might use to fund defence.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

What is the defence intelligence assessment of the Treasury’s inexplicable decision not to fully fund the strategic defence review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson? If it is purely to force change on the Ministry of Defence and move from legacy systems to innovation, surely, that is a rather blunt instrument—or have I missed the point somewhere along the line?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The original assumption was that we would look towards 2035 as when we need to be ready. However, with the intelligence and the work being done, we are looking more towards 2030, and that is in addition to what we do now. Those are the parameters within which government is operating, and that is the work the DIP seeks to address.

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

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not just about how much we spend but ensuring that it is spent effectively? What is being done within the MoD to ensure that procurement is improved? Perhaps he might consult our noble friend Lord Drayson, who was a very good Procurement Minister. Will he also explain why we have more civil servants in the MoD than we have soldiers, and more admirals than we have ships?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are trying to increase the number of ships, so hopefully in the end we will catch up. The personnel we have, we seek to employ gainfully. We have reformed and changed how procurement operates within the MoD. We have a new national armaments director running a National Armaments Directorate, which is seeking to reform and change how we procure so that we ensure that whatever money is spent is spent as effectively and efficiently as it can be.

UK Defence Capability

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

Military in the Gulf

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

King’s Speech

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Preparedness for War

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee adjourned at 4.52 pm.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

What about the delegation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[A noble Lord]

Medical assistance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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