Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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


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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Walney (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Swire (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

The noble Baroness will know that the final decision on the award of the new medium helicopter contract will be made through the wider defence investment plan. With respect to what she said about the defence industry being a desert, the Government have signed 1,000 major defence contracts since July 2024, 86% of which have been with British companies. Many contracts relate to lethal capabilities and are not published for national security reasons. We are spending billions of pounds on British industry; we want to grow its capacity and are doing all we can to support it. However, on the noble Baroness’s specific question about Leonardo, that will have to wait for the defence investment plan.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I met Leonardo’s chair and CEO today. He told me that, as the Minister may know, Yeovil accounts for 3,300 direct jobs and an annual input into the local economy of £320 million. As the Minister also knows, that is our only sovereign capability for full helicopter construction and it has huge export potential. However, there is a real prospect that this will be the Government who close the gates on Westland for the last time. All this seems to hinge on the defence investment plan but, even if that plan is published soon, and even if it indicates that the medium-lift contract is going to be funded, the real question is when. Work does not need to start now, but it needs to be a secure prospect for Leonardo: it needs to have a solid workflow, which means that contract negotiations have to start very quickly. Does the Minister recognise that, without that kind of certainty and knowledge of workflow, the Yeovil site is in real jeopardy?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have spoken about this. I understand exactly the points that he has made with such passion, force and logic. I cannot say any more than that the final decision will be contained within the defence investment plan. The only thing that I will say to him is that we are spending billions of pounds on the defence industry, and that amount of money is increasing. Many noble Lords say it is not enough, but it is a hugely significant sum. I quoted the total CDEL figure last time and I will quote it again: in 2024-25, the total CDEL figure was £22.7 billion but in 2028-29 it will be £31.5 billion—a nearly £10 billion increase—and we are doing all that we can to ensure that as much of that money as possible is spent within the UK on the British defence industry. On the noble Lord’s specific question, as I said to the noble Baroness, I understand the importance of that factory and the jobs that depend on it, but the final decision will have to wait for the defence investment plan.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. Successive Governments have rightly linked defence investment to economic growth. Of course, a key element of that is the export element. However, we have a history of procuring the exquisite, which naturally limits its exportability. I simply ask the Minister whether this particular contract is reliant on the export element, or will the domestic procurement mean that it can stand in its own right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Obviously, exports are an important component of contracts that are made. On the more general point about exports, the noble Lord is right to raise the whole issue. As a Government—to be fair to the noble Baroness, she started to try to do this in the previous Government—and as a country, we need to laud our industry far more in terms of the exports that we seek to deliver across the world. As a fundamental part of the carrier strike group that went out, I went out on a number of occasions, as did a number of other Ministers and representatives of industry. We had industry workshop after industry workshop on the carrier, and on the other parts of the carrier strike group, to promote British exports and the British defence industry. The more general point that the noble Lord makes about the need for us to laud and promote our own industry in whatever sphere is exceptionally important, and we will do that.

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, maybe I can enlighten the Minister about the export prospects for the contract with Leonardo, which amounts to about 500 aircraft by 2040 for about £400 million. Leonardo—I declare my interest as chair of Make UK, which has 1,100 defence members, including Leonardo—has been very patient about this. This contract has been going on for about four years. Leonardo is the only tender for the contract. We have been hearing about the defence investment plan for the whole of the last year and it has now been postponed until the spring. I would not be surprised if the management of Leonardo’s parent company had had enough. This has gone on for a long time and the Government should decide immediately whether they want to support UK manufacturing and defence, UK exports and 1,200 jobs in the south-west.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are in constant discussions with Leonardo about this particular contract. However, the noble Lord will have heard what I said: the final decision in respect of the contract with Leonardo will be part of the defence investment plan. He makes the point that other noble Lords have made, including the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that alongside that we are doing all we can with the additional money that we are spending to support British industry and promote British jobs. That is part of the policy of the Government, and it is what we are doing.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will have got the message that he has support from right across the House to get across to the Treasury that a flow of funds is needed to ensure that orders come through. There is great pressure not only on Leonardo—which is, of course, also a major partner in the GCAP project—but on companies in its supply chain, which actually have to employ people to order new equipment. They do not have the same resilience and financial reserves. They need those orders so that they can start planning. Can the Minister get that message across to people across Whitehall?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are certainly making those points—with respect not only to the importance of the main contract but to the impact on the supply chain that is dependent on these contracts—to the Treasury, not just on the important Leonardo discussions but on the many other contracts the Government are signing with British industry.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, is it not precisely that this contract is not being let? As my noble friend said, the conversations need to start now. If Leonardo is the only company in the running, why are the Government not having those conversations right now?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are having conversations with Leonardo; we have been talking to it for a considerable period. Those discussions go on. All I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and to the noble Baroness is that the final decision with respect to Leonardo and the new medium helicopter will be made as part of the defence investment plan. She will have to wait for the outcome of that for final decisions to be announced.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point about the supply chain, is the noble Lord aware that when these small and medium-sized enterprises and family companies try to get finance to invest in the machinery required, some financial institutions see investing in companies providing services for defence as a negative? They are seen as immoral. Is the noble Lord aware of that? What can be done to reassure financial institutions that investing in the defence of the realm is exactly the right thing to do?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really important point; let me just broaden it. It is not just financial institutions: we still sometimes read of universities not welcoming defence industries on to their campuses and recruitment fairs not welcoming defence industries. If the threats we face become real then everyone will being saying, “Why didn’t the Government do something about it?” We need to ensure that we support all our defence industry, whether small, medium or large companies, so that they can recruit and do what they need to do to deliver the capabilities that our Armed Forces and our country need. Those financial institutions need to wake up to the threat environment in which they are operating.

Boarding of Sanctioned Vessels

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with their counterparts in the United States about possible future support by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force for US boarding of sanctioned vessels.

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

My Lords, any future requests from the US for Royal Navy and Royal Air Force support for operations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes appropriate consideration of the legal basis for any proposed activity. The MoD will continue to step up action against shadow fleet activity to protect our national security, our economy and global stability, but we cannot comment on hypothetical future operations.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, these Benches applauded the successful boarding by the United States of the illegally flagged MV “Marinera” and the detention of that vessel, because that direct interception hits the Putin war machine and the brutalistic regime of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. I understand that there are currently 107 sanctioned vessels flying false flags and, in my opinion, the sooner they are boarded, the better. Can the Minister confirm that the UK has the capability to continue to support the United States in such operations and to commence such operations on our own account, and that the Special Boat Service will be given the necessary resource to train and equip our elite soldiers to do that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The unity of purpose between His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government and all Members of this House sends a hugely important and significant signal to Russia and our adversaries, so I very much welcome the first part of the noble Baroness’s question. I anticipated her question. I do not normally do this, but I want to read something because if I am not careful, I will stray into areas that would not be appropriate. I apologise to the House, but I think it is important to read something, so please forgive me if I take a little bit longer than I would normally, because the noble Baroness has made an important point.

“As we have made clear in our recent statements regarding the US military operation to interdict the MV ‘Bella 1’, the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so. We are fully committed to tackling the threat posed by the shadow fleet and are working with partners to maximise efforts. We will use the range of tools at our disposal to crack down on sanctions evasion and illegal maritime activity”.

I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Baroness’s question.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, we effectively run global merchant shipping from London. We have the best Merchant Navy-type lawyers in the world in London, and it is quite clear that these ships can be boarded and it is legal to do it. We already have people trained to conduct such operations. Indeed, some of the takedowns of merchant ships have been amazing. It seems extraordinary that it has taken so long for us to grasp this nettle. Two and a half or three years ago, we were saying, “Let’s get on with it”. Why is it that the Government do not move more quickly and get us to start boarding these very dangerous vessels that are giving a lot of money to Russia and going up and down the channel, for example?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend heard the careful Answer that I gave to the noble Baroness; I hope that went some way to answering the question that he has posed. It is not as though we have not been doing anything. Let me set out the facts for my noble friend; I asked for them and mentioned them a couple of days ago. As a consequence of sanctions, Russia’s oil revenues are down 27% compared with October 2024 and 544 vessels have had sanctions imposed on them by us, with 200 of these sidelined through actions taken by ourselves and our partners. So I take the noble Lord’s point about the need to go further and faster, but we are taking action, and that action has had some consequence on the Russian war machine.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, shadow fleets pose a threat not just to the effectiveness of sanctions but to critical undersea infrastructure, and therefore require a more robust response than they have had hitherto. That requires not just expert, trained personnel, which we absolutely have, but the necessary maritime and air support assets, which are much more problematic. It is noticeable that, in the US incident recently, the Navy contributed a Royal Fleet Auxiliary manned by merchant seamen rather than a warship, presumably because we did not have one available. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence is arguing about which capabilities should be cut so that we can live within the wholly inadequate defence budget. When will the Government more widely start acting as though they believe the warnings that they rightly continue to issue about the perils of the international situation that we face?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord will know that we await the defence investment plan, which will lay out the capabilities that the Government believe that we need for war-fighting readiness. The noble and gallant Lord will also know that we have taken action in the Baltic to protect underwater critical infrastructure, with “Proteus” and other capabilities. He will also know that, with respect to the interdiction of the shadow vessel between Iceland and Scotland, we used RAF surveillance aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as the RFA ship. It is also worth pointing out that, notwithstanding the might of the United States, it asked for our support and help in doing what it did, and we were happy to give it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has just said, we are waiting for the defence industrial strategy. What is holding it up, the MoD or the Treasury?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

What we are doing is trying to make sure that we get it right. Even if you increase the budget by £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion, there will be debate about the correct way to spend that money. What is the war-fighting readiness that we need? What is the capability that we need to tackle the threats that we face? We as a Government are determined to ensure that we can fight the war of the future—that we are ready to fight the war of the future, not the war of the past. That takes decisions, that takes debate, that takes discussion, and that is what is going on.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the legal basis for these actions. Can he confirm that the Government have used the powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act? Have the Government made an assessment of whether they have all the legal powers they need? If they do not, do they have plans to change that situation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The legal basis is the fact that these ships are operating as either false flag or stateless vessels. That gives us the legal basis. I have read the reports that the noble Lord has read, but the current situation is that that is the legal basis that we are using in relation to the stateless, flagless ships that are sanctioned. We use that as the legal basis for the actions that we either take or support.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I understood, as the Minister has just confirmed, that in the case of the “Bella”/“Marinera”, the legal basis was premised on the fact that she was deemed to be stateless, at least at the point at which the pursuit began. If the Government are now considering extending the policy to other sanctioned vessels, including those that do have a nationality, can the Minister tell us what the legal basis would be?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I shall not stray into that territory, because I am sure that other people are more legally qualified to answer than I am. However, the action that was taken was on the legal basis that it was a stateless, sanctioned vessel. It sailed on one flag when it was in the eastern Caribbean and, when it fled from the United States, it changed to a Russian flag. I say to the noble Lord, as I say to all noble Lords, that, when we question the United States and its willingness to take on Russia, the big strategic point that we should not lose is the fact that the United States took on a Russian-flagged shadow vessel. That should give us all comfort.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke about global stability. He may be aware that, in both the US Senate and the House of Representatives, bipartisan Bills have been introduced to prohibit the Pentagon and the State Department from using funds appropriated by Congress to

“blockade, occupy, annex, conduct military operations against, or otherwise assert control”

over the territory of another NATO member state. Does the Minister agree that that Bill would be a real contribution to global stability?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know about the Bill, but if the noble Baroness is referring to Greenland, the Government have been very clear that that is a matter for the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland. There is no change in government policy on that. However, Arctic security is becoming an increasingly important challenge for the Government and for all of us. Irrespective of what the noble Baroness is really asking, dealing with that is a challenge for all of us: Arctic security is a priority and we must make sure that we defend our interests there.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, during the previous Government, there was a bit of a triumvirate when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was the Minister. Many times, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I would stand up and ask questions, and I would associate myself immediately with his comments. Today, I find myself in a similar position, standing up to associate myself and these Benches with the comments and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which are extremely important. My questions should therefore be seen very much as additional to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

I first thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces, particularly at the start of a new year, and say how important it is that we support them. Obviously, our personnel were not actively involved last week, but we support them and we want to ensure that the situation for our Armed Forces will be such that we are ready to deal with all the international situations that may come up in 2026. Although this Statement was officially labelled, “Ukraine and Wider Operational Update”, already in 2026 we have had Iran, Ukraine and Russia, and the other issue, of course, is the situation with Venezuela.

I do not propose to ask the Minister questions specifically about Venezuela, but I stress that the importance of supporting the United States last week in tackling the tanker and dealing with the shadow fleet is precisely that we understand that that was in accordance with international law. It is important to stress that we support His Majesty’s Government as long as the action taken is in accordance with international law. Will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, where actions are taken, even by our closest ally, the United States, we will hold them to account if we believe that they are not acting according to international law?

We clearly have a difficult situation where, on some issues, we agree entirely with the United States and on other issues we find ourselves perhaps at one remove. Could the Minister help the House understand where the United Kingdom is in discussing with the United States the situation of another sovereign entity—namely, Greenland? We have had reassuring answers from the FCDO, suggesting that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Kingdom of Denmark. But Greenland is a significant geographical part of NATO. There are questions around what support we as the United Kingdom, particularly the MoD, are giving to Greenland and to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Building on questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, if the United Kingdom were to commit troops to Ukraine, what would the conditions be? I understand that there would be a vote in the other place, but would it be just the United Kingdom and France? Are His Majesty’s Government sure that, if we did that, we would not actually be creating vulnerabilities for our own troops, because the prospect of peace in Ukraine still seems a long way off?

Finally, is the Minister convinced that the commitments to defence expenditure are adequate? He said in the Chamber last week and the Secretary of State said in the Commons as part of this Statement—or in response on this Statement—that we have our 3% commitment, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked, if we are not spending that money, and if we are not letting the contracts and there are vulnerabilities for our frigates and helicopter services, where does that leave us in terms of national security? Supporting the United States in supporting Ukraine is important, but so is our national security.

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

First, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their general support for what the Government have been doing, which, to be fair, carries on from the last Government. It is a source of strength for our country that that is the case and that there is a degree of consensus between us all about that. As a statement of the obvious, it is extremely important for our adversaries to see that unity of purpose between us all.

I also join the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, in thanking our service personnel for the various operations that they have been involved in in different ways. I want to praise the American forces as well for their bravery in what they did in conducting that operation. Again, I thank both noble Baronesses for their support for that operation, which was of huge significance. The noble Baroness talked about the importance of tackling sanctioned vessels. I remind her that we have sanctioned 544 shadow vessels, of which we believe 200 have been forced off the water, which has led to a decline in Russian oil revenues of 27% since October 2024. While we all wish we could do more, some progress has been made, and indeed we always consider what more can be done.

The noble Baroness asked about the 39 nations—they will contribute in different ways. As she will have read, France and the UK are at the forefront, and discussions are going on about what different countries will do. Most importantly, we need a peace agreement, and Russia is the impediment to that. If we get a peace agreement, a multinational force—whatever form that takes, but with France and Britain at the lead—can then provide that security guarantee which makes it a reality.

I also say to both noble Baronesses and other people the House that it was particularly important to hear the remarks of the Americans, such as Steve Witkoff, at the conference in Paris, where he said that the discussions that had taken place were very significant. Given the way in which we sometimes question whether the involvement of the Americans is as strong as it might be, that was a particularly important point that he made and one that we were very pleased with and are keen to continue to support.

I will mention two other strategic points, because we talk a lot about the Americans. There was a lot of talk a couple of months ago about the new American national security strategy. Less attention was given to the National Defense Authorization Act that the Americans passed at the same time, which laid out the Americans’ military budget, which included significant sums of money for Ukraine and significant troop numbers in Europe and confirmed the American general as SACEUR, which is important. So, in answer to the noble Baroness’s point about America, we continue to work very closely with the Americans. They are a very important ally to us, and we talk to them. I will come to Greenland in a minute, but we talk to them, and that is particularly important.

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the point about the national conversation. We are starting with that work, but there is an awful lot to do to alert the British people much more to the challenges that they face, not necessarily just in terms of troops invading but certainly hybrid threats, cyber attacks and some of the activity we have seen on our streets, not least in Salisbury a few years ago.

The protection of critical national infrastructure and the development of the reserves will become increasingly important. We certainly live, to put it mildly, in unsettled and uncertain times, and the national conversation is a really important point. If the noble Baronesses, or indeed other Members, have ideas about how we take that forward, I would very much welcome them because it is an important national endeavour that is taking place.

Going back to Ukraine, of course, planning is being undertaken. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been talking about what may be done. There is a lot of planning going on—I am not going to go into details—certainly in terms of making sure that the various equipment and materials that would be needed to deliver the reassurance are available.

The noble Baroness has heard what I said about the defence investment plan. We are working at pace to try to get that developed as quickly as possible. There is a debate and discussion about the defence investment plan but this country does an awful lot militarily, even within the existing budget. I reflected on that when the noble Baroness was asking that question. I was thinking about the RAF Typhoons that, with France, took action in Syria just a week or so ago.

We have the commitment we are going to make to Ukraine and the commitment in the Arctic; we have marines training in Norway and troops in Estonia; we had the carrier strike group recently out in the Indo-Pacific and, of course, the support we gave to the Americans, so notwithstanding the debate about whether enough is being spent, this country does an awful lot militarily, and sometimes we should remind ourselves of that.

On helicopters, the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the Philippines has just placed an order with Leonardo for six helicopters. That does not answer the question about the defence investment plan and the British Government’s investment, which is still being considered, but certainly those six orders will be welcome news for Leonardo.

Of course, we operate on a legal basis. The action against the shadow vessel was against a sanctioned stateless vessel, which carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with Iran and Russia. It is a sanctions-busting ship. It was stateless: the noble Baroness will know it changed its flag when it sailed towards the eastern Caribbean. It was flying a Guyanese flag, and then when it sailed away, it changed it to a Russian flag.

There is a strategic point, which will not be lost on some colleagues here, that sometimes America’s attitude towards Russia is questioned—whether it sees Russia as a country it ought to take action against—but that was a very clear demonstration that where the United States believes it is in its interest to do so, it will take action.

The noble Baroness asked me about Greenland. She is quite right. We believe that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and it has the right to determine its own future. There is a question about Arctic security, and we have discussed in this Chamber at great length the need for us to consider how we develop that. I have mentioned in debates that climate change and the melting of some of that ice opens up that territory in a way which means that we will have to consider its security even more.

The noble Baroness asked again about the commitment to invest. She will know what I have said about investment, and that debate will go on. The Government have made their commitments. I would argue that even within the existing budget, we make a significant military contribution to the defence of democracy and of our values. We shall continue to do that, not least in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of our minds all the time, and in supporting the Americans where we believe that that should happen, as we have proved just recently in the last few weeks.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I was impressed by two points that arose in the debate in another place last week. First, the Statement itself said that

“if Putin prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine”.

Secondly, Rishi Sunak said that we must have

“credible and durable security guarantees”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 390.]

I very much agree with those two points. Is the Minister seized of the vital need to ensure that any settlement with Putin over Ukraine does not ignore the possibility of him just jumping in and repeating the operation elsewhere? I am thinking particularly of Georgia and Moldova, where there are striking similarities to the Ukraine situation. Putin would argue, with the same dishonest and disgraceful justifications he used over Ukraine, first, that they used to be under Russian influence and, secondly, that Russia already has a military foothold in Moldova and Georgia in a similar way to what it had in Ukraine. I have been to both places. In South Ossetia in Georgia, I looked down over the Russian military base, materiel and equipment with which it illegally invaded some time ago. In Moldova, I have been to Transnistria and met the generals and colonels, who told us in those days that they had only 1,500 troops there, which was a total lie. Will the Minister agree that a settlement with Putin is not just about Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord made a series of very good points, and I could say that I agree with him about the need for all the things he said. I completely agree with him about the need for there to be a security guarantee for Ukraine. Any arrangement that is made has to have the support of the Ukrainians. That is why we have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to put together a coalition of the willing. There are still discussions going on about that. It is good that the UK and France have been at the forefront of it. We have tried very hard, and it was good to hear what the Americans said at the meeting of the coalition of the willing in Paris. Their involvement is essential as well, and sends a strong signal to Russia.

The noble Lord made a point about Moldova and Georgia. He will know that in Moldova we supported the facilitation of free and fair elections, which led to a result that Russia did not want. We would certainly wish to see similar in Georgia. The noble Lord makes a really good point—Putin has to know he cannot be seen to have won, and we are doing all we can to ensure that that is the case—and he is right to point out that the front line in Ukraine is our front line as well.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement leaves me puzzled. Are the Government insisting on boots on the ground in Ukraine as a condition of a ceasefire? As the Russian Government have said that under no conditions will they accept NATO boots on the ground, is that not equivalent to a policy of prolonging the war rather than hastening the arrival of peace? Leading on from that, what other plans or ideas do the Government have for security guarantees for Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The whole point of us saying that we are willing to deploy troops to Ukraine, with France and perhaps others, is precisely to ensure that any peace agreement arrived at is guaranteed and acceptable to the Ukrainians. That is important. It is what the Ukrainians want and have asked for, and we negotiated on that. As I said to other noble Lords, the Americans are working with us to provide some sort of security guarantee. Putin needs to negotiate with us. He is the impediment to peace in Ukraine. We say to him: let us negotiate in a way that is acceptable to the Ukrainians.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, to take the Minister back to the question of resources, he will be aware that the Chief of the Defence Staff gave evidence to a Select Committee this afternoon and confirmed that there is a gap between the funds available and the ability to spend on current strategic defence programmes. For reasons I do not quite understand, he said that the size of that gap is a secret. Can the Minister be a little more open with us?

The real point of my question comes back to what I said last week. The defence industrial plan is a signal of how serious the Government are about putting our money where their mouth is. Last week, the Secretary of State said that the Government were working flat out on it. There are indications that it will not be published until the spring. He will know that, in government, “spring” is an elastic concept. I would not want the Minister to have to work flat out for six months. Can he give the House a bit of an indication as to whether we are talking about something that will be here in the next few weeks, or is it months away? We will draw conclusions from his answer.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord but I will not be a hostage to fortune and say that it will be in a few weeks, or when it will be. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can to deliver as soon as we can a defence industrial plan that meets the needs of the budget we have and the needs of the country to deliver the military force and capabilities we need. That is what we are seeking to do. The noble Lord will continue to argue the case for more money and resources. We are working with the resources we have and seeking to deliver the military capability we need.

In my answer to the noble Baroness, I was trying to point out that, even within the existing budget, this country does an awful lot of which we can be proud with our existing military and the Armed Forces personnel that we have. But there is no doubt that the debate that the noble Lord quite rightly raises will continue.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, when asked about the deployment of a multinational force, the Secretary of State for Defence in the House of Commons said:

“Any deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine will take place only after a peace deal”.


That is fine. He then said:

“Secondly, the role of that force is primarily one of reassurance, the regeneration of the Ukraine forces, and deterrence of any future Russian aggression”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 395.]


To that last point, if it is supposed to serve as a deterrence to future Russian aggression then the national debate has to start with what would happen if that peace agreement were breached and what our response would be. The Minister will say that these are hypothetical questions, but I think the national debate will have to prepare people for that possibility.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is a hypothetical situation. It goes back to the point I was trying to make in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. There is a need for a national conversation about the threat that we face. There is a national conversation about the state-on-state threat that exists now in a way that people would not have predicted a few years ago. The Cold War and Russia and one country versus another country were supposed to be the wars of the past; we were supposed to be combating terrorist activity, counterinsurgency and those sorts of things. Although those threats have not totally gone away, the state-on-state threat has now re-emerged. Part of the national conversation has to be about what that means for our country and our Armed Forces.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question is also about the national conversation. To put it on the record, the Green Party supports the principle of UK troops serving in a peacekeeping role in Ukraine, following a negotiated settlement with a robust international mandate and standards. We are very pleased that the Statement says there will be a debate and a vote in the other place beforehand; that is the minimum democratic standard. Can the Minister reassure me that MPs will be able to scrutinise robustly the Government’s proposal, so that they will have before them—this follows on from the noble Baroness’s questions—details about the size and the composition of the force, what weapons they would have, the rules of engagement, and measurable indicators of what success looks like? It is important that it is not just a debate but a full debate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There will be as wide a debate as possible. Some of it will not be debated on the Floor of the House necessarily—for example, rules of engagement and so on. Having said that, let me reiterate what the Prime Minister stated last week, because it is important to make sure that I am accurate:

“If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 254.]


The noble Baroness can read into that the answer to her question.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have had any indication from any Russian source that Russia would accept either British and French peacekeeping troops or troops deployed to uphold an agreement in Ukraine, or a ceasefire, which has been proposed on a number of occasions by President Trump? Then, could he perhaps also say whether the very high-level American attendance last week in Paris, where the commitments were made by the President and by the Prime Minister, meant that the United States Administration is firmly supportive of what the Prime Minister and the President were saying they would be ready to do if there was a settlement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have no knowledge at all of any commitment by Russia regarding the points the noble Lord made. On the American commitment to the discussions and the declaration of intent in Paris last week, it was very significant that people such as Steve Witkoff were saying how strong those commitments were and how much they welcomed them. That is extremely important. The Americans’ part in any security guarantee is really important and something we will continue to work on. As the noble Lord says, the fact that there was such high-level American representation is hugely significant.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, let us be quite clear that Mr Putin does not want a ceasefire under any circumstances—it is not going to happen. Without wanting to sound trite, I pay tribute to the armed forces of Ukraine, which are defending our freedom in Europe with their lives, blood and treasure. I am sure we all agree with that, but it is worth saying again.

The question I want to ask is slightly different. It strikes me that, over the past 12 or 18 months, when it comes to propaganda, Ukraine and its right cause has been on the defensive. During 2025, the Russian forces occupied a further 1%, to the nearest percentage point, I believe, of Ukrainian territory, with huge and obscene losses of their own troops and population, yet we still have the feeling that the White House understands that Ukraine has no cards, the cause is lost, and there is no future in successfully stopping Putin from winning. It is all very difficult, but those are the facts of military change over the past year. What are the Minister’s thoughts on how we can reverse some of that feeling, so that we can be more positive about what Ukraine is achieving in its work and its firepower and that side of the conflict? How can we change the narrative?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an important question. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the Ukrainian armed forces, and acknowledge the stoicism and bravery of the Ukrainian people for resisting in the way that they have.

Whatever the debate about defence investment and how much we should be spending, we should remember what we actually are doing. Notwithstanding the difficulties and challenges that Ukraine faces in re-equipping and so on, we should remind ourselves that Russia was not expecting to be in the position that it is now. When it attacked, it was expecting to take Kyiv within a few days, put a puppet Government in place and have a vassal state. That was the intention. Has Russia been successful in doing that? Not at all. Instead of saying that this is where we are now, sometimes you need to go back and look at what the original objective was. I say to this House, this Parliament and this country that Russia has totally failed in its original objective. Ultimately, it has failed because of the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the support that most countries have given to them.

What else did Russia expect? It expected NATO to be weakened and implode. What has happened? Notwithstanding the discussions we have had about the United States, NATO has been strengthened. Who would have said at the beginning of the conflict that Finland and Sweden would join NATO? They have, and that has strengthened NATO. As well as looking at the challenges and difficulties that we face, we ought to remind ourselves sometimes about what has been done and is working well. Russia has failed in its original objectives, and we should remind people of that.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I want to take the Minister back to the issue of conversation. He and I have discussed in the past that, these days, social media is a weapon of war. I quoted to him a senior military figure who said to me, “We should spend as much on social media as we do on hard kit”. I suspect that comes pretty hard to those with a military background, but what does he think of that suggestion?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that warfare is changing, and that part of the battle now is understanding what is fake news and what is happening in reality. In every area of life, what appears online is an important part of any battle. The noble Lord will know that, both in Ukraine and in other parts of the world, the battlespace is online. Part of the Government’s response to that is to open up new cyber recruitment routes into the Armed Forces. To develop that, we have a new cyber offensive command as well as our defensive operations. That is how warfare is changing. I am not sure that everyone who will come in through the cyber route would naturally have got in via the soldier route before, but they are the soldiers of the future as well as those whom we would regard as soldiers in the more traditional sense. So, that is a good point. The war of the future is going to have many of the features of the past but also features along the lines that the noble Lord has just outlined.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, may I speak like a fool? I do not have all the facts, so I am speaking like a fool. Ukraine has spent a lot of hours in all those conversations and discussions about peace, attending endless meetings, when everyone knows that Putin is not interested in any of that. By encouraging conversations about peace, have we drained the energy that Ukraine had before the talks started? Is the coalition of the willing giving Ukraine the weapons that it needs, especially since a few days ago a ballistic missile was used to devasting effect in Ukraine and surrounding areas? Are we letting Ukraine down?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

No, I do not think we are. Conversations and discussions take place on how to bring about peace, but alongside those we continue to stand with Ukraine and arm it to defend itself against Russian aggression.

House adjourned at 6.59 pm.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in seeking to address legacy issues arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles, I suspect that what we are all agreed on is that there is no absolutely right way in which to proceed. A judgment about what is the least harmful approach has to be made. May I ask the Minister two questions? Why have the Government created equivalence between our Armed Forces serving their country and terrorists who committed murder and torture? How can such an abandonment of our Armed Forces be the least harmful way to proceed?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.

We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee pointed out, the current legislation, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, managed to do one thing, which was to unite the parties of Northern Ireland against it. The Minister is right that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. Can he reassure the House and veterans that the proposals that are coming forward really will ensure that veterans are not left vulnerable? In particular, as my honourable friend the Member for Lewes said:

“Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 63.]


Will the draft legislation actually ensure that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, as always, has asked a very important question. A number of people will listen to her question. There are a number of people in this Chamber who know Northern Ireland far better than I do—it is good to see my noble friend Lady Anderson here. The Government will continue to discuss with veterans’ organisations, veterans themselves, people across this Chamber and indeed the other place, and people in Northern Ireland to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that is fair to our veterans, the families and the people of Northern Ireland. Part of that is the continuing discussions which are taking place.

We are pleased that the protections for veterans will go into the Bill. There will be five protections in the Bill and there is continuing discussion about the sixth. But I can reassure the noble Baroness and others that we will continue to talk across this Chamber and the whole of Northern Ireland to ensure that, as far as possible, we build a consensus and take into account the views of everyone, but most especially our veterans.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend the Minister in what he is saying. There is no moral equivalence between any member of the security forces and a terrorist. There is no question about that, and he is right to say that. I remind the House, as I am sure he will, that while nobody wants to see people well into their retirement dragged out and hauled before the courts—it rarely ever happens; it is not going to happen—equally, nobody wants to go back to a dreadful Act which found its way into a judicial judgment that found that we could not actually proceed in the way that the last Conservative Government wanted to, and he is striking exactly the right balance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, with his experience and knowledge, for that. We are trying to replace something that was unworkable and judged by the courts to be illegal. It is not an easy process; we are trying to go forward in a way which adheres to the principle that everyone in this House would respect—the moral equivalence point—but how do we deal with the legacy issues that are there? We need the support, help and advice of people across this Chamber, in Northern Ireland and in the other place to ensure that we can do that.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, has warned in the last few days that the current draft of the proposed legislation treats terrorists better than veterans. We know that terrorists have the protection of weapons having been destroyed with no forensics. The documentation from terrorist organisations is not coming. Indeed, they are protected by a form of omertà among their members. So what changes will the Government make to the legislation to provide at least some level of additional protection to veterans beyond what is there at present?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a reasonable point, but the protections we have in the Bill are an important starting point. Of course, we will talk to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, the veterans’ associations and everyone—indeed, those discussions are taking place. No doubt amendments will be tabled in the other place and here. We are seeking to build a consensus to ensure that we deal with the legacy in a way that commands as widespread support across the community as it can. We will certainly take on board the noble Lord’s comments.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, might I suggest that instead of a Northern Ireland Bill, it would better to introduce an amnesty in respect of all offences alleged to have been committed prior to the Good Friday agreement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think people want answers, and investigation into many of the things that have taken place. I do not think an amnesty is the right way forward to achieve that.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, members of my family have served in the Armed Forces for some 120 years. Is the Minister aware that in the 55 years since 1969, while some 300,000 members of the Armed Forces served in Northern Ireland over 30 years, the British Army reported that there were very few prosecutions of military personnel for serious offences? A dozen or so were reported in 30 years, and only four soldiers were convicted. Some 30,000 to 40,000 paramilitaries were convicted in those 30 years.

Most recently, Soldier F was found not guilty of charges arising from Bloody Sunday, because the judge said that the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof. But the judge did say that Soldier G, Soldier H, Soldier F and Soldier E were part of the initial group of soldiers who entered the square and were responsible for two deaths and four, possibly five woundings.

It is not the case that there has been a witch hunt, and I think the Minister will surely agree with me that our soldiers should be reassured that they will be treated fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, and that the people of Northern Ireland will all be subject to the rule of law.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Obviously, I agree with the points the noble Baroness has made.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, central to the legacy Bill is the impetus to protect victims and survivors. Therefore, does my noble friend Minister agree with me that there is a need for an adherence to a human rights-compliant approach in all aspects of the legislation impacting on various parts of society within these islands?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course, the application of human rights legislation is important. The one thing I would say is that the ECHR cannot be applied retrospectively.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner was a creation of New Decade, New Approach, which brought the Government of Northern Ireland back together in 2020. Given that, will he listen to the very strong opinion of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner that veterans feel that they are treated as less than terrorists? Surely that is something the Government should be very concerned about.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course that is a concern, and of course what the veterans commissioner has said is important. We are trying to reassure. We are meeting veterans and various associations. We do not shy away from doing that, and we will continue to do so, to try to ensure that the Act that we bring forward is an Act with which they agree.

Defence Spending

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the military Chiefs of Staff have expressed concern over in-year defence spending.

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

My Lords, Defence is collectively working to deliver the strategic defence review as a deliverable and affordable plan, backed by historic funding increases. Further detail will follow in the defence investment plan. All the Chiefs of Staff are fully engaged in that planning, as they are in the routine budget management exercises that ensure we can respond appropriately in-year to the changing nature of the threats that we face.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our nation is standing into danger. I do not need to articulate the dangerous geopolitical situation that we are in, and which is getting worse. I think people understand that, and they believe that we need to spend more on defence. Unfortunately, there is no urgency in that. For example, the defence investment plan, which was just mentioned, is already six months late. Does my noble friend the Minister—who I think understands these issues but whose hands are rather tied, judging by that Answer, on what he can say—agree that wars do not wait until the nations involved are ready? In an era of might is right, we need to grasp the nettle and seriously increase our defence spending today, not in the weeks and years to come. Then perhaps we can rebuild the Armed Forces and some of the might that is required.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with much of what my noble friend says about the threat that we face and the need for us to respond appropriately. All I would say is that we are increasing defence spending. My noble friend asked about the chiefs, and I will quote directly from the speech the Chief of the Defence Staff gave just a few weeks ago, in December. He said that he was looking at the greatest “sustained” rise

“in defence spending since the … Cold War”.

That is enormously positive. We are trying to respond to the threats that we face today, and there will be debates about how much we spend. My noble friend refers to the defence investment plan. It was due to be published by the end of the year, not six months ago, and we are looking to publish it as soon as we can. We want to make sure that the investment choices that we make within it are the right choices for ensuring that we have the capabilities we need now, as well as in the future.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, can I press the Minister on why the investment plan has been delayed for so long? Is it because there is disagreement within the Government about its affordability and how we can develop our capacity if we were to reduce dependence on Americans and yet have walked away from joint procurement with the EU, which Canada has joined, and we have rejected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord often raises capability and defence investment in our industry. One of the challenges we faced was the fact that our industries have declined. Much of the ability of defence infrastructure to produce the things that we need has gone, and the Government are trying to do something about that. We have announced new munitions factories and we have got the defence investment plan coming. We are trying to recognise that, in order to fight wars now and those which may come in the future, we need a defence industry which has the capacity to deliver the equipment and goods that we need.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the defence industry will judge the Government not by the promises they have made—which the Chief of the Defence Staff welcomed, as the Minister mentioned—but on what they actually deliver. One of the ways that will be judged, for example, is when we see the defence investment plan. When I asked the Minister about this on 8 December, he said Ministers were working hard to deliver it by the end of the year; that deadline has passed. I heard the answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, but can he give us some more detail? When are the Government aiming to do that—by the end of the month, or the end of the quarter? If they do not start delivering, people will think their promises are just words, not actions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the challenge that the noble Lord makes, but I cannot give him a specific time—next week or by the end of the month—by which it will be published. We are determined, through the defence investment plan, to make sure that we get this right; that we make the right choices and that we do not have a situation where, in order to meet some timetable, we produce a defence investment plan that does not enable us to have the war-fighting capability that we need. The noble Lord challenged me to say what we are doing at the moment. The CDEL budget in 2024-25 is £22.7 billion. In 2028-29 it will be £31.5 billion, which is nearly £10 billion more. The total DEL budget was £60.2 billion in 2025 and in 2028-29 it will be £73.5 billion. There are billions of pounds of additional investment, much of which we hope to be spent in our own country, with our own industry.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

Can the Minister assure the House that, notwithstanding all that we have heard, we are fully up to speed with the commitments to be made to deliver them within the right time going forward? That is very important post Brexit, with all the threats, as we know, to the rules-based order.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are certainly trying to do exactly as the noble Lord says: to deliver properly, effectively and coherently on the choices that we face within the defence investment plan. Whatever we increase the budget to, there will always be debates on where that should be invested and what choices we make within that. We want to make sure that we get those right. On Europe and the alliances, the noble Lord will know that we are trying to work more closely with our European colleagues and have strengthened bilateral relationships with a number of countries, not least Germany, France and Poland.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, investment is clearly vital, and it is obviously welcome that the Government are willing to spend more on defence, but this House needs to be reassured that the expenditure is going to come and that the capabilities will be in place in such a manner that we will be able to act more as a middle-ranking power, not a diminishing power. Do His Majesty’s Government believe that they are going in the right direction and that we will be able to play a full and effective role in NATO?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly will. I will not have our country categorised as a middle-ranking power or a diminishing power. I just do not believe that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness does either. She is quite right to challenge us on investment; we need the investment that I have outlined in the answers that I have given. I know she supports that investment, and I look forward to working with her, and collectively across this House, to ensure that we have the capacity and the capabilities we need to play the full and proper role in NATO that she and I support.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have stated, encouragingly and repeatedly, that defence is a number one priority, but there is a current budget black hole in the MoD of £2.6 billion, defence industry partners are being starved of essential orders, the Autumn Budget was deafeningly silent on how we reach the spend of 3% in the next Parliament, and the defence investment plan is taking longer than an elephant’s pregnancy. That is a bizarre reflection of priority. Can the Minister, with his legendary bonhomie, shine any light on this gloom?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will first have to tell me how long an elephant’s pregnancy is— I have absolutely no idea whether that is good news or bad news, and I do not know whether anybody else does.

The noble Baroness makes a serious point, challenging the Government on the defence investment plan. I say to this House and to the noble Baroness, who I know takes a keen interest and is very supportive of defence overall, that the defence investment plan will be published when we are in a position to have made the necessary choices to deliver the war-fighting readiness that we want and the capability to fight if we need to, now, in the middle term and in the long term. There are in-year choices that we are dealing with, and the chiefs are fully involved in the discussion and debate on how we take that forward.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, who I am pleased to see has just taken his place, said in answer to a previous Question in this House that any increase in the defence budget beyond 2.5% is a matter for the next Parliament and anything beyond 3% is a matter for the Parliament beyond that. Does the Minister realise that this is a wholly irresponsible attitude? If we are to achieve 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035 in a sensible, graduated manner that expands the defence industrial base in this country at a sensible pace, along with military capability, we need a plan for doing it now, and it needs to start today, not in 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord will know the Government’s position, as laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. We have a plan for the achievement of 2.6%; we have the ambition of 3%. It was remarkable for the Prime Minister to say at The Hague that we will have a commitment of 3.5%, with an overall commitment on defence and security of 5%. That is an important step forward and an important statement by the Government on their ambition for defence spending, and one that I look forward to us trying to keep.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I wish to make some comments on Amendment 22 in my name, and I will seek not to transgress my time in relation to this one.

In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out the difficulty arising from the fact that while the Mauritius treaty makes provision for the leasing of Diego Garcia by the United Kingdom, this does not change the fact that in the event that the Mauritius treaty is ratified, Diego Garcia would come under the sovereignty of Mauritius.

This is problematic for two reasons at least. First, the Republic of Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which means that no nuclear weapons can be held in the territory over which it is sovereign. Secondly, Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty expressly states:

“Each Party confirms that none of its existing international obligations or arrangements now in force or effect between it and any third party is in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.


Can the Minister confirm—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has already made reference to this—that the Government have discussed this matter in its entirety with the Government of the United States and that they have confirmation from the US that they have secured their solemn pledge that no nuclear submarines or other nuclear weapons will be able to be taken to Diego Garcia if sovereignty is transferred?

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point. But I very gently say that while of course he must not discuss operational matters, this cannot be pushed as an excuse for dodging questions about compliance with international law. Any attempt to deploy that stratagem, to the point of avoiding the demonstration of compliance with international law when non-compliance is feared, would form a deeply troubling precedent.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to get up for the first time on Report and address your Lordships on this important group dealing with security matters. I will try to come to some of the points that have been raised.

I will come to the point about the letter that the noble Baroness raised, but I will start with the challenge that she put at the end to explain how the Government are dealing with the position on the treaty from a security point of view. This answers some of the questions that have been asked, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I will not go into some of the operational points that have been made by him and others. However, on the security matters, I can say that if your Lordships look at the expressions of support for the security aspects of this treaty, all our major international allies and partners have supported the security arrangements. That is a fairly significant point for us to make and a fairly important point for the House to recognise.

To answer the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester: President Trump expressed support for the Diego Garcia arrangements within the treaty. US Secretary Hegseth said:

“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s (very important) deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead”.


That was not me but the US.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

What is the US paying Britain for the lease? It is pretty clear why the Americans are supporting this: they are not having to shell out £34 billion.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The US pays for the operations at the base and has done for many years. I say to the noble Earl that it is a fairly important policy that the Government have secured this to ensure the security of the base over the coming decades. I will come to AUKUS in a minute, but the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and other noble Lords have asked in their amendments how the treaty arrangements protect the security of the base. All I am doing is reading out what our crucial allies are saying about it. I am saying what they are saying about it. They are paying for the operation of the base. We have secured the future of the base, and they are supporting it. Secretary Rubio came out and supported the base as well.

People ask me how we have secured it—this is the challenge the noble Baroness put to me—and how we have ensured that we have secured the future of the base. We have secured it by ensuring that our major allies support it. I can only imagine what the noble Earl would say if I could not read out quotes from the US supporting what we are doing. The Five Eyes have all supported it. Of the AUKUS partners, Australia supports it as well as the US. Canada, Japan, Korea and India have supported it. I think that is an important position for the Government to be in. That is the context within which all the amendments should be considered.

I do not question the desire of noble Lords in their amendments to challenge the Government and to understand how effectively we have done that. All I am arguing before your Lordships is that, in the context of the treaty, the future of the base is secured. That is a fairly important statement for the Government to be able to make. I will come to the Pelindaba treaty when I come to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and address the specifics that the noble Baroness raised.

Amendment 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, requests a statement from the Secretary of State on base security. The treaty has robust security provisions to protect the base, including full operational control of Diego Garcia, full UK control over the presence of foreign security forces across the archipelago and an effective veto over any construction or development that risks undermining, prejudicing or otherwise interfering with the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base on Diego Garcia. Claims that Mauritius is an unreliable partner and one that cannot be trusted are unfounded. Mauritius is a member of the Commonwealth and a westward-facing country with shared democratic values. Mauritius ranks among the top African nations in governance, human development and innovation. It is a full democracy, a regional leader in human rights and a trusted partner in upholding the rules-based international order, ranking second out of 54 African countries in the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for tabling Amendment 14 and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for supporting him. The noble Baroness asked me—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, as well; I always try to be helpful, as noble Lords know—to ask my officials to draft a letter between now and Third Reading. Of course I will do that. I cannot guarantee that the content will necessarily be everything that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord want, but asking for a letter is a perfectly reasonable request. That will be done, and I will place a copy of it in the Library so that it is available to all noble Lords to consider as we move towards Third Reading.

Regarding the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, he knows—he has been a senior Minister and has a distinguished former Prime Minister sitting next to him—that it is very difficult to answer some of the specific questions that noble Lords have posed about certain capabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, recognised that we cannot talk about it. I will say what I can. Amendment 14 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would require guarantees

“that Mauritius will not enforce its duties under the Pelindaba Treaty on the Base”

and that sovereignty would revert to the UK if it did. As I said in Committee, the Governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with their existing obligations under applicable international law. The UK will ensure that all operations on Diego Garcia comply with its existing obligations. The UK is not a party to the Pelindaba treaty, although it is a party to Protocols I and II. The treaty and the Bill will allow the base to operate as it always has. It will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to and from Diego Garcia in any way.

Lithuania: Balloon Incursions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rawlings]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the defence implications of balloon incursions into Lithuania for British forces stationed in the Baltic states.

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

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, my son-in-law, as a reservist, has served recently in the Balkans and may well do so again in the future.

Lithuania has experienced over 600 balloon incursions and over 200 drone violations in 2025. It has requested support from a NATO counter-hybrid support team. The UK is the framework nation of NATO’s forward land forces in Estonia. UK forces stationed in the Baltic states as part of NATO’s forward presence remain safe and able to operate effectively. There has been no change to force protection posture for UK personnel as a result of this incident.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive Answer; he always gives very good answers. Balloons are not just for Christmas or festival treats. Sadly, these balloons can be serious weapons, as we have heard. Can the Minister enlighten us further about the deadly balloon incursions in Lithuania at the moment?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Lithuanian intelligence is that the vast majority of the balloons in the drone incursions to which I have referred are for criminal activity and relate mainly to tobacco and cigarettes. Of course, that does not alter that Lithuania believes, with some credibility, that this is part of Belarus weaponising that sort of activity in order to destabilise and disrupt Lithuania and elsewhere.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, have any Royal Air Force flights been affected by these balloons? More serious even than that, this type of activity could become more widespread. What attempt are the Government making to deal with the possibility of further attacks? For example, have they tasked the Advanced Research + Invention Agency with working on this problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are looking at all the various options to deter such activity, as the noble and gallant Lord will know from his own experience. Through Eastern Sentry we have tasked Royal Air Force assets to try to deter right across the eastern flank of NATO. More of that will be done. In January 2026, SACEUR will be announcing further measures that will be taken with respect to that. I point out, as I often do, the importance of deterrents. I am not talking about balloons, but since the introduction of Eastern Sentry on 10 September, there have been no Russian military aircraft incursions into NATO airspace.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the media coverage of this universally describes a significant proportion of it being done by Belarus as a proxy for Russia. Last month, Admiral Dragone, the head of NATO’s Military Committee, said that the western military alliance was considering a more aggressive or proactive stance to Russia’s hybrid warfare, which this is. To what extent are we contributing to that process of consideration?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are contributing to a whole range of efforts to deter Belarus’s activity, or Belarus acting as a Russian proxy. Lithuania and a number of other states have requested a NATO counter-hybrid support team from us. In the next couple of weeks it will work with Lithuania to assess what is going on there and what needs to be done, and to support Lithuania and others, if necessary, in order to deter this activity and respond appropriately.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, in a normal world, Belarus would be offering co-operation to stop this smuggling, rather than sneering and saying that Lithuania has to solve it. Lithuania has offered €1 million to anybody who can work out how to deal with these balloons. What are we doing, in co-operation with NATO’s centres of excellence in Tallinn and in Helsinki for countering hybrid and cyber threats, to ensure that we can find ways of dealing with the balloons? They represent a threat to the whole of NATO.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with the threat that they represent, and the destabilisation and disruption that they cause. We are doing exactly what Lithuania has asked us to do. It has asked us, with NATO, to send a counter-hybrid team to Lithuania to work with it and establish what it needs to do to deal with the threat from the balloons, and the drone incursions, and find the most appropriate way forward. We are doing exactly what Lithuania is asking us to do within the auspices of NATO.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome and support the Government’s announcement of support through NATO. I have visited troops in that part of the world, and I know we do a lot of work in the JEF as well. Can the Minister say, particularly with regard to countries in the Balkans, what extra support is planned within the context and framework of the JEF to send a straight signal to Belarus and Russia that the threat from Belarus—we have also seen challenges in the airspace of Poland—will not be accepted or tolerated?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is an important question, and one that both the previous Government and this Government have sought to deal with. The noble Lord will know that there are 1,000 British troops in Estonia as part of the forward land forces, along with defence attachés and others in support in other JEF nations. The noble Lord will know of Baltic Sentry, the maritime defence in and around underwater cables in the Baltic. So we have forward land forces, Baltic Sentry and, alongside that, the Eastern Sentry, which is the aerial operation. At a land force level, a maritime level and an air level, within the auspices of NATO, this country is contributing to deter Russia and to deal with the threats. We can be proud of what we are trying to do to deter Russia from the activity it is seeking to pursue.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as we approach Christmas, I am sure that my noble friend and all Members of the House would wish to thank the members of our Armed Forces and security services, who will be working over Christmas, at home and abroad, to keep us all safe. The Baltic states are on the front line against Russian aggression, and are doing a sterling job through the efforts of not only their armed forces but their populations. What more can NATO partners do to meet the defence expenditure goals that were set at The Hague earlier this year?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I join my noble friend in his congratulations and recognition of our serving Armed Forces personnel and their families who stand behind them. It is important to recognise that, particularly at this time of the year, as my noble friend has just done. I am sure that the whole House joins him in that.

Discussions are ongoing about how we can meet NATO expenditure targets. While those discussions around expenditure and budgets are ongoing, we can point to the many things that we are already doing. This includes through RAF fighter support within Eastern Sentry, the troops that we are committing, maritime support of Nordic Warden, and responding to the request directly from the Lithuanian Government, through NATO, to provide the counter-hybrid support team. Whatever is needed, we will do it. I say again that, in order to stop Russia and the aggression we face, this has to be deterred. As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, since 10 September and the adoption by NATO of Eastern Sentry, there have been no Russian military incursions into NATO airspace. That shows us all the value of deterrents.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Royal Navy does a brilliant job of helping to stop smugglers in various parts of the world. If the situation in Lithuania is cigarette smuggling, will the Government consider allowing our forces on the ground to assist with ending the illegal smuggling trade in the region?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are doing all that we can. Lithuania is telling us that it is cigarettes and tobacco smuggling, in the vast majority of cases, with respect to the balloons and the drones. It sees this as criminal activity. Lithuania is saying to us that the weaponisation of that criminal activity is being used by Belarus, and Belarus as a proxy, to disrupt and destabilise. That is why the counter-hybrid support team, under the auspices of NATO, is going to Lithuania. It is going there to talk about what specifically Lithuania believes is necessary to deter and deal with the threat that it faces. That is the proper way forward.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, we may be approaching Christmas, but the people of Ukraine will face no peace. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, highlighted the comments of the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff—to which he might have added the Secretary General of NATO—that we are planning for war. This is a clear statement that starts to match the passion that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, represents in this House every time he speaks about this issue. I wonder why we and our Government are not planning to increase spending on defence in 2030, or increase it again in 2035. Our opponents are doing something now. Is it not time to redress that priority?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know the Government’s defence spending policy, and he and others will no doubt continue to make the case they do. As we approach Christmas and beyond, and the search for peace in a way that is consistent with what Ukraine would want goes on, this country can be proud of what it is doing with respect to Ukraine. It stood up for the people of Ukraine and defended freedom, democracy and the international borders that international law represents. The noble Lord will continue to press the case for defence spending. But even within the auspices of current spending and the increases the Government have agreed to over the next couple of years, there will be no doubt that we will stand up to Russian aggression and seek to deter it. We will stand with the Ukrainian people in defence of freedom and democracy.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I extend my personal sorrow to the family of Lance Corporal George Hooley. His tragic death is a humbling reminder of the risk that we ask all those who serve with such honour to confront on a daily basis.

In relation to the Urgent Question, we have here a story of starkly, indeed darkly, contrasting facts. In the summer, troops were taken ill after using Ajax vehicles. In late November, 31 soldiers fell ill after using the vehicles, forcing a two-week suspension of Ajax’s use while a safety investigation was carried out. Personnel have been limited to spending only one and a half hours inside the vehicles due to health concerns. Their speed has been restricted because of instability, and they cannot fire while moving. Meanwhile, in early November Mr Luke Pollard, the Minister, visited General Dynamics in Wales to mark the initial operating capability of Ajax. The November edition of Desider, an internal MoD publication, lavished praise on Ajax as a “world-class armoured fighting vehicle” and a “transformational capability”.

Given what we now know, I ask the Minister how on earth the MoD could accept initial operating capability. Who signed that off? If this nightmare cannot be fixed, as looks increasingly likely, can the contract be terminated?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about our British serviceman who was so tragically lost. The whole House will join in her remarks.

With respect to the position regarding Ajax, the previous Minister will be well aware of the various reports and representations that have been made to various Ministers over a number of years. All Ministers, past and present, will want answers to the very questions that the noble Baroness has quite rightly put to us. Like all of us, she will be waiting for the results of the various investigations that have been set up. I assure her that—as she will have heard from my colleague in the other place—when we get the results of those investigations, we will consider all available options on how we move forward.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches also recognise the responsibilities we have with troops now helping to train the Ukrainian army and we send our condolences; we know that we are committed to Ukraine. Now that we are waiting for further comments on what is really happening with the Ajax vehicle, can I ask three quick wider questions?

First, the Minister in the Commons admitted:

“The Army has a number of vehicles that … have been in service for a long period”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/25; col. 58.]


I think that is saying that both the fighting fleet and the logistics fleet are pretty outdated. Does that mean that in this much more dangerous period we should be investing much more into the Army fleet than we currently plan to?

Secondly, the SDR says that we are now in a very different situation but the Treasury, at the Budget, has said that we will do a little bit of extra investment in the next two years and then maybe a bit more in three or four years. Should we not now be talking about a much more serious threat that requires much more defence investment than we are currently planning?

My third question is about strategic partnerships. The Defence Industrial Strategy says:

“It is no longer affordable for NATO Allies, especially within Europe, to develop their own exquisite capabilities at low production volumes”.


That means much closer co-operation and collaboration with others. Given what President Trump is saying about the NATO alliance, that means hard negotiations with our European partners, difficult though it is. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There was quite a bit in that. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the bravery and sacrifice of our Armed Forces. He will know that we have paused all use of the Ajax vehicles pending the outcome of the investigations as the safety of our Armed Forces comes first.

On logistics, I think he refers to the fact that large numbers of trucks are having to be repaired. They are being repaired, and we expect that to be completed in the new year. On the SDR and the money, he will see the budgets that have been made available and the increase over a period of time. He referred to the aspiration to move even further with that, particularly by 2035.

On the point he made about strategic partnerships, of course they are crucial. We spend a large amount of time negotiating with European friends and partners. He will have seen the recent Norway deal with respect to the frigates, and the arrangements we have made with France, Germany and Poland. They are just some examples, and I hope it demonstrates to the noble Lord that we take seriously the need to negotiate, work and co-operate with our European friends, most of which are members of NATO as well.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, this scandal reminds me of a scandal I worked on when I was a very young man: the airborne early warning system of the 1980s. It started under Labour and was cancelled by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne; it cost millions of pounds. Working within that company, Ministers were deliberately deceived so that they could get payment for costs plus. Can the noble Lord, who is a highly respected Minister in this place, assure the House that Ministers have not been deceived over this contract? Is it possible that we could decide to go for an off-the-shelf product from a manufacturer within this country or one of our allies? My noble friend made the difficult decision, and in the 1980s we took an off-the-shelf product to replace the failed airborne early warning contract. We took AWACS, which still works to this day.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. Clearly, Ministers from all Governments make decisions on the basis of the advice they receive. Let us see what the investigation tells us about that advice. He will know that there are four different aspects to the investigations. There are the defence, Army and ministerial aspects, then alongside that, which I think the noble Lord will appreciate, we are looking to people outside the MoD—some independent consultants—to look at what is happening so that we get independent advice. I think that was something the former Minister in the other place, James Cartlidge MP, asked for. When we get the result of those investigations we will take the decisions that are necessary at that point, but we need to wait for the results.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, has any foreign interest been expressed in purchasing Ajax at any stage? If it is not going to be purchased, will it be a UK-only piece of equipment?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not aware of any foreign interest in it, but I will check my facts and come back to the noble and gallant Lord if I am incorrect.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, given the situation in which he finds himself. More than £6 billion has been spent on a fighting vehicle that is more dangerous to our own troops than to the enemy. What steps are being taken to pursue redress for malefaction on the part of the company concerned, General Dynamics? Permanent Secretaries at the Ministry of Defence have been the accounting officers responsible to Parliament for this expenditure. If we find that at the very highest level, Permanent Secretaries and directors-general in the Ministry of Defence have made mistakes that have endangered the lives of our fighting men and wasted millions, will we in this House have the opportunity to ensure that appropriate action is taken to ensure that they cannot play a future role in public life?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know the absolute answer to the noble Lord’s last point, but at some point there will be a significant number of debates and questions that will explore in much more detail the whole Ajax programme since 2014 up to the present day. As I say, we are in a slightly difficult situation because we are waiting for the outcome of those investigations to inform the way forward. The budget of £6.3 billion was set in 2014 and is the same budget now, but I take the noble Lord’s point. Let us come back to it at a future debate when we have the results of the investigations.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. We have a difficult history of armoured fighting vehicle procurements in this country. The TRACER programme was a failed procurement, as was the multi-role armoured vehicle, MRAV, and now we have issues with the Ajax programme. What lessons learned from Ajax are being brought forward into future procurements, such as Boxer and Challenger 3?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without being flippant, I am fed up with lessons learned from various reports over a period of time. The bigger question is why the lessons learned so often do not translate into something that makes a fundamental difference. The noble Baroness worked in the MoD, and the noble Lord works in the way that he suggested. I do not think that the vast majority of people set out to do a bad job; they work with dynamism, principle and determination to do their best. But somewhere along the line, we do not seem to be able to procure the equipment that we should, at the pace we should and for the price we should.

I hope that the defence reform that the Secretary of State has implemented—the establishment of a new National Armaments Director Group, with a new National Armaments Director at the top who is directly accountable for what happens with respect to procurement —is a reform that, in a year, two years or whenever, the noble Lord will be able to describe as a reform that worked. He will be able to say that lessons were learned and actions taken that made a fundamental difference.

We have to get our defence industry working, whether across Europe or fundamentally within our own country, because the defence and security of our nation depend on the sovereign ability of our own industry to produce and develop the goods, ammunition and war equipment that we need to support our soldiers.