Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the draft Rules laid before the House on 5 December 2024 be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 3 February.

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces Personnel: School Fees

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what engagement they have had with armed forces personnel whose children are currently educated at fee-paying schools to ascertain the impact on such families of imposing value added tax on school fees.

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

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is continuing to monitor the impact of the Government’s change to VAT rules for private schools on service personnel who claim the continuity of education allowance. The Ministry of Defence recalculated CEA rates based on the new fees published by schools for January 2025, and this increased the income tax-free amounts available to claimants.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I am aware that the continuity of education allowance has been uprated, but that still leaves a parental contribution. What we do not know is by how much the parental contribution will increase as a consequence of VAT on school fees. Indeed, even the combined talents of Sherlock Holmes and Einstein would fail to penetrate MoD methodology on this issue. We know that Armed Forces personnel will have to pay more in school fees. Can the Minister answer a simple question? How much more will they be paying?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will always check the figures and, indeed, check hers, as she will know. She will also know that the allowance contributes towards the cost of boarding school education, with the MoD paying a fixed rate of up to 92% of fees for children attending state-maintained schools and up to 90% of fees for those attending independent schools. I would say to her that, in essence, this is exactly the same policy as the previous Government had.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, what impact has this policy had on recruitment and retention? Have the Government made any assessment yet of that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord will know that there have been considerable concerns around recruitment and retention. The Government have undertaken a review of that. He will also know that we have taken a number of measures alongside that to deal with it, not least of which was to ensure that we implemented in full the pay rise for Armed Forces personnel. We have extended childcare grants to armed services personnel serving overseas, and one of the biggest things we have done as a radical Government is to bring back from Annington Homes over 36,000 military houses, the state of which was a disgrace. This will be a major contribution to improving the morale and the recruitment and retention of Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows the good record that the Labour Party has of investing in military schools, with the £20 million- plus that it put in to rebuild The Duke of York’s school in 2009. Can he say how many children have left because of this announcement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point about the record on investment. He did a good job himself in ensuring that we had investment into schools such as The Duke of York’s. On the number of children, approximately 2,650 service personnel claim CEA for around 4,000 children. The figures that I have show that none have left the CEA system following this policy change. Five children out of those 4,000 have moved schools, but that is within the CEA framework.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, as one whose children benefited from the RAF allowances, as both my daughters embarked on their seventh school at the age of nine, I know how important these forces allowances are. It is good that the Government are reviewing them to see how they can support them, but I wonder about those military personnel who have children at the small independent schools that specialise in special educational needs or skills. They are most under threat from this, because the parents are very often not wealthy; they are hard-pressed and trying to do the best for their children. If those schools are forced to close, has any thought been given to the military children who might need to resort to local schools, where there will be no resources and no places for them?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. The maintenance of schools such as those that she has pointed to is exceptionally important, hence the rise that I mentioned in the continuity education allowance to meet the increase in fee. Of course, she also makes a really important point about special needs. She will know that if a member of the Armed Forces or service personnel believes that there are needs for a particular child over and above what the continuity education allowance makes possible, they can apply for an additional grant to help with the support for that child and their special needs.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

The Minister knows well that it is not just service personnel but other people employed in the Civil Service who have their fees paid by the Government. Does what he has announced to do with the armed services apply equally to those other people, including, as I instanced the other day, people in the Diplomatic Service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that diplomats who are based here—I am in the process of writing to him about this, as I said I would in answer to his previous question—in many circumstances have their children’s fees paid. They are exempt from them, as indeed are our Armed Forces personnel and our diplomats when they go overseas. There is a multiplicity of tax and benefits arrangements which benefit our diplomats and our Armed Forces personnel when they go abroad, and similarly when their counterparts come here. Those multiple arrangements between different Governments have existed for decades. That is exactly the same now as it has been in the past.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Opposition seem to be very worried about the impact of this on recruitment. What would have been the impact had we followed the advice of the Opposition and frozen public sector pay?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think my noble friend has answered his own question. I thank him for that. The important point to make is that, when we came into government, we were determined to ensure that the recommendations of various public sector pay bodies were met in full. The pay recommendations of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body were met in full and that was an important statement made by the Government about the importance not only of public service workers in general but of the Armed Forces personnel who serve our country.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, as the father of a soldier, I am particularly interested in this topic, particularly where both parents are serving in the Armed Forces, often in different locations. What assessment has the Minister made of confidence in the Armed Forces covenant with this change?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I go back to the answer I gave before. If the Government were taking no action with respect to the increase in fees resulting from the VAT increase, that would no doubt be a matter for concern and consideration in this Chamber. The fact of the matter, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, is that the Government have continued with the policy that existed under the previous Government where up to 90% of the fees of eligible children are to be met through the continuity of education allowance. That policy is important and has not changed. We will continue that policy, because we recognise the sacrifice that is sometimes made by Armed Forces personnel who, because of their duty, have to move regularly between different bases or between bases here and bases abroad.

Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024.

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

My Lords, this statutory instrument amends the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 by changing the rank requirements for the president of a court martial board where the defendant is a very senior officer. Before I set out the changes that this statutory instrument will make, it may be useful to the Committee for me to provide some context regarding the role of the court martial board in the service justice system.

The UK’s separate system of military justice dates back to the Bill of Rights 1689. Having a separate service justice system enables the comprehensive system of command and discipline on which operational effectiveness is based to be enforced swiftly and efficiently. The service justice system reflects the need to maintain discipline through the sentences which can be imposed by the commanding officer at summary hearings, or in the court martial for more serious offences. The average number of courts martial a year is just over 400.

The constitution of the court martial for trial proceedings comprises the judge advocate and a board of lay members. Depending on the offence or offences being tried, the board will consist of three to six lay members. Their role is similar, but not identical, to that of a jury in the Crown Court in England and Wales, as they are solely responsible for deciding the guilt or innocence of a defendant at contested trial proceedings, based on the evidence presented to them.

The constitution of a court martial board depends on whether the defendant is a serviceperson, ex-serviceperson or civilian. Where the defendant is a civilian and not an ex-serviceperson, the proceedings are usually placed before an entirely civilian board, unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a mixed or service board. Where the defendant is an ex-serviceperson, the court may consist of either civilian lay members or service lay members or be a mixed board in each situation.

The constitution of the court martial will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. At the sentencing stage, unless the trial was conducted wholly with a civilian board, where the judge advocate would sentence alone, the role of the lay member differs significantly from that of a jury in the Crown Court, as each lay member and the judge advocate has a vote on sentence, although in the event of a tie the judge advocate has a casting vote.

When some or all of the members of the court martial board are service personnel, the president of the board is the senior officer. The role of the president includes that of the foreperson of a jury. They will chair the discussions during deliberations on the verdicts and ensure that all members have an equal voice and one vote. They also have additional functions, which include protecting the integrity of the deliberative process by ensuring compliance by all members with the court martial guidance issued by the Judge Advocate-General and the Military Court Service director.

However, it is important to note that, despite the title of the president of the board, the judge advocate presides over the court. An overriding principle is that the constitution of the court should be fair, with lay members drawn at random from the widest potential pool. Crucially, this includes the deconfliction process to identify whether any member knows another member, a defendant or a witness, or has served in the same unit as the defendant since the date of the alleged offence.

A recent case highlighted a risk to this overriding principle of fairness. The court administration unit initially encountered difficulties in finding a president and a board to try a case where the defendant was a major general. As a senior officer, he was obviously well known, and his potential character witnesses included serving and retired OF-9 grade officers who were also known to many in the pool of potential board members. By the time of the trial, however, the defendant had left the Army, so the use of civilians as members of the board was permitted. Nevertheless, that would not have been possible in law had the defendant still been serving.

Although cases involving defendants who are very senior officers is rare in the UK—this was the first OF-7 officer to be tried in approximately 200 years—it is sensible for the service justice system to be ready and able to deal with these cases if and when they occur. This statutory instrument addresses this issue by amending Rule 34 of the 2009 court martial rules, which sets out the requirements for the president of the board. Currently, Rule 34 requires that, where the defendant is of rank OF-6—that is, a commodore, a brigadier or an air commodore—or above, the president of the board must be of a superior rank to the defendant. That can include the president holding the same rank as the defendant if the president is more senior to the defendant within that rank.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 aim to address challenges in forming court martial boards when senior officers are involved. A court martial consists of a judge and a board of military personnel, similar to a jury in civilian courts. The board determines the innocence or guilt of the defendant and, if they are convicted, assists the judge in deciding the sentence.

Currently, at least one lay member of the board must be an officer who is qualified to be the president of the board, and this president must rank higher than the defendant—particularly when the defendant holds lower ranks. However, in cases where a senior officer is being prosecuted, it may be difficult to find a suitable president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. Although these cases are rare, the Government have recognised the importance of ensuring that the service justice system is equipped to handle such situations as and when they arise.

This instrument aims to modify these rules to extend the pool of eligible officers who can serve as president, particularly when the defendant may hold a senior rank, such as OF 6 or higher. The primary purpose of this statutory instrument is to improve the flexibility and functionality of the court martial system, particularly in cases involving senior officers. By allowing officers of at least rank OF 6—such as a commodore, brigadier or air commodore—to serve as president when the defendant holds the same rank, this amendment addresses the challenges of forming a court martial board for high-ranking individuals.

Currently, one of the main obstacles when prosecuting senior officers is finding a qualified president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. In rare cases, the existing requirement that the president must be a higher rank than the defendant, particularly in cases involving senior officers, has proven difficult due to limited personnel who meet the criteria and do not have prior relationships with the defendant. This amendment provides greater flexibility in the composition of the court martial board and ensures that it remains capable of fulfilling its role in these uncommon but crucial cases.

The change also seeks to ensure the court martial system’s adaptability, particularly given the evolving nature of military justice. Although such high-profile cases involving senior officers are rare, it is essential that the service justice system is prepared to handle them effectively as and when they arise. By allowing a broader pool of officers to serve as president, the amendment reduces the potential for delays and disruptions, ensuring that justice can be administered without unnecessary obstacles. This amendment applies across the UK, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories—except Gibraltar—thus ensuring its relevance and consistency under service law, regardless of where the personnel involved are stationed.

While this amendment is largely viewed as a practical and necessary update to the rules, several important questions remain regarding its broader implications. First, how has the Minister assessed the potential impact of this change on the impartiality of court martial boards, especially in cases involving senior officers with extensive personal or professional connections to the board members? Secondly, what specific measures will be put in place to ensure transparency, avoid conflicts of interest when selecting presidents for cases involving high-ranking officers and ensure the integrity of the trial process?

In considering this amendment, how does the Minister plan to address the potential for further systemic reforms in the service justice system, particularly with the upcoming Armed Forces Commissioner Bill?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions and general support for the change that we are making.

I have a couple of points. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I agree with one thing and fundamentally disagree with another, as she probably expected. This usually happens in our dialogue, but we get on well—up to a point. There is disagreement on her first point, but no disagreement on the need for fairness in the way the service justice system operates. We have seen, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, the various reviews that have taken place and the changes that need to occur.

I will deal with this before I come to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on which I slightly take issue. She knows that serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape should be dealt with in the civilian justice system. There has been discussion about that. With respect to that proposal, the MoD is considering the current model of concurrent jurisdiction between the civilian and service justice systems for serious offences such as rape. That specifically answers those points about serious offences that the noble Baroness made; there is ongoing discussion and thought being given to how that may or may not be taken forward.

There is a debate about 16 and 17 year-olds being able to join the military. Let me say where the Government and a large number of people stand on this. It is common to call them “child soldiers”, but the noble Baroness knows that 16 and 17 year-olds are not allowed into conflict. That is the case. With respect to Harrogate, she also knows that some cases have been documented and dealt with, and should there be any cases of bullying or inappropriate behaviour, they will always be dealt with as it is unacceptable. The Army thinks that; we all think that that is totally unacceptable.

I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness—this is my opinion, and many will take issue with this both within and between parties—on her point about 16 and 17 year-olds. I have been to Harrogate, as I think the noble Baroness has. She has not. I thought she has, and I apologise. Places such as Harrogate and others, but mainly Harrogate, give 16 and 17 year-olds, many of whom are from the most difficult circumstances, an opportunity that would not be available to many of them. I am not defending any bullying or inappropriate behaviour, but the only way that some 16 and 17 year-olds from some of the most difficult and challenging circumstances have ever got anywhere is because of the training, discipline and structure that were given to them when they were 16 and 17 years old. That is not everybody’s view. Some people fundamentally disagree with it, but I will argue that with people time and time again. That is a really important point.

The noble Baroness disagrees. This is a clash of view and of opinion that may—to go on a little about this—be worth a debate in the Chamber, Moses Room or wherever because it is fundamental. The Government, many of us and I stand firmly behind the principle of giving opportunity to 16 and 17 year-olds through the military in an appropriate way. Therefore, I would be pleased to lead a debate on behalf of those who think that we should take this forward. Notwithstanding that, one out of two points is not too bad. These are serious points: there was the point about the service justice system and the changes that may or may not be needed, and we have our differences on Harrogate.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, last week I raised my profound concerns about the funding fog surrounding defence. Specifically on the Government’s fiscal policy, I want to ask the Minister the following questions. First, given the recent gloomy projection by the CBI on job losses, what discussions have the Government had with major defence suppliers to assess the impact of the NIC increase on their workforce? Secondly, if the Government really value our Armed Forces personnel, why are they landing families with the full impact of VAT on private school fees, when the continuity of education allowance will meet only part of that increase—and yet they are prepared to exempt United States armed forces personnel in this country from paying VAT on private school fees?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her important questions. We are working closely with NATO in developing industrial capability. In particular, we are looking at how we develop interoperability between NATO partners—which, as the noble Baroness will know from her work, is an important consideration—to give us the capabilities we need.

The noble Baroness will know that the Government have increased the continuity of education allowance to meet 90% of the cost of school fees, which is line with the consistent use of that policy to meet school fees. On the US military exemption, the VAT rule applies to all businesses supplying services to US forces, so there has been no change in that regard.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Question referred to fiscal policy, and although there may not have been a change in the relationship with the United States, there has been an impact on His Majesty’s Armed Forces. Such children are being sent to private school not through the parental choice that might be made in the civilian sector, but to ensure they can have a secure education while their parents are serving. The cost of education has just gone up through VAT. Is that not a problem? Could the MoD not talk to the Treasury about it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On VAT on school fees and the impact on military families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, just pointed out, the Government have increased the continuity of education allowance, which now meets some 90% of the increase in fees that military families will face as a consequence of the VAT rise. That allowance is there to support military families in the way she said, and the VAT increase has been met in a way that is consistent with that policy, through the uplift in the allowance to 90%.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister was speaking earlier this afternoon with perspicacity about the changing nature of warfare. Does he agree that when we talk of defence expenditure, we are talking far beyond the MoD budget and the cost of military equipment? New technology threatens and exposes the civilian population as never before, and more directly than at any time in our history. In the Russian attack on Ukraine, it is the attack on its infrastructure, facilities and energy systems that is seen as the main assault, undermining and demoralising the civilian population and destroying any achievements made on the front line. Will the Minister assure us that in looking at our defence expenditure, we are focused on energy and the fact that equipment now exists which would destroy our entire energy system and create social chaos in an amazingly short time?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his important question. Notwithstanding the debate about the total quantity of defence expenditure, he is right to point out the changing nature of warfare. We are looking to see how we can further protect the underwater cables that bring energy to this country; he might have seen some of the debate that took place last week on that. The RFA “Proteus”, which was bought for the RFA by the previous Government, is one example of how we do that. The defence review is looking at the purchase of a second ship, and various other capabilities are being developed. The noble Lord also made the point about our own critical national infrastructure. There is no doubt that we will have to consider homeland security and how we protect that infrastructure, and the defence review will do that. As I said earlier, hybrid warfare and the way systems are impacted by data and those sorts of attacks also needs to be considered.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it is absolutely clear to anyone who knows anything about defence that we need to spend more on our defence forces. I do not think I have come across anybody—including the students at Cambridge the other day—who does not realise that that needs to be done. Presumably, the reason why it is taking time and we are not moving forward is the fiscal policy. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that if you lose a war, things such as the National Health Service, education and social care matter not one jot? Therefore, one ought to think very hard about making sure we prevent a war. One way of doing that is to ensure that we are properly armed, and that needs money.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend on winning the debate at Cambridge; I meant to say that earlier. He makes a point about additional money, and there will be a debate about the overall level. I know my noble friend has his views about the level of defence expenditure. He will know that the Government will set out a pathway to 2.5% in the spring. As part of our increased defence expenditure, we will spend £3 billion extra in the next financial year. Of course, alongside all that, he makes the really important point—again, I have made it from the Dispatch Box—that part of the way you prevent war is by preparing for war. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. Deterrence is important. As a country and in our alliances across the world, we need to consider not only how we fight wars but how we prevent them, and deterrence has to be part of that.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

The noble Lord explained what the Government are doing to compensate service personnel who might be penalised by the VAT increase. Exactly the same problem arises with diplomats, who, again, necessarily have no choice except to educate their children privately. What are the Government doing to compensate people working in the FCDO?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord about that to make sure that I do not inadvertently misinform the House. If he will allow me, I will write to him with a specific answer to that and place a copy in the Library.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend will probably know that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, of which I have been a member, is going to undertake a review of undersea cables and other areas of what we now call critical national infrastructure. Would he agree that, as a result of inquiries such as this into areas of defence that previously have not been considered in such great detail, our friends in the Treasury will have to acknowledge that modern defence threats will require novel Treasury solutions?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Whatever the Treasury may or may not think, and whatever the level of defence spending should or should not be, one of the important things coming out of the debates and discussions and questions from all parts of the House is that Ukraine has shown that the nature of warfare is changing, and the way we fought wars in the past is perhaps no longer appropriate. Of course, there is a need for mass and for traditional warfare. But the way in which the application of drones has changed the nature of warfare; the attacks on underwater cables that my noble friend pointed out; the threats to our homeland and to critical national infrastructure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to; and the data attacks and hybrid warfare that other noble Lords have referred to—all of these require us to discuss not only what the level of expenditure should be, but how we meet those challenges in a way that is relevant to the threats we face now, not those we faced in the past.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that prevention is by far the best investment. The UK has many strategic interests around the globe in areas where there are increased levels of fragile and potentially conflict-afflicted states, which will require us to have more defence resource. Can the Minister please say that the reporting last week that the Government are now projected to cut by one-third conflict prevention work in development assistance funding was an error?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I read those reports, as did the noble Lord—I know that he takes a keen interest in all these matters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those reports, we should reflect on what this country does to prevent conflicts in different parts of the world. The noble Lord has been to many countries where the UK, along with its allies, is preventing starvation, conflict and ethnic cleansing of one sort or another. I was in Nigeria last week and saw the immense activity of the British military and others to stabilise a country that faces real threat from the Sahel and from terrorists such as Boko Haram, Islamic State’s West Africa Province and others.

I accept that there are sometimes questions about what is or is not being done, and what changes are being made to government expenditure in difficult times. But, without trying to deflect from difficult decisions or to say that we should not discuss cuts, sometimes we should, as a country, talk about what we actually do, rather than about the challenges we face.

Major Defence Contracts

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a serving Army Reserve officer.

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

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence recognises the importance of certainty in the MoD’s demand signal for industry. Making the right procurement decisions is a key enabler for improving effective equipment delivery to the Armed Forces and ensuring greater value for money for the taxpayer. This Government are determined to establish long-term partnerships between business and government, promoting innovation and improved resilience.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. Poland is now spending 4% of GDP on defence. Finland has a wartime strength of 280,000 and can call on a reserve of 870,000 troops. NATO allies are waking up to the fact that we must take defence spending seriously. Will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that the Treasury understands why we must spend not 2.5% but 3.5% as a minimum on defence and make that change before the spending review?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Question and, as I always do, acknowledge his service to our country as a reservist. On defence spending, he will know the Government’s policy. In the spring the Government will set out a pathway to 2.5%. He will also be pleased to know that the Government have not waited for that; we have already increased defence spending by £3 billion in the next financial year. We are on a pathway to increased spending on defence.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, when the defence review finally appears, it is hard to imagine that it will not include a requirement for an innovative, agile and scalable defence industry. What impact does the Minister think that the continued uncertainty over funding, alongside the treatment being meted out to the defence industry at some of our academic institutions, will have on the long-term investor confidence so necessary to the future health of this crucial sector?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble and gallant Lord that of course the defence industry will be an important partner for His Majesty’s Government. He will know that we are currently consulting on a new defence industrial strategy. That consultation finishes at the end of February and we will come forward with various proposals to deal with the defence industry and promote it in the future.

This gives me a chance to take the point he made, which I think most noble Lords will take. He made the point about the inability of the RAF to go to certain university campuses to recruit and the inability of certain defence industries to go to certain university campuses to promote, quite legitimately, their sales and defence jobs. That is an absolute disgrace. I hope the universities take that on board and do something about it.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the experience of the war in Ukraine has made it all the more important that we have an updated defence industrial strategy, and can he indicate when that will be brought forward to the House?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As many noble Lords have heard me say, the war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call not only for this country but for the alliances across the world. We need to be able to scale up our industry and do so quickly, and to reflect on the sovereign capability we need, so that we have that as well. It will require apprenticeships and investment in all areas of the country.

My noble friend also makes the point that we have to know what we wish to spend our money on. Whatever billions we end up spending, it will be important to spend money on the sorts of defence equipment and capabilities we need to meet the threats of the future, not those of the past.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the SDR suggests that the defence sector is important for growth, yet a couple of weeks ago the House magazine pointed out that many SMEs in the defence sector are struggling, and some are thinking of moving out of defence. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of this and what are they doing to support SMEs in the defence sector, which is so vital?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are supporting the SME sector by spending billions of pounds on defence. The noble Baroness makes an important point about the importance of small and medium-sized industries. We often talk about the primes—the really big companies— but they are often supported by small and medium-sized businesses, which are extremely important, along with ensuring we get investment across the country.

I will tell noble Lords the other thing that needs to be done. For decades in this country we have had a shortage of skilled workers and skilled apprenticeships, and certainly small and medium-sized businesses need help to recruit the skilled labour they need to deliver the products that they have on offer.

The final point I will make is that, clearly, we are now in a period of transition from pre Ukraine to post Ukraine. That obviously results in looking at who we are buying from and the sorts of things we are purchasing, and the defence review will deal with some of that as well.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it is the case that our defence industry sector has never been in greater need of the skills and talents of our brightest students, and the Minister failed to address the point specifically raised by the noble and gallant Lord. This House wants to know what are the Government doing to address the unacceptable intolerance whereby companies are hounded off campuses and barred entry to careers fairs? In particular, what are the Government doing to ensure that this obstruction to the supply of talent to the defence industry sector is removed?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry if I did not answer the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord. The point the noble Baroness makes is extremely important, and she asks what the Government have done about it. The Secretary of State for Defence, and I think the Business Secretary, wrote to the universities concerned and asked them to ensure that obstructive factions within the student unions in their universities did not prevent the legitimate recruitment, with respect to the RAF, and the legitimate activities of defence companies as well to try to recruit. It is extremely important for all universities to understand that of course we accept the right of students to protest, and all the rights and freedoms that come under a democracy—that is what we are standing for in many of the conflicts in which we are involved across the world. But with that comes the universities’ responsibility to do what they can to ensure that people pursuing legitimate activities—which will help the defence and security of our nation and our allies—are protected, and this Government will do all they can to ensure that they are.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, on Thursday evening, I spoke at the Cambridge Union on behalf of a motion that Britain should spend more on defence and needs more defence—and I am glad to say we won, much to my surprise. One young man came up to and said, “Do the Treasury actually understand how dangerous the world is and how important it is we should spend money on defence?” Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Treasury does understand—or does it not understand?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will give a very quick answer. I can tell my noble friend that the Treasury of course understands, and that is why the Government have agreed to spend more money on defence: £3 billion more next year and a pathway to 2.5 % to be announced in the spring. That is a Treasury and a Government who recognise we need to spend more on defence, and we will do.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I welcome many of the remarks the Minister has made this afternoon, but is there not a big problem with the way we are conducting these discussions? All the time it looks as if we are discussing percentages between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, when in fact the strategic health of the world has changed for the worse. We need to involve the public more, to get them to understand why we need to spend more on defence. The Minister has made some very forthright remarks this afternoon, many of which I welcome, but do we not need to broaden out this argument and make it not just among ourselves but out there in the public field?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Again, the noble Lord makes a really important point and I agree: it is something that I have said from this Dispatch Box. The debate about the peace and security of our world, the defence of the freedom and democracy of our country, is something that is important and that we need to talk to the British public about. I think the British public are becoming increasingly concerned about peace and security and the threats to our country; that is why the defence review will look at homeland security, threats to undersea cables and all of those sorts of things. But let me say this: I say quite clearly from this Dispatch Box that the geopolitics of the globe is changing in a way that many of us perhaps did not expect. I think the British public understand that and certainly we in Parliament, across this House, understand it. We will have to address these points in a way we have not before. Of course, people want money spent on schools and hospitals, and all those things, and that will have to take precedence as well, but alongside that there can be nothing more important than the defence and security of the values we and our allies across the globe stand for.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, it is nowadays accepted that social media is a weapon of war these days. It was recently suggested to me by a senior military figure that we should spend as much on social media as we do on our hard kit. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Shall I be honest? I do not know how much we should actually spend and whether it should be the same on social media as on hard power—tanks or fighter jets—but I do know, and I support the point the noble Lord is making, that every Member of this House understands and believes that the nature of warfare is changing. We have hybrid warfare now and threats that we did not expect: social media; attacks on our critical national infrastructure; and attacks on underwater cables. Clearly, we will have to spend more money, as a nation, on all those aspects of defence and security, and to prioritise within the existing defence budget. It is a changed defence environment and certainly social media is part of that. I say this: if we lose the fake news war, if you like, the social media war, we will be half way to losing some of the other battles that we will fight. That is why it is so important.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I associate myself with the first remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in supporting His Majesty’s Government in their response to the Russian ship, and thanking the Minister for being here today to answer questions, as well as the Secretary of State for his Statement last week. It is clearly important that parliamentarians have the opportunity to understand what is happening: equally, we understand the Secretary of State’s point that there is a limit to how much operational information can be given.

We support the Government’s action, but I have a series of questions. The Minister will probably be quite relieved that, for once, they relate not to defence expenditure but to defence posture and practice. We are looking in our own waters at the North Atlantic area —the Euro Atlantic area—which is the most important for our security. We are, in many ways, benefiting from the fact that NATO has two new members, Sweden and Finland. They are both committed to serious defence and Finland, in particular, is committed to national resilience. At the end of the Secretary of State’s Statement is a point about securing the UK’s borders and our own security. What are His Majesty’s Government doing in terms of United Kingdom resilience? Are we considering giving further information to ordinary civilians about the security concerns that we are aware of but perhaps they are not thinking about?

That is not necessarily to go as far on civilian training as Finland does—I am certainly not calling for conscription—but are we at least thinking about widening the discussion with society to include the threats in not just traditional hard military concerns but cyber? Are we thinking about the need for us all to be vigilant and to be aware that we need to think about the threats coming from Russia as a whole society? At the moment, there is a reluctance to understand that we need to devote more time and resource to defence. This is a plea not for a percentage of defence expenditure but about the need to talk to citizens about the threats we all face.

There have been clear threats in our waters, but we have also seen threats in recent days in the Baltic states and a potential threat to Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty. To what extent are His Majesty’s Government willing and able to speak truth to power, in the form of the President of the United States? The idea that the United States somehow requires a sovereign territory for its own security is wholly unacceptable. For it essentially to threaten the sovereignty of a fellow NATO member state is also unconscionable. While I do not expect the Minister to tell us what the Prime Minister and the President spoke about recently, will he at least suggest to the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we need to ensure that NATO is fit for purpose and that the whole edifice is not in danger of coming down? After all, NATO has kept us secure for over 70 years.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their tone and their remarks. They both asked perfectly legitimate questions, but I should start with the statement that I always make—as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, always used to—that all of us want to see the defence and security of our country and that we stand together to ensure, as far as we can, that we and our interests abroad, with our allies, are kept secure.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about support for maritime activity. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, behind her, because I said in an Answer to a Written Question from him on the important point behind her question that the UK Government, either on their own or with their allies, will take action to deal with any potential threats. The noble Baroness referred to the rules of engagement, which are particularly important and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. She congratulated the Secretary of State on his candour. It is important to reflect that he said that to ensure that the message went out we will take appropriate action. Changing the rules of engagement to allow our ships, where appropriate, to get closer and carry out closer observation is important.

The really significant point, as the Defence Secretary laid out in the other place last week, was in response to the November activities of the “Yantar”, when a submarine surfaced. He outlined to Parliament that he authorised that submarine to surface. The noble Baroness is right to point out how important it was for him to say that, both as a reassurance to us and our allies that we will take the necessary action and as a message to others. She was right to highlight that and I thank her for doing so.

In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about some of the other activities that the Government have taken both to support us and our allies and to defend undersea structures and shipping in the Baltic, the North Sea, the southwest approaches, the channel and so on, there are a number of things to say. Noble Lords will have seen the activity rate. On HMS “Somerset,” the crew were recalled on Christmas Day, and we pay tribute to them for that. Two days later, they were at sail because of the concern about ships that were going through the English Channel. That shows, again, our resolution to do that.

The noble Baronesses will also know that, with respect to the High North and to the JEF, we have recently seen the establishment of the Nordic Warden operation, which is particularly important. With Nordic Warden, we see the use of artificial intelligence, based at Northwood, to track shipping, using the various signals and other data to inform either ourselves or our allies where potential harm could be done. Again, that was outlined in the other place. Noble Lords can read it online. Nordic Warden is another example, through the JEF, which the noble Baroness asked about, of projects that are UK-led, where we are acting to ensure that the appropriate action is taken there.

The noble Baronesses will also know, with respect to NATO, that Baltic Sentry has been announced recently. Again, that is where maritime assets have been laid out by some countries to ensure the protection of undersea cables and that other laws are maintained. They will have also seen the Defence Secretary lay out for us that Rivet Joints and P8s have been used as a contribution to Baltic Sentry. In many areas, therefore, we are seeing the deployment of UK military assets with our allies to defend our underwater structures and to take action where necessary with respect to all of this. That is a really important statement.

I turn to the point about spending. It is particularly important to lay out that, notwithstanding the debate about what we should be doing, it is vital that this country has the assets—and I have laid out some of the specifics—to take considerable action to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm in the ways that I have outlined. Similarly, with respect to Ukraine, which both noble Baronesses mentioned, our resolve remains steadfast. We thank them and all noble Lords for the support they give to withstanding the illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is particularly important at this time for us to continue to reiterate that.

On spending, the noble Baroness will know the position of the Government, and I hear the point that she makes about my unvarnished language, which I would have said is pretty varnished in here. Having said that, I take the point. The noble Baroness will know that there is £3 billion additional spending in the 2025-26 budget, and the Government’s position remains the same, that in the spring we will set out our pathway to spending 2.5%. I was rather taken aback when the noble Baroness mentioned £9 billion. I thought for a moment that she was going to praise the Government for the £9 billion investment in Rolls-Royce for the development of the nuclear-powered submarines that we are going to see with respect to AUKUS. There we go: I shall do that instead. Notwithstanding the debate about spending, there are considerable investments being made.

I take the point that the noble Baroness made about homeland security. We are going to have to consider more carefully the information that we give to the public, as well as what is the most appropriate and sensible way of doing it and how much information we can give people. I am of the view that we should share as much information as we can, where it is sensible to do so and it does not compromise operations or the security of our country and our personnel. We should always think about how we might do that and what more we can do.

On threats to homeland security, a couple of weeks ago I made the point that we are not in the situation we were a few years ago, given that we now face threats to underwater cables, cyberattacks, and concerns about critical national infrastructure and others, such as unauthorised drone activity—although it is unconfirmed exactly what the causes of that were around certain places. All of these things raise issues for us. It is extremely important we have a public understanding of that. We need to ensure we have the resources to deal with these things properly when there are other calls on the public purse. The defence of our country is important—sometimes the most important—even when set against some of the other priorities that people quite naturally want to see money spent on.

On the new President of the United States, it is important to recognise that the relationship between the US and the UK is key to the defence and security of the values and freedoms not only of our own country but of our alliances across Europe and the globe. They underpin NATO and many of our other alliances and interests. It is important we reiterate that, time and again, to the new President. I see many comments and much speculation, but, for the defence and security of our country, the most helpful thing to say is that we look forward to continuing to work with the United States and the President. It is in the United States’ interests and our interests, and the interests that our two great countries have always stood for: freedom, democracy and human rights across the globe. That relationship remains as important now as it ever was.

I hear what the noble Baroness said about the questions the President has raised about this or that country or region. I think the President and others are thinking about the security challenges in those areas. The Arctic, for example, is opening up in a way that climate change is making possible—that would not have been possible a few years ago. That raises security challenges for us all, and responding necessarily means discussing those. Russia is reopening Cold War bases in that region and China is looking to exploit that. Somehow, we have to work together to understand those new threats and challenges, and to consider how we face them. We are trying to do so through the defence review, which will look at many of the challenges that we face. My noble friend Lord West has raised a number of times the importance of the maritime capabilities that will be needed and the differences within that, which will be something that the defence review will have to address.

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and to all noble Lords across the House for the sometimes challenging questions they quite rightly demand of the Government. Those watching or reading this should know that this House, as with the other place, remains united in the defence of the freedoms and values that this country has always stood for. There will be difficulties and challenges, but no one should doubt our resolve to continue in the defence of the freedoms that we have always stood for.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Russia’s malign maritime activities are not confined to its navy. My noble friend the Minister will recall that, on Christmas Day, the Finns impounded a vessel and took it to their home port; it contained spy equipment and, allegedly, dragged its anchor and damaged a number of cables. That was part of the Russian shadow fleet, which is underinsured, potentially polluting and sanctions-busting. Can my noble friend say what can be done to counter the threat of the Russian shadow fleet?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that, for any ship posing a threat to this country, there will be an appropriate maritime response from our military, primarily through our maritime capabilities. He raised a really important point. So far, we have sanctioned 93 vessels, which means that they are unable to access some of the normal arrangements that ships have, including access to financial markets. As a result, some ships—I think there are two, but there may be others—have had to remain in port. The sanctioning of those ships is an important way forward. We are well aware of the various activities taking place, and where we suspect it and can prove it, we will take action.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for sharing the Statement. In the context of tactical action, it is not a bad tactical response. Having read it only just before today’s sitting, I think it aspires to be an element of strategic messaging—but, as that, it is close to hopeless. It aspires to be a strong message to Putin, to reassure the British public and to demonstrate the UK’s leadership role in NATO. However, it is a statement of reassurance based on a complete delusion about the true state of our military capability. In truth, it feels as if we are on a frustratingly slow-moving SDR, in the context of a complete vacillation regarding funding, and at a point when—this will hurt, though I am not blaming the Minister, whom I personally like, tremendously—our reputation in NATO is at an all-time low.

Let me give the detail on that. The experts will know that NATO has a process of setting military capability targets, which go to the NATO nations to be politically agreed on, and they then become binding on nations. There are now, thankfully, 32 members of NATO. Where do we figure in the delivery table of those 32 nations? I will tell the House: 32nd. We are brilliant at writing papers and we can talk wonderfully within NATO, but on the delivery of military capability, we are bottom of the league. Does the Minister agree that our messaging, both domestically and internationally, will be completely without substance until we fund defence appropriately and in accordance with our international commitments?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know what the noble and gallant Lord would say to me if he disliked me.

Having said that, he raised a number of really important points. He heard what I said about funding in response to the noble Baronesses, and we are looking to set out the pathway to that. Others will have heard his call for more resources. There are issues around what capabilities we have and how we take them forward; we have heard demands not only to provide traditional capabilities but to be prepared for the changing threats we face and to establish how we develop the capability to deal with them.

My reading of the view that other countries have of us does not entirely accord with that of the noble and gallant Lord. In many respects, the NATO countries that I have met, notwithstanding the debates about capabilities, often look to the UK to see what we think about what we should do and for leadership.

I have already outlined the NATO response to what is happening in the Baltic with Baltic Sentry. That is a group of allies from NATO: eight countries coming together to provide maritime capability and do other things, and we are providing the reconnaissance for some of that. That is a NATO project, a NATO alliance acting together to deliver security. Of course, the whole point of NATO is that each country comes together to do that. We are looking at the capabilities that the noble and gallant Lord mentioned, but also as part of that, we have the JEF, which is a complementary part of NATO specifically looking at the Northern region, and the UK set that up; the UK is the lead for that. The Nordic Warden campaign that has been set up is run from London, based at Northwood, and the JEF countries are looking to us to provide that leadership, because we are the only country that has the necessary artificial intelligence which allows us to track some of the vessels that we may be concerned about.

Yes, there are issues, and the noble and gallant Lord laid them out very articulately. I just say to him that we are developing abilities, and I would say that, in my view, our role and status within NATO, and the view that many other countries have of us, are perhaps higher than the noble and gallant Lord set out in his remarks. Certainly, that is what people say to me when they say, “Where is the UK on this, because we want to see them there with us?”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, whether one signs up to the noble and gallant Lord’s view or the Minister’s, I think it is safe to say that the NATO theatre is becoming ever warmer and the requirements from the United Kingdom are getting greater. But it is not only in NATO that we make commitments. As the Minister will know, we are set to join the US-Bahrain Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement—a very long name—which cements us into quite considerable naval activity based in Bahrain. Does the Minister share my concern that we are cementing and placing resources that we cannot move back into the European theatre by signing this treaty, and it puts another strain on already strained resources?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making with respect to Bahrain, but let me say this. The UK acts wherever it needs to to protect its interests. I often make the point about the indivisibility of conflict. I went to Vietnam recently. Vietnam is concerned about Ukraine, because it has brought Russia and China closer together in a way that it never expected. I am proud of the fact that, notwithstanding Bahrain, later this year, we will lead a carrier strike group out into the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate that the law of the sea, the international rules-based order, is something that is important to us. There are numerous countries, both in Europe and in the Far East, including our allies Australia and New Zealand, that will stand with us in delivering that capability. Defending the rule of law in those areas is important. You cannot divide peace and security in one part of the world from peace and security in another, and I for one am pleased that the carrier strike group is going out into the Indo-Pacific later this year.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer and pay tribute to the Minister for the fulsome and frank responses which he always gives when defence questions come up. In his earlier remarks, he mentioned AUKUS. That, along with the Tempest programme, are two key flagship defence procurement projects. The US Congress has recently raised concerns about the US side of the deal and that their shipyards are not currently where they need to be to start producing the boats. We have had warm messages of support for both projects from the Government, which are welcome, but actual project updates are thin on the ground, so, perhaps not now, could the Minister commit to updating the House that both projects are where they need to be?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I certainly can do. First, I again pay tribute to the service that the noble Lord demonstrates through his activity in the reserves—it would be wrong not to do that.

I will deal with the projects one by one. AUKUS is a phenomenal project. The Government have just announced £9 billion of investment in Rolls-Royce to deliver the propulsion units for the nuclear-powered submarines. That relationship between the US, the UK and Australia is fundamental to the peace and security of the globe as we go forward. As far as we are concerned, pillar 1 is moving forward at pace. Issues may well arise with a project such as AUKUS, but they will be dealt with as necessary, and the AUKUS project moves at pace.

The pillar 2 aspects of that—the technology and development of other capabilities—are also moving along. Discussions are taking place about whether we move beyond the initial three countries to involve other countries. So, as an update to the noble Lord, I say that AUKUS is moving forward at pace.

On GCAP, which noble Lords know is the relationship between ourselves, Japan and Italy that aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter, I can say that that too is moving. Various treaties have been put in place and various commitments have been made to it. We will see a sixth-generation fighter produced by those three nations, which again will contribute to the defence and security of the globe.

Both those updates are not good news stories in terms of gloating and saying what a wonderful thing this is; but it is good to say—notwithstanding the noble Baroness’s challenge about money—that with both AUKUS and GCAP we have capabilities that are being developed that will secure our own country and alliances and enable us to stand up in the future for peace and security in Europe and beyond. As such, we should celebrate both of them.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

Perhaps I might come back to the homeland issues first raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and indeed by the Minister. Are the Government satisfied that business and commerce, particularly the City and energy sectors, are taking all the precautions they can to protect these critical national assets? What are the Government doing to co-ordinate the preparations?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the first point, like the Government and like defence industries, companies and businesses will have to look again at how much priority they give to that: that is an important point. Whether it is a telecommunications company or an energy company, it is responsible for the protection of much of its infrastructure. In terms of the co-ordination that the noble Lord asked about, that is something that I have asked about as well. If we are calling on businesses to do this, energy companies to do that, the defence industry to do this and the Foreign Office do that, that requires perhaps greater co-ordination across government. As we meet the challenges and threats as they change in the future, it may be that government needs to look at the co-ordinating mechanisms it has to ensure that they are as up to date as they need to be.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, how nice it is to be talking about ships. I do not agree totally with the noble and gallant Lord about the perception of us within NATO. However, maybe its perception should be that, because our capabilities have gone down to such an extent. Indeed, there is a sort of sense of déjà vu because, sitting over there for years and years, I have been saying to the Opposition, who were then in government, that we were reducing capabilities far too fast and not really keeping them, and that is a worry.

I would like to come back to the actual underwater tapestry and defence of that. I do not know whether the Minister has visited the Joint Maritime Operations Centre in Fort Southwick, but, if not, he should do. It has an ability now to co-ordinate a view of where all Russian and other ships are throughout our territorial waters, the exclusive economic zone and beyond, and then take executive action to do things about it. The examples given by the Secretary of State of actions taken recently against the craft are a very good tactical example of what can be done; I think it surprised Putin, not least because they know how few submarines we have got, and for one of them to pop up like that was a bit of a shock for them. There is no doubt it was the right sort of action to be carried out.

Could I ask the Minister whether he will go and visit the Joint Maritime Operations Centre? It is important and actually ties together all the things that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, was discussing. Responsibility for this is beyond just the Navy, which can co-ordinate it. There is a whole series of other departments, and we need to ensure that they all work together.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord West for his question. No, I have not been there but I will go. I will write to let him know when I am going so that I do what I say I am going to do.

I take my noble friend’s point about capabilities. There will always be a debate about the capabilities and their development, but we are also entering the realm of the capabilities that we need. He will be pleased about the order for eight Type 26 frigates, which will be delivered by the middle of the 2030s. I think I laid that out in answer to a question from my noble friend.

On that development, although there will be differences, I give credit to the last Government where it is due. They ordered the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship “Proteus”, which deals with many of the underwater threats we face and has capabilities that are developing all the time. That has made a big difference. As my noble friend Lord West has often asked, what has happened to the commitment for the second? It will not necessarily be exactly the same type of ship as “Proteus” but it will have similar aims and objectives. That will certainly be part of the defence review as well.

My noble friend Lord West is right to make the constant demand for capabilities, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, did. That has to be a consideration: how many of such a platform we do have and what sort of platforms do we need to meet the future threats we face?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Minister is right when he says that the threat from the Arctic to the NATO area is increasing, with the melting of the ice and many other factors. When the Secretary of State for Defence has a first contact with his new US opposite number, who has just been confirmed, will he argue that we need to protect all the assets that NATO has in the Arctic and not be diverted and distracted by the issue of who owns Greenland or who wants to buy it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I could get myself in a lot of trouble here. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I am seeking to outline that it is important for us to start with the point, which is obviously true, that the US-UK special relationship and alliance is fundamental to our country and to the alliances to which we belong for the freedom and defence of democracy in Europe and beyond. One then goes on to say that of course we face various challenges, not least because of the opening up of the Arctic, so how do we best meet those challenges together? That is the way to take forward that relationship and those discussions, whether they are with the new Defense Secretary in the United States or the new President. That is how we can deliver the peace and security that we want and a sensible policy objective, rather than get into, “This is what somebody said”. That is a grown-up, sensible foreign/defence policy. If I am wrong then I am wrong, but that is the way I would approach it and that is the sensible and pragmatic way in which our country should do so.

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, may I pick up a point raised by both the noble Baronesses on spending? I have always supported a considerable increase in spending on defence and share the frustration at the speed at which we are reaching it. My concern is that I am not sure the British public recognise that need. How are the Government proposing to raise awareness in a positive way that will support such an increase in spending?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Leaving aside the debate about the amount of spending and the increase to it, in a few months’ time we will celebrate VE Day. A few days after that, we will celebrate VJ Day. When we have these great celebrations of the victories of democracy against fascism or those who have undermined the rule of law—which we see in the present day in Ukraine—people understand that it is necessary to protect the freedom and democracy that we enjoy in this country. In many respects, our country leads that fight with our friends and allies.

However, I often think that we lack the confidence as a nation to say that and for politicians to stand up and say it. Yes, of course there are demands for spending on hospitals, schools and all the other important demands on the public purse but, ultimately, people live their lives that they do in this country because of the money paid and sacrifice made in the past to enable our democracy and freedom to flourish.

People may not feel that freedom and democracy are being attacked directly, but rest assured, through some of the hybrid and other threats that we are seeing in other parts of the world, our way of life is being challenged. That needs spelling out and saying to people because, if it is never properly explained to them, they will not forgive that in a number of years’ time. That leads to difficult but important conversations, from which we should not shy away.

Undersea Internet Cables

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Vallance stated on 3 December 2024, we continue to work closely with international partners following the breakage of subsea telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea on 17 and 18 November 2024. We must let those investigations run their course.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that on Christmas Day, the “Eagle S”, a Cook Islands-registered vessel and part of the Russian shadow oil tanker fleet, cut more cables in the Baltic Sea. I am delighted that the Finnish coastguard authorities arrested that vessel while it was still in international waters and brought it to port. Do the UK Government applaud the Finnish authorities’ reaction to that, as I do, and would they act similarly in UK coastal waters?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course, we are keen to support any country which supports international law and freedom of navigation, and Finland acted appropriately. As a member of JEF, we work very closely with Finland. The noble Lord will know—no doubt this will come up in many of the questions that follow—that the UK Government are leading a number of Joint Expeditionary Force operations. Operation Nordic Warden, for example, involves operations with respect to the Baltic. NATO is taking action with Baltic Sentry. All of us are acting more robustly with respect to the threats, as we see them, in the Baltic Sea and beyond, to ensure that we protect critical underwater infrastructure.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, NATO’s launch of Operation Baltic Protector and the other initiatives the Minister has mentioned are to be welcomed, but of course, the threats to our undersea infrastructure extend far beyond the Baltic and one or two isolated areas. What action is being taken to extend this initiative to a more comprehensive approach to our vulnerabilities? What discussions are being had to ensure that the actions of the military are fully co-ordinated with civilian investment in redundancy and resilience to ensure that we have a properly comprehensive approach to this very dangerous situation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The need for greater resilience across government is something that the Government are taking up. We understand the need for all departments, not just the Ministry of Defence, to take action on resilience. The noble and gallant Lord will also have seen that the Ministry of Defence has taken action on other threats that have occurred in other areas, including the channel and the North Sea. We expect further attention to be given in the defence review to what resources and capabilities are needed to ensure we deal with what is an increasing and emerging threat.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will participate remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, with undersea internet cable interference presenting only the latest challenge to security, along with threats to energy supply, banking, telecommunications, shipping and other potential use of viruses, should traditional defence chief responses, based on naval and military interventions, remain the main strategies in response? Should we not be reprofiling our expenditure towards nuclear deployments, defence satellite communications, selective sanctions enforcement, political exchange through dialogue and old-fashioned negotiations in conflict zones? The military option, costing billions in Ukraine, has hardly been a success.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

To deal with the last part of the question first, I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in Kyiv pursuing what has been a cross-government—and across all parties in majority—defence of freedom and democracy in Ukraine and what that means for the rest of Europe and beyond. With respect to the other points that my noble friend made, he is right to draw attention to the increasing threats to critical underwater infrastructure. The military option is one option that we need to use. I say that because, as I have said at this Dispatch Box before in answer to, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others, we must deter people from doing things in the first place. The use of maritime assets and underwater drones, the actions of the Joint Expeditionary Force and those of NATO are key to protecting these vital cable links on which much of our livelihoods, data, telecommunications, energy and so on depend. Military resource is one way in which we have to deal with that.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, in light of recent concerns over security of undersea communication cables and the involvement of foreign state actors in potential sabotage, how do the Government plan to balance their intention to reset relations with China while addressing the risk posed by Chinese entities to our critical infrastructure?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government’s position with respect to China, as I have said on many occasions, is to co-operate, to compete and to challenge. Those are the three strands of the policy. The Ministry of Defence will challenge China, where appropriate or necessary, to ensure that the international rules-based order is protected, whether that is to do with critical underwater infrastructure or with other areas in the world where the rights of navigation and free passage are threatened. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for that, not alone but with our allies, and we will challenge China where necessary to ensure that the international rules-based order is protected.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, how are we dealing with the threat to transatlantic undersea cables from hostile actors? Around 75% of the cables in the northern hemisphere pass through or near Irish sea waters. However, in a recent response to me on the Floor of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, seemed to suggest that the task of protecting these cables is carried out by a single ship which, with respect, does not sound remotely credible. As an esteemed Defence Minister, can the noble Lord advise me of what arrangements are actually in place to safeguard these cables serving the British Isles and how much of the bill is being paid by the Irish Government?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will leave what the Irish Government pay for to the Irish Government. Regarding the protection of critical underwater infrastructure, the UK has a large number of assets. The noble Lord of course points to the maritime assets that we make available, some of which we cannot discuss openly, but we also have surveillance aircraft and other means of protection. We will see in the defence review further suggestions as to what we might do in that respect. Let us make no mistake about it: one of the key functions of the Government is to protect the underwater infrastructure on which our livelihoods and prosperity depend. We will do that. It is not only about dealing with things when they happen but about deterring people from doing them in the first place. The Government will take the action necessary to achieve that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, undersea energy cables are being targeted by the Russian shadow fleet. My understanding is that all three power cables between the Baltic and Nordic countries were targeted last week. Undersea gas pipelines and electricity interconnectors are a critical part of our energy security, both now and— even more—as we transition to net zero. What actions are we taking with allies to deter, monitor and protect our undersea energy infrastructure?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

A lot of action is taking place. I have pointed to the work of the Joint Expeditionary Force that has taken place, and we have mentioned the maritime assets that have been deployed to protect infrastructure. We have seen the announcement of Operation Nordic Warden, which is another JEF initiative and is run from Northwood. We are applying artificial intelligence to some of the information that comes into there to predict the ships that may threaten those undersea cables. Alongside that, Secretary-General Rutte of NATO recently announced Baltic Sentry. There is a lot of work going on to deal with this. Do we have to give it greater priority? Of course we do. Ten years ago, we were not talking about the threat to undersea cables in the way that we are now. It is another way in which the threats to this country are changing and transforming. The defence of our realm needs to change and transform to meet those threats, which is what we are seeking to do.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the principal response to this threat in the Baltic is coming from NATO. May I press the Minister a little further on the contribution that United Kingdom naval assets are making to that endeavour? In particular, the planned multi-role support ship was always intended to be an important contributor to that. May I ask for a report on progress on that important new addition to the fleet?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If I understand the noble Baroness rightly and she is talking about the provision of a second additional ship to support and augment the ship “Proteus”, that will be part of the defence review. On the other assets that she talks about with respect to the Baltic, she will know that in December 2023, under the previous Government, a huge maritime collection of ships across NATO and JEF was sent to the Baltic, including UK maritime assets and UK surveillance aircraft. There was a further initiative in June 2024, again under the previous Government, and just recently we have had the announcement of Operation Nordic Warden, as I have said. All the way along, there have been significant UK contributions.

Another thing that is important, since we are often questioned about this, is that it is not only the contribution that we make in terms of our assets but the thought leadership, co-ordinating power and other leadership potential that the UK provides. Let us remember that it was in 2014, under the previous Government, that JEF was set up under UK leadership. It has worked particularly well. We should sometimes recognise what this country contributes to the defence of the world as well as some the challenges that face us.

Air Defence Capabilities

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in the technological advancement and modernisation of the United Kingdom’s air defence capabilities.

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

My Lords, the UK continuously reviews our integrated air and missile defence requirements to ensure that we are adequately defended against the evolving threats that we face. We are investing in new technologies, including the DragonFire directed energy weapon, to defeat threats such as drones, and enhancing our capabilities through the T45’s ability to defend against anti-ship ballistic missiles. Further development in IAMD capability is being considered in conjunction with the strategic defence review to ensure a coherent approach across defence and wider government.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. Recent very public concerns about our air defence capabilities have been amplified by our European and NATO partners. The urgency of the situation is highlighted by the experience of Ukraine. Government entreaties to await the SDR report simply do not cut it. Reassurance is needed now, but I accept that the picture is complicated so will the Minister write to me with a stocktake of the current situation and details of the modernisation proposals, whatever they are, and then we can place that letter in the Library?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising the incredibly important subject of air defence. She is quite right to point out the impact on Ukraine; 12,000 missiles have been fired at Ukraine by Russia, showing the importance of air defence now. It has been raised in report after report. I will of course write to her and put a copy in the Library, as a current stocktake of where we are, but we are already taking action. We are seeing the development of ORCUS and anti-drone technology to protect airfields; the enhancement of Sea Viper, which is the T45 missile that allows us to defend against ballistic missiles; and developments such as the DIAMOND initiative, which is bringing European countries together to get a ground-based air missile defence system. A number of initiatives are already being taken, but I agree with the noble Baroness. I will write to her so that we have a stocktake of that and so that the information is available to all Members of this House.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, members of the International Relations and Defence Committee—those in the last Parliament and those members of the committee as reformed in this Parliament—will be aware that on 8 May 2024, two months before the general election, as part of its inquiry designed to learn lessons from the conflict in Ukraine, the committee published evidence from Northrop Grumman, arguably the key MoD defence contractor on missile and air defence capability, which was persuasive to the committee and to others who will read it. It suggested that the UK’s air and missile defence capability was

“limited, to the point of being negligible”

because of persistent underinvestment. The inquiry had to report without the benefit of ministerial wisdom about how this legacy black hole was going to be filled because the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps, refused clearance for Ministers and officials to testify. Will the Minister join me in encouraging Members of your Lordships’ House to read the response of this Government to that report, because it deals with this issue in significant detail?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course I will encourage Members to read the Government’s response to that report. I say to him, all Members of this House and others that the report was an important wake-up call to us about the importance of air defence in the future. Let us remember where we were. This country assumed that we needed to defend ourselves against the Soviet Union and bombers. We are now in a totally different situation where we face a 360-degree threat. The launch of missiles could come from a variety of launch systems, and we need to protect ourselves against not only missiles but drones, as we have seen with what may or may not have happened with respect to various bases. It is an important wake-up call not only for us but for Europe that air defence will become one of the critical systems that we will need to make available to ourselves and our country. Our population need to understand that homeland defence is also now of crucial importance to us all.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too have warned before of the potential threat to the United Kingdom mainland from the air and of a second Battle of Britain. What new air defence capabilities will be added to the front line in the next 12 months?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is another important question from the noble and gallant Lord. We are upgrading the radar on the Typhoon fighters as part of the air defence, we are seeing the F35B capabilities and we are looking at what further investment is needed in air defence. Looking at ground defence in terms of air defence, I mentioned the T45 upgrade to Sea Viper, which deals with ballistic missiles, but there is also the Sky Sabre capability; we currently have seven and are in the business of purchasing more of those.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to technology, I acknowledge the Government’s STORM framework on counterforce, active defence and passive defence. Most Members will have opinions on the volatile and unpredictable views of Elon Musk and SpaceX, and on Peter Thiel and Palantir. The Minister must know that any of our future defence capabilities will be dependent in some form on satellite technology, so can he reassure me that, whatever technological advances we develop in the future, we will not be dependent on a single satellite provider or on any individual provider?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about our relationship with the United States and its importance. Of course we need to ensure that we protect the systems available to us that protect our own country, but I start from the point of view that one of the most important relationships we have—if not the most important—is with the United States of America. That defends not only our freedom but the freedom of Europe and the values that we all stand for across the world. As such, we ought to welcome that special relationship.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister, who has quickly established himself as a champion for defence within the department. I know that he is determined to deliver 2.5%, but it comes down to money. Does he accept the generally held view that 2.5% is insufficient to deliver a balanced defence budget? While it would be unreasonable to ask him what percentage would deliver a balanced defence budget, can he perhaps reassure your Lordships’ House that the aspiration for 2.5% is very much not a ceiling but just a floor?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful question. We are committed to the 2.5% and he knows the policy, which I have laid out on many occasions. The important point that I am trying to make with respect to the noble Baroness’s Question is that air defence will have to play an important part in our defence in the future, whatever level of budget we arrive at.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that recent exposure of our vulnerability to missile defence attack should lead to some reflection on whether we should tilt to the Indo-Pacific or give greater emphasis to homeland security? Perhaps we should take advice from the Israelis, with their Iron Dome, about how best to do it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We need an air defence system that is appropriate to our own country and our alliances, which is why we are seeking to build those alliances through a number of different projects. I very much take the view that there is an indivisibility of conflict. What happens in the Indo-Pacific affects us in Europe; what happens in Europe affects the Indo-Pacific. I have been to South America and heard the concerns there about what is happening in Europe. Wherever you go in the world, those who stand with us in the defence of freedom understand that there is an indivisibility of conflict, and that is what we need to stand for. It is really important for this country, and we should be one of the leaders of that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the very strong approach the Minister adopts. Did he notice on 26 December that the People’s Republic of China announced two new aircraft, one a three-engine stealth bomber and the other described as a mother ship for drones? What account are we taking of the development of that fleet in terms of our own security? Also, PRC-originated academics were working on hypersonic programmes in British universities, in collaborative programmes. Are we convinced that that is no longer the case?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows the policy we have with respect to China in terms of co-operation, competing and challenging. He will also know that I believe very strongly that, as well as competing and co-operating, we need to challenge, whether that it is at home or abroad. Of course, we have looked at the implications for our own defence and that of our allies with respect to the development in China, but the noble Lord will also know that, across the world, the hard power of our country and that of our international allies, including the United States, will be reflected next year when the carrier strike group goes not only through the Mediterranean but into the Indo-Pacific. Part of that will be about asserting the rule of law.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Lord Coaker on 14 November (HL Deb col 1927), whether they are planning the fiscal event next spring which is to set the pathway to spending 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence to take place before they publish the Strategic Defence Review.

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

My Lords, we remain committed to setting out a road map for defence spending to reach 2.5% of GDP. The strategic defence review is expected to complete next spring. We will set out the pathway to spending 2.5% at a future fiscal event.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, and certainly, we have previously been told that the SDR will spell out what defence needs and that a spring fiscal event will confirm how and when we are going to pay for it. In a Written Statement yesterday, the Chancellor implied that there will not now be a spring fiscal event. Apparently, the OBR will publish in March an economic and fiscal forecast, to which the Chancellor will respond with a parliamentary Statement. This does not seem to be the same as a spending review. We need to cut through this fog of confusion. May I ask the Minister—I am very happy if he wants to double-check the position with the Treasury—will the forecast and parliamentary Statement to which I referred clarify when the 2.5% of GDP spend on defence will apply? If not, what will clarify it, and when?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. Of course, I always discuss with the Treasury questions asked by noble Lords and Baronesses. The position remains exactly the same. The defence review will be published, it will lay out the threats we face, and at a future fiscal event the Government will then determine the pathway to spending 2.5%. This is our real commitment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is a suggestion that NATO, at its summit in The Hague next June, is going to look at a 3% target. Are His Majesty’s Government willing to think about this? If not, are they going to reject what might seem a very necessary change in the light of the global situation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have been very clear about NATO. Irrespective of the outcome of the American presidential election, European countries would have had to spend more on defence. As a first step towards that, all NATO countries need to meet the 2% target, which 23 out of 32 currently do. Our next step is to reach 2.5% and to set a pathway towards that. That will result in billions of pounds of this country’s money, as well as multi-billions of pounds across Europe, being spent on defence. That is the first step we need to take.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, arguably, one of the most difficult tasks of government is to determine the level of expenditure and therefore capability needed to reduce external threats to the country to an acceptable level of risk or tolerance. Therefore, how can it be right or logical to predetermine that 2.5% of GDP is the appropriate level of expenditure needed to achieve tolerable security? Does the Minister not agree that it is more sensible to remain open-minded as to what the level of resources required will be until after the SDSR has reported and the true risks to the nation are better understood?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord his question. He will know that one of the parameters of my noble friend Lord Robertson’s defence review is to look at the threats and at the capabilities needed within the envelope of 2.5%. Any country would have to determine what it believes it can afford and is necessary. The defence review will come forward with the threat assessment, and then it will be for the Government to determine, with the defence panel, how we meet those threats going forward.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I have a high regard for the Minister—that may damn his career—and he will know that I was not entirely supportive of the previous Government’s defence spending. However, the time is now: the war is raging in Ukraine and, as he knows, it is getting worse and worse. Furthermore, as was just pointed out, the arbitrary figure of 2.5% of GDP is not nearly enough. We need to prioritise defence spending and to really up it—perhaps double it, for goodness’ sake—to where we were back in the Cold War, when we held the deterrent to keep Russia at bay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let us be clear: there is no question of the deterrent not being renewed. This is the problem we have: we have heard the figure of 3%, and now the noble Lord seems to be suggesting 5%. I know that he is committed to defence, as we all are, but there is a question about how much we spend on it. This Government have made a commitment to setting a pathway to 2.5%. In these debates, we should also recognise the huge contribution our country has made to defending peace and democracy in Ukraine, under both the previous Government—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and other former Ministers—and this Government. Sometimes, as well as asking why we do not spend more, we should also recognise what the previous Government did and what this Government are doing for Ukraine. That gives a bit of perspective.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that when we rearmed in the 1950s, we deterred aggression and avoided conflict?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the point about deterrence, and I have been making it in various debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has been present at those debates, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asked me about this during the previous Urgent Question we had on defence. We need to re-establish deterrence. We need people to know that there are lines which, if crossed, will result in consequences. Perhaps we have not given the priority to deterrence that we should have, but the noble Earl is right that it must play an appropriate part in future. Countries know that, with our allies, we stand up for certain things and that if those lines are crossed, there will be consequences.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Do we not have to look at defence holistically? It has to be a whole-of-society response that includes the resilience of the nation to all sorts of attacks and measures that undermine our future. Unfortunately, that is about the scale of not merely of our Armed Forces but our investment in other resources to ensure that we are resilient. The reality is that the 2.5% figure is probably not enough just for conventional forces, let alone for that whole-of-society resilience. I hope the Minister is considering that and will discuss it with his Treasury colleagues.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for his question. It is not just me who is considering that; the whole of government is considering the need for homeland resilience. Indeed, my noble friend has asked me about this issue on a number of occasions. Part of the remit of the defence review is to look at what we should do about homeland resilience; that is an important step forward. What do we do to prepare the population for the threats we may face in future? What about hybrid warfare? What about, as we have seen in Ukraine, attacks on critical national infrastructure? What about some of the other data breaches we have seen? These are wholly important issues to which we have perhaps not given the priority needed. My noble friend is absolutely right, and the defence review is looking at this. Homeland resilience will have to be a proper part of how we take our defence and security further in future.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government accept that there is a practical limit to the amount of additional funds that can be spent in one particular financial year? Do they agree that 3% is an amount which could be spent, and should be, in view of the situation in which we now find ourselves?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, makes the point about the additional money that he and other noble Lords believe is required. The Government’s commitment is to set a pathway to 2.5%. I remind the noble and gallant Lord that, on top of the money we have already provided for next year, we have an additional £3 billion in the Budget next year. We are setting a pathway to 2.5%. That is why the Government recognise the need to spend more on defence and security, and that is what we will do.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer. Army cadet forces are vital to social mobility and community cohesion. I implore the Minister to speak with colleagues in the Department for Education about reversing the 50% cuts to the Army cadet force budget.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the noble Lord on his service and all that he has done. He makes a good point about the importance of the cadet service. We all recognise the importance of cadets and their valuable contribution to social mobility, social cohesion and the rest. Certainly, I will reflect on the importance of that and see where we go to in discussions with government colleagues.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if the strategic defence review recommends and the Government accept that we need to spend more on defence because of the deteriorating international environment, can the Minister assure us that the additional spending will be taken out of additional taxation and not out of cuts to domestic programmes such as education, prisons and local government, and that the Government will come clean to the public that this is what they are doing and therefore, the additional taxation will be necessary?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not think that I am going to answer that. We have no plans with respect to additional taxation. I am trying to sound like my right honourable friend the Chancellor now.

On the serious point the noble Lord makes, the defence review will come forward and will put forward the threats we face as a nation and how best to meet them. We have set out the Government’s expenditure plans. I gently say to noble Lords who talk about the need for increased spending that it is important that we spend it on the right things, the things that will make a difference. Waiting for the defence review for us to determine how we best meet those threats is a sensible policy option.

Drones: RAF Bases

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent reports of drones flying over RAF bases in East Anglia.

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

The Ministry of Defence is aware of these reports and is working closely with the US visiting forces, Home Office police forces and other partners to respond to recent events. We will work with the civil authorities to prosecute those responsible. We take any safety issues seriously and maintain robust measures at Ministry of Defence sites, including counter-drone capabilities. My noble friend will understand that I am unable to comment further on the specific security procedures at our sites. This remains a live criminal investigation.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Answer that he was able to give. There have been additional sightings of unidentified drones over our aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. It may be that these flights are not a coincidence. Does my noble friend agree that these are matters of potentially serious concern, given that drones are now so ubiquitous and given what we know their role is in warfare? The House will remember that Gatwick Airport was completely closed a few years ago by unidentified drones. As a result of that, the RAF has acquired new equipment, known as ORCUS, designed to deter drones. Do our Armed Forces have enough of it? Can my noble friend reassure the House that the Government are doing all they can to work with our international partners, especially the Americans, to find out what is going on and how best to protect our bases?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. We are working with our international partners, including the United States. Of course, we are trying to ensure that we have all the equipment that is needed to tackle any of these attacks that we face. Similarly, with respect to the aircraft carrier, I can say that a civilian drone was observed in the vicinity of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” on 22 November, but it got no closer than 250 metres. I can reassure my noble friend that we take all of this seriously, and we will work closely to ensure the safety of all our sites.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am aware that there is a series of very effective assets which can be deployed to air defence. I do not expect the Minister to comment further on those, but I will ask him, specifically, how the ground-based air defence system is progressing.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is obviously a matter of real importance, and the defence review is looking at what we should do with respect to air defence in the round, including defence of the homeland, as the noble Baroness asks.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, this is a question not just of defence sites but of much wider national resilience. We have seen the extensive use of drones in Ukraine against non-military targets. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will look at this problem in that much wider context? Quite clearly, we cannot mount air defence systems around every single part of our critical national infrastructure, and we have to ensure that we have some other method of protecting them against this new threat.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that important comment, and I will make sure that it is reflected upon within the Ministry of Defence. He makes a really important point about air defence—of course that is an important aspect of it—but there are other ways of protecting our sites and other ways of conducting warfare. Ukraine has shown us the importance of hybrid warfare, and that certainly is something that the defence review will look at. But I will take his very important comments back to the MoD.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister worked very closely with me and others during the passage of the National Security Act 2023. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was very responsive and worked collegiately across the whole House on a cross-party basis. Section 4 of that legislation is the prohibition of drones in the vicinity of prohibited places, which include these bases. I ask the Minister to reassure the House on two things: first, that local communities are very aware of the national security legislation in these areas; and, secondly, when it comes to a national security threat, that the full elements of law and order will be deployed under national security legislation to ensure that there are no breaches.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his question. He is quite right with respect to the National Security Act. Let us be clear, in various pieces of legislation, not just the National Security Act, it is illegal for drones to be flown over or in the vicinity of these military sites. People should be aware of that, and local communities should be reassured. In terms of national security, the same Act that he and I passed under the last Government ensures that there are penalties of up to 14 years for this sort of activity, and people should be aware of that. All agencies and parts of the state will work to ensure that we identify and do what we can with those who are conducting these acts.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might build on the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, if I may—or not.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is this side. I refer to my interests in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. I too wanted to follow up the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is a widespread issue. Drones are comparatively cheap; they are easy to mobilise; they can be used, potentially, with an explosive or chemical or even a radiological payload; and they can be used for hostile surveillance. There are all sorts of uses, not just by hostile nations, but by criminal gangs and terrorists and so on.

This is not just a question for national defence against national defence assets, but it must be a question of the police around the country having the appropriate equipment and facilities. Can the Minister reassure us that we are going to have that country-wide, whole-of-government response to the threat from drones, which, as we have seen in other countries, can be extensive?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. The defence review will address national resilience. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has also said, of course air defence means missiles and other things in the conventional way in which we interpret that term. It also includes being able to deal with low- tech mass efficiently and cost effectively. Clearly, we will need to address that—and we will—as the hybrid threat and the low-cost, low-technology threat will be part of the warfare of the future.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The Minister has outlined some of the challenges that we face but there is a bigger issue here. Under Article 3 of our NATO treaty, we have an obligation to deliver national resilience in the UK. It is not just about the air threat—it is about guarding critical national infrastructure, not just military bases but power stations. We have not done this en masse for a very long time, and, like other noble Lords, I simply seek reassurance that we are thinking about this in the SDR because the manpower required is significant. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the work he does as director of the Army Reserve. On national resilience, the threats and warfare of the future have been shown from Ukraine and elsewhere. It is not just tanks, it is not just aircraft—it is about national resilience to withstand hybrid attack, such as attacks on information and our critical national infrastructure. The ability to defend against physical and cyberattack is crucial to withstanding the threats that we will face in the future. That has to be a part of any future defence review, and it will be. Without it, we will leave our country weaker than it should be in the face of such threats.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, does the deployment of Armed Forces personnel indicate that the local police forces do not have the ability to investigate drones, as required by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Gold Command for the sites in East Anglia is the Ministry of Defence Police. That force has the ability, knowledge and expertise to deal with some of the threats that the noble and gallant Lord has pointed out. His question demonstrates the need for the Ministry of Defence Police to work closely with Home Office police forces and other agencies to defend those sites.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

As the operator of a registered drone under the CAA, my concerns are that in this country there is a considerable and increasing number of drones being operated by people illegally. They pose a direct threat, not only to military installations and the zones around our airfields, but around civil facilities. Can the Minister comment on how much policing is going on generally, and how many prosecutions of these illegal activities are taking place?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The illegal use of drones is certainly an area of concern for us all. In terms of the numbers of prosecutions, the best thing for me to do, which would be of benefit to the noble Lord and the whole House, is for me to refer to my colleagues across government for a satisfactory answer. I shall then write to the noble Lord with the statistics he requests about what action is taking place, and put a copy of the letter in the Library.