Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 88 in this group is very much in a similar vein to my earlier amendments, although I see I do not have the presence of my newly acquired fan—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—to encourage me. I seek reassurance that the

“unrestricted access, basing and overflight”

provisions in Annex 1(1)(a) of the agreement includes the right of the UK to allow nuclear-propelled vessels and nuclear-armed vessels and aircraft to enter the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia.

Although not in the amendment, the annexe of the treaty referred to also specifically covers the United States of America, and, for the avoidance of doubt, I include it in the confirmation I seek from the Secretary of State in this amendment. Again, I am asking that this be confirmed by the Secretary of State before the Bill can come into force. In this respect, I am perhaps baring my teeth more than my noble friend Lord Lilley, which is a rather unusual situation.

As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, Mauritius is a party to the Pelindaba treaty, which establishes the African continent as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This prohibits the research, development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, testing, possession, control or stationing of nuclear weapons in any signatory state. Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty states that both Mauritius and the United Kingdom confirm that no

“existing international obligations or arrangements … conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.

Annex 1 of the treaty states that the United Kingdom retains

“unrestricted ability to … control the … deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”.

Nuclear weapons are lethal capabilities. So Britain and the United States must, as per the terms of the treaty, have an unrestricted ability, surely, to house nuclear weapons or to dock nuclear submarines at the base on Diego Garcia should we choose to do so. Yet that would appear to require an express provision in this treaty, and I cannot find it.

Article 7(3) appears to seek to allay those concerns, but I would welcome an absolute clarification from the Minister. Will Mauritius’s membership of the Pelindaba treaty prevent us basing Vanguard-class submarines or, in the future, nuclear-armed aircraft, or the United States stationing any nuclear weapons at the base on Diego Garcia? That is a question that I require answered. This cannot be left in doubt—hence my requirement that the Secretary of State publish a statement to confirm the matters I have raised before this Bill comes into force, so that everyone is clear about what the UK and the US can or, perhaps more alarmingly, cannot do. As my noble friend Lord Lilley commented, although they are not directly covered by the Pelindaba treaty, my amendment also makes reference to nuclear-propelled vessels and, for the avoidance of doubt, I seek reassurance that Mauritius would not take exception to that. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their amendments. I appreciate that they have questions about how the treaty protects the full operation of the base, and I want to reassure them that the treaty enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability. The treaty and the Bill we are debating today will have zero impact on the day-to-day business on Diego Garcia. Importantly, it will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia. I am putting some of this on the record, and the noble Baroness, as a former Defence Minister, will know the careful calibration of the language that I am using: I am putting it on the record so that we are all clear.

As I say, noble Lords will understand that I pick my words with care in this particular context. I cannot and will not discuss operational matters on the Floor of this place, but I am confident that the Chamber would not necessarily want me to. The long-standing UK position of neither confirming nor denying the location or presence of nuclear weapons must stand. But let us talk about the hypothetical. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the application of the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness said, to the treaty. The UK is not a signatory to the treaty but is a signatory to Protocols 1 and 2. I can confirm to the Chamber that the Governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with these existing obligations.

I also remind colleagues, because this is important—again, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, if I remember rightly from his remarks, and, indeed, the noble Baroness raised this—that we are not alone in the matter. The Government of the United States have also tested all aspects of the Diego Garcia treaty in depth and at the highest levels of the security establishment. They, too, are satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. Indeed, when I was talking about the earlier amendments in answer to that, I quoted the remarks of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his comments about being satisfied with the treaty in every aspect.

Amendments 63 and 88 therefore are not necessary. We do not need a review of the impacts of nuclear treaties on the future operation of the base, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has proposed, because the future operation of the base has been protected. I say to the noble Baroness that we do not need to reopen paragraph 1.a of Annex 1 to the treaty, as has been suggested, because this already provides for unrestricted—that is the key word—access for UK and US vessels to enter the sea of Diego Garcia. Paragraph 1.b.i provides for unrestricted ability to control the conduct and deployment of lethal capabilities.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do of course understand the sensitivity of not discussing operational activity in a public domain. However, if I revert to the Minister’s understandable reliance on what I described at Second Reading as that “huge protection” in Article 1, that is explicitly in contradiction with Article 7(1). Article 7(1) says expressly with reference to international obligations or arrangements that, if they are not to be obtempered or agreed to, that must be provided for in this agreement. That is the dilemma that is perplexing my noble friend Lord Lilley and myself. We seem to have on the face of this treaty a self-evident contradiction.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. What I am saying to her is that the Government of Mauritius, the Government of the UK and the Government of the US see no contradiction in what the treaty says, and explicitly lays out, in respect of the ability of Diego Garcia to operate in the way that it has always done, with the lethal capabilities as outlined elsewhere in the Bill.

I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness as reassurance that the situation will stay the same as it is now. As I have said, all those three parties to that treaty are confident that that remains the case.

I will say, however, that, although resisting the amendments, I am grateful that they were tabled. They are really important amendments to have made in order for the Government to have put on the record important elements of the treaty and the Bill. We have been able to clarify for the Chamber, and for those who read our proceedings, that the position that we would all want to see will continue with respect to Diego Garcia and that the full capabilities will be maintained.

Let me be absolutely clear: the full operational use of the base is protected to ensure that the base is able to continue in every way that it always has done. I hope that is helpful. On the basis of the reassurances that I have made and the comments that I have put on the record, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

That is very helpful and I entirely respect what the Minister says. He is a man of obvious integrity and commitment to the defence of this country. I am comforted that he is speaking for the Government, and therefore that the Government will maintain the freedom to use the Diego Garcia base to its full capabilities. I am not persuaded that that is necessarily in line with the Pelindaba treaty. That does not worry me so much. It may worry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, or any future Lord Hermer in Mauritius, but let us hope that they will be ignored. So I will, of course, withdraw my amendment.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

It is a very good point. I think there is a divergence, exactly as in this country, between the permanent apparat and the rest of the country, which would explain why my noble friend Lord Kempsell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, are speaking to very different sets of people. As the German ambassador to London in 1914 said to his French counterpart, “You have your information, we have ours”. It seems that there is at least a debate in the United States about this, and you can see why. As my noble friend Lord Bellingham said, there is a real prospect down the line that a future Mauritian Government may take a very different attitude towards the presence in the outer atolls of powers that are unfriendly to us. We have no assurance that we will always be on friendly terms with that republic.

The world is imperfect, I understand that. The world is sublunary. We are dealing with lesser evils, as is usually the case in politics. But when the Minister has justified this treaty and the treatment of the Chagossians, she has always done so by saying, “Our priority was the security of the base”. I just ask noble Lords on all sides to consider how this makes us more secure in an imperfect world than we are at present. We have obvious sovereignty over the entire region at the moment. We have the great advantage of its isolation. There is no prospect of anybody taking a leased island and putting any kind of listening infrastructure or anything else nearby. How does moving from where we are now to what is proposed in this treaty make us more secure, even if we set aside all the wrongs being done to the Brits of Chagossian origin?

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was on to something when he asked, “What if the Americans were to change sides?” But I am not sure that quite makes the point he intended. I just invite noble Lords to consider the wholly pecuniary terms in which Mauritius has considered this territory: not as part of its own demos, not as part of its own nation, but as an investment and a way of raising money—of paving its streets with gold, as my noble friend said earlier. Would it not be the ultimate humiliation if Mauritius were to trouser the sum of money that we are now paying it and then to turn around and sell the base to the United States? Where would that leave this Government? I would love to hear the Minister’s reply.

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

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to an important set of amendments, and I thank them too for the way in which they have put those amendments. There is clearly some disagreement between us, but there is no disagreement over the fact that every single person in the Chamber is seeking to ensure that we protect the security of the nation and the security of Diego Garcia, and on the importance of that base to us. I start from that point. There were a couple of times when noble Lords almost seemed to question that. I do not question it at all. I do not agree with everything that has been said, but I do agree with the right to challenge how we take this forward, because out of that come better legislation and more clarity. While I do not agree with the need for some of the amendments, some of the comments that those amendments require to be made from the Dispatch Box are important. I wanted to set that context out for noble Lords.

I also just want to say this, because I think it is important. I do not want to have a Second Reading debate again but the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Beamish, and others have made this point: the Government, whatever the rights and wrongs, are trying to bring stability. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, disagrees with the treaty, and it is fair for him to make that point, but the Government’s point of view is that we are trying to bring stability and certainty to an uncertain situation. The noble Lord disagrees with that, as do a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. But that is the Government’s view. The Government’s view, in answer to the challenge the noble Lord raised, is that we are changing it because we are trying to bring certainty to an uncertain situation. We believe we have done that, and we have made certain that we have secured one of the most important military bases—if not the most important military base—for ourselves and the United States. The noble Lord does not accept that or agree with that, but that is the alternative proposition the Government are making.

It is really important, therefore, to say, in answer to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, and others, that we would not have gone forward with this were it not for the fact that the Americans support it. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right. We can say, “Well, the Americans said this” or “The Americans said that”. I am going to quote this, because I think it is really important. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said that

“the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of … the Chagos Archipelago … this agreement secures the long-term, stable and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia. This is a critical asset for regional and global security … We value both parties’ dedication. The US looks forward to our continued joint work to ensure the success of our shared operations”.

That does not mean, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Ahmad, and many others, said, there are not challenges to that and what it actually means in practice. But it is a pretty fundamental starting point for the UK Government to be able to directly quote US Secretary of State Rubio saying that the US supports what this Government are doing and taking forward. I lay that on the table as the context for trying to answer some of the points and considerations that have been made.

Some of the points and comments—I say to the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Weir and others, and even to an extent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—are perhaps better dealt with in some of the other groups, particularly on the rights of the Chagossians. My noble friend Lady Chapman has answered on this at great length and will continue to do so as we move forward. That context is really important for the debate and the discussion we are having.

I will try to deal with some of the amendments. It will take a little while and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seeks to prevent the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago. The treaty gives the UK control over these matters. The security provisions were, as I have said, designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment, which supported us in proceeding with the deal.

On Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, let me be clear: the entire treaty is designed to preserve the UK’s ability to take the necessary steps to preserve the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base. Article 3(2)(c) states clearly that the UK has

“the full responsibility for the defence and security of Diego Garcia”.

Mauritius and other states should have no doubt—this is the importance of comments made here—about our willingness to exercise our responsibilities in a manner that ensures the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Forgive me for being slightly behind the curve; I was trying to follow the sections in the annex. The Minister referred to Annex 1(11), in particular the definition of “unrestricted”. That paragraph states that

“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification, subject to the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties to meet the requirements of international or domestic Mauritian law or current practice”.

For the sake of clarification, what are these “standing authorisations and notifications”?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If I am wrong on this, I will write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library so that all Members can access it. My understanding is that the crucial bit of Annex 1(11)(c) is

“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification”.

The phrase,

“the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties”,

refers to things contained within the treaty. I will write to the noble Baroness to clarify that. I am grateful to her for pointing it out.

The fundamental point I am trying to make—which I think the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made—is that we have an obligation under the treaty to notify Mauritius of activities emanating from the base but we do not have to seek its permission. “Expeditiously” notifying does not mean notifying before we take any agreed action. Those were the points that I thought the noble Baroness was making, but I will certainly seek to clarify exactly where that takes us with Annex 1(11)(c). I will write to the noble Baroness and provide a copy to others. I thank her for raising that.

The treaty specifically confers on the UK the unrestricted ability to

“control the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”

in respect of Diego Garcia. Given that there is no question over operational freedom on Diego Garcia, it is unclear what necessary derogations the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, is seeking. The annex gives the UK the extensive rights that we would need in such a situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, raised reporting restrictions. His Majesty’s Armed Forces and the intelligence services routinely produce reports for the Prime Minister on all types of security matters. I reassure the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, that this will include operational issues arising on the Diego Garcia base. There is no requirement for this to be made a statutory obligation, as Amendment 81E seeks to do. Additionally, Amendment 81F would represent an unusual interference with the prerogative to conduct international affairs and to make or unmake treaties. Noble Lords will understand that there is often a need for confidentiality in international discussions.

The clock is flashing away and the Whip is getting jumpy next to me. I shall have a look at Hansard and I shall write to noble Lords in the debate with anything that I have not covered and any questions that have not been answered and make sure that the amendments that I have not responded to are responded to. I shall send the letter to noble Lords in the debate. Let me be clear: I shall write to noble Lords about two or three of the amendments that I have not covered, copy the letter to noble Lords and put a copy in the Library. I hope that that is acceptable to everyone.

I thank noble Lords for a really interesting and important debate on the security provisions of the treaty and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Russian Ship “Yantar”

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the “Yantar” spy ship has form when it comes to pushing boundaries, but directing laser beams at a UK Poseidon surveillance plane is an unwelcome development. It is provocative and irresponsible. In the air domain during the Cold War, there was a regular pattern of incursion into United Kingdom airspace by Russian planes, and the stratagem of reaction and close-flying escort by UK planes was developed, which was effective. How do we replicate that in the marine domain? For example, can a frigate close-shadow the “Yantar” so that the Russian crew feels under constant observation and any attempt to interfere with subsea infrastructure is immediately visible—and, importantly, whatever protective action is then necessary can be taken?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for such an important question. The Royal Navy constantly monitors activity in and around UK waters. This includes the “Yantar”, which is continuously and closely monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS “Somerset” and the RAF’s P-8s. As the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, Russia has been developing military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. For that reason, we have directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture so we can more closely track and robustly respond to the threats from that vessel and many others. Such actions have previously included surfacing a Royal Navy submarine, strictly as a deterrent measure, close to the “Yantar”, to make it clear that we have been covertly monitoring its every move. We will not shy away from the robust action needed to protect the UK.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the “Yantar” has form. Do His Majesty’s Government feel that sufficient action is being taken? I note that one question asked in the other place was whether the Russian ambassador had been called into the Foreign Office, and the answer appeared to be in the negative. Do the Government need to be doing more? Are they doing everything to ensure that Russia realises that we will not tolerate its actions and incursions into our waters?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is another very important question. The whole House will recognise the significance of what the noble Baronesses have said. The UK Government are constantly talking to the Russian ambassador, constantly making the Russians aware of what we are doing, and we are constantly monitoring those ships that seek to monitor our underwater cables, potentially for purposes in future. We have Royal Navy ships monitoring that and P-8 Poseidons from Lossiemouth—we have a fleet of nine now—looking at that. But I say to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords—and I am sorry to repeat it, but it is just to make it clear, because the implications of what I am saying are obvious—that to surface a Royal Navy submarine close to the “Yantar”, as was done towards the end of last year, is an unprecedented way of demonstrating to Russia and the “Yantar” how seriously we take what they are doing. I know that that is supported by all Members of your Lordships’ House, but that signifies the importance of the deterrence and the importance and significance of the activity that we are undertaking to try to deter such activity.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, is this not much more than a simple defence matter? If the laser used was a weapons system, not just laser torching by a member of the “Yantar” crew, is this not a serious disregard of the 1980 UN protocol and its convention on certain conventional weapons? What steps have the Government taken with the Russians? Has the Russian ambassador been called to a meeting in the FCDO, to be informed of the UK’s disapproval?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Nobody can be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we take the incident that has happened. As the noble and gallant Lord has pointed out, it was not a weapons system, but that does not alter the fact that a handheld laser was pointed into the cockpit of one of our planes. That is of huge significance and importance, and the Russians are in no doubt about how seriously we take that incident. We have made sure that they are aware of that and we will continue to make sure that they are aware of it. Indeed, the noble and gallant Lord’s question—with those from the noble Baronesses from the other Benches—has helped to signify to the Russians, again, quite how seriously we take the incident which occurred.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, it is clear that that message is conveyed, but it seems to do nothing to deter the Russians from continuing with their activity. Can the Minister say whether our military leaders have come to any conclusions about what an appropriate response will be to what, in the end, could be an act of war?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This is a really important question, but I say to everyone that we have to be really careful about the language that we use when we ask, “If this happened, what would we do? If that happened, what would we do? Would we see such and such as an act of war?” That is not to underplay the seriousness of what is happening, but it is about trying—as any Government would—to be reasonable and sensible in the language that is used.

Let nobody be in any doubt that the seriousness of this is significant. We know what the “Yantar” is doing as part of Operation GUGI, we know that it is surveying the underwater cables in a peacetime way for potential use in other scenarios in the future and we are making sure the Russians are aware of that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

The Minister said he was going to visit the NMIC and the joint cell that was with it down in the south. I do not know whether he has done that yet, but I am glad it is up and operating fully, because we have been bad at tracking the “Yantar” and the other ships of that type. Now, we are doing it properly and we need to have ships that can counter it. I hope that there will be enough money in the Budget for us to get in more ships; we will see.

I have been at sea with the Russians in the Cold War when they tried to ram us, opened weapon systems against us and interrupted flying operations—all highly dangerous things, and similar to what happened in the Iceland cod war. I believe there is more that we can do to make it very uncomfortable for a ship such as the “Yantar”. There are things one can do that make life horrible at sea. They are not all seen and we should start thinking about doing some of those.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. We are trying to do a whole range of different things. He will know that, as well as the measures that I have talked about against the “Yantar”, we have Operation Baltic Sentry—in the Baltic Sea, obviously—which is NATO monitoring, run from Northwood, to track what is going on there. We have Nordic Warden, which is a JEF operation as well, with maritime capabilities, alongside P-8s. There is a whole range of different things that are taking place. The defence investment plan will be published this year; let us see what is in that in terms of the increase in capability to deal with this threat.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the difficulty of the Minister; I am not trying to stir things up, I assure him. But supposing a laser had brought down the aircraft by disabling the pilot, what would we consider that? Would we consider it an act of war?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

To be clear, I am not in any difficulty answering the question from the noble Lord, but I will not speculate at the Dispatch Box about what we would do if this or that happened. The noble Lord has much more experience in military matters than I do, so he will recognise how serious it would be if I misspoke in answer to his question. So I am not evading the question but, in the interest of the country, it is sometimes best to have these discussions in private.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, given what we know the “Yantar” has been engaged in, would the Minister be able to tell the House whether the Government are now actively considering some of the suggestions made in the recent report by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in relation to the possibility of a purpose-built vessel that would help fix undersea cables, were any activity to take place that resulted in them being severed?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Certainly, those sorts of considerations are being looked at in the context of the defence investment plan. As we have committed to, that will be published this year. Let us see what is in that in terms of the capability my noble friend mentions.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government consider that these acts of aggression and subversion will come to an end if a deal is reached in relation to Ukraine?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

One can only say: let us hope the discussions around Ukraine bring about arrangements that are satisfactory to the Ukrainians, which is the important part of any agreement that is or is not breached. I think we are in different times now, and the different times we are in mean that Russia will continue to look at underwater cables and some of the other things that go under water, such as energy and data. Certainly, what we see from the “Yantar”, along with other ships that are part of the GUGI operation, is the mapping of the underwater capabilities that we and other nations have for peacetime purposes, but of course that could be used in other scenarios.

President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of President Trump’s statement on 30 October regarding the testing of nuclear weapons.

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom has ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and continues to press for its entry into force. We remain committed to our voluntary moratorium on nuclear test explosions, having ceased nuclear testing in 1991. The nuclear testing policy of the United States is a matter for the US Government, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment further.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it is easy to look on this as some sort of playground bravado by President Trump, who clearly did not understand the implications of, or what was meant by, the trials of delivery systems that Putin was conducting. With him having made his statement, President Putin wanted to show how tough he was and made his statement about doing tests again. This would be probably quite amusing if it was not so incredibly dangerous. The comprehensive test-ban treaty is one of the few treaties regarding nuclear weapons that are still in existence; many have fallen by the wayside. We are less safe than we used to be because of that. If the comprehensive test-ban treaty is broken, it opens a Pandora’s box. All of us will be far less safe. That is extremely worrying.

I know the Minister cannot say very much in response to my Question—in effect, it was nothing, but those are wonderful. However, even though something may not happen because the Department of Energy in America is unable to do a test straight away—it will take a couple of years and cost billions of dollars, so this thing may go away— and even though, as he says, it is their business, does he believe that the Government should make it very clear to the Americans how much we support keeping the test ban treaty in place and that we will be very disappointed if there is any break to that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The UK has a long-standing and important relationship with the United States—it is important to start out and say that on a number of occasions. The comprehensive test-ban treaty, as my noble friend has said, is a really successful treaty, and we continue to push and to do all we can to ensure that it is as effective as it is with as many states as possible. We look forward to everyone who signed it ratifying it in due course.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we saw the PrepCom for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—or NPT—conference, which is due to meet again next year. We have five signatories. In light of what we have heard from the rhetoric of Russia, and the actions that others have taken, what assessment is being made of the potential success of the NPT meeting next May? Further, linked to the recent conflict we saw between India and Pakistan, what extra efforts have been made to ensure that those countries also sign the NPT?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters, and he knows that numerous conversations go on and numerous efforts are made by numerous countries, in ways we cannot often speak about in this Chamber. Whether it is India and Pakistan, or other countries, numerous debates and discussions take place to ensure that we are as safe as we possibly can be. As he knows, the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will meet in New York next year—I think is an important statement that it is taking place in New York. It is a really important treaty. We have the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and we have the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I think sometimes that what countries such as us should do, as well as recognising the difficulties and problems, is to continue to push the importance of those treaties and to do all we can to ensure their continued success.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this is the latest instance of the potential use of nuclear weapons being referred to loosely by leaders of the recognised weapon states, on which President Putin gave the lead on several occasions when he spoke about it in the context of the Ukraine conflict? That is surely a lamentable change from the taboo on talking about these matters since the end of the Cold War. Does he think that we would do better to work at the non-proliferation treaty review conference next year for a reaffirmation of the view that a nuclear war must not be fought and cannot be won?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. With all the questions and my comments so far, it is extremely important that we do not let rhetoric cause a problem. The question that the noble Lord has posed is important. As I have said in my answers so far, it is important that we talk about the success of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We have not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1991. The United States and others have conformed to that as well. People must be really careful in the use of rhetoric in whatever circumstance. Our debates and discussions on these matters are looked at and pored over. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously. We need to be very careful in how we discuss these matters while having the right to discuss them.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

In a conflict-beset world, a credible nuclear deterrent is unarguable, but macho posturing by the leaders of the United States and Russia is an alarming development that undermines the non-proliferation treaty. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will the Government take a lead to encourage or persuade India, Pakistan and Israel to sign that treaty, reaffirm it, strengthen it and make it clear exactly what has been said? A nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We encourage all states to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has been a huge vehicle by which we have worked together to keep the world safe. This Government accept, as previous Governments have done and as do many Governments across the world, that the nuclear deterrent is part of the security architecture of the world. Part of having a nuclear deterrent is to deter from war, deter from aggression. The restatement of the deterrent policy is consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, under which the noble Lord will know that the UK is allowed to have weapons.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, following on from what the Minister has just very helpfully said, in relation to our own United Kingdom nuclear defence capability, we have seen just this week that between 400 and 500 jobs will be put at risk at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Government claim that the workforce needs to be reshaped so that it is fit for the future. However, in a time of growing international insecurity, can the Minister confirm that there will be no reduction in staffing for our nuclear weapons capability?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

What I can confirm is that there will be no reduction in our capability of ensuring that the nuclear deterrent is effective and that it remains so seven days a week, 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. That is the commitment that the Government make. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the AWE. That is about looking at reshaping how that important body works. The Government have committed £31 billion to the Dreadnought programme, with a £10 billion contingency. We have committed £15 billion in this Parliament to the development of a new warhead. That is a Government who are committed, as the last Government were, to spending billions of pounds on maintaining the credibility of our nuclear deterrent, which, as I said in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is essential to the global security of the world.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to my entry in the register of interests, particularly as vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which I am a consultant to as well. Every European NATO member has ratified the 1996 nuclear test-ban treaty. In addition to a commitment to Article VI, the commitment by the five nuclear weapon states to the CTBT was essential to the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1995. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that former US officials who have had responsibility for their nuclear arsenal have stated publicly that new US nuclear tests are unnecessary, unwise and unwelcome. As those officials have done, have our Government assessed the impact on the NPT’s future if there are renewed explosive nuclear tests by any of the five—including the US and the UK?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I have said, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is an essential part of the Government’s policy. We remain committed under that treaty to the aspiration to a nuclear-free world, which may seem a long way off but is our aspiration. All I can say with respect to this is to reiterate the complete commitment that the Government have to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to the meeting next year in New York. We want that conference to be a success.

The UK remains an active participant in all the nuclear non-proliferation treaty forums, alongside the commitment to maintain for as long as is necessary our nuclear deterrent. The commitment that we have to that nuclear non-proliferation treaty is important as well. That is good UK government policy.

Ministry of Defence Procurement: UK-manufactured Products

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to maximise UK- manufactured products in its procurement decisions.

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

My Lords, the defence industrial strategy set a vision to make the UK defence sector more competitive, innovative and resilient, including measures backing UK businesses, lowering barriers to entry and increasing competitiveness by supporting SMEs through the defence office for small business growth, reforms to social value and exploring an offset policy, regional defence growth deals supported by £250 million and establishing the office of defence exports, helping businesses compete globally.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Under the national shipbuilding policy, the Ministry of Defence is committed to placing UK shipbuilding orders in UK yards to ensure a continual drum beat of work. Therefore, why, under the defence maritime services next generation contract, which has just been awarded to Serco, will 24 tugs and pilot boats be built by Damen in the Netherlands? Why are we exporting UK defence jobs to Holland and to a company that has recently been bailed out by the Dutch Government? I ask my noble friend to follow the German Government’s recent announcement that they will cancel their frigate order with Damen and to place those much-needed orders in UK yards.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will look at the specific example that my noble friend has raised about the awarding of that contract. As well as that example, I could give others of where we have been successful in ensuring that shipbuilding is seeing something of a renaissance in our country, not least the recent winning of the contract from Norway for Type 26 frigates on the Clyde. That was an enormous boost to British shipbuilding and to that part of Scotland. That is the sort of example that we want to build on, but I will look at the example that my noble friend raised.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, those who know about defence procurement—as the Minister does; I am encouraged by much of what he says—know that it is incredibly bureaucratic. That slows down any decisions —I do not know whether it has affected this decision—for UK-made kit rather than buying stuff off the shelf. Can the Minister please look carefully at how we can get rid of some of the bureaucracy surrounding defence procurement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have recently recruited a new National Armaments Director and reforms are taking place in the Ministry of Defence. I ask this of the noble Lord and the House: why is it that in wartime we have an urgent operational requirement that cuts through bureaucracy and red tape, allowing us to deliver the weapons and equipment that our Armed Forces need? We need to ensure that that sort of attitude and culture operate in peacetime. It should not take a crisis or war to deliver the things we want and the equipment our troops need.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the real barrier for UK SME manufacturers is the time it takes to secure contracts, which is typically years, even for kit upgrades. By contrast, as the Minister knows, I recently hosted an event exploring ways to link UK manufacturers with Ukrainian software developers, who are innovating and making daily updated wearable drone detection kit. That is saving soldiers’ lives in Ukraine every day, but our troops do not have it. Can the Minister tell the House how the defence industrial strategy will engage with SMEs, for example in supplier networks such as the neutral vendor framework for innovation? Could this include cross-border joint ventures with innovative front-line experience elsewhere, of the sort I have just referred to?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have established and are looking to grow a defence office for small business, which will be important. The noble Lord’s point is an extremely good one. The idea that the solution is always massive business has been shown by Ukraine not to be the case. The development of small business and small industry—the noble Lord gave the example of drone manufacture on a small-time basis—has been essential to the Ukrainian effort against the illegal Russian threat. His point about how we can develop that sort of capability and capacity is important for us all and something we need to learn from. As I said, the office for small business growth will take that forward.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

I declare an interest in that one of my sons works in defence procurement. In light of concerns raised about the reliance on overseas supply chains, can the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that procurement decisions actively support UK-based manufacturers so that our defence capability is not dependent on foreign production?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are doing everything we can to support UK manufacturing. Let me set out one of the reasons why we are doing that. As I have said many times, Ukraine has been a wake-up call for us. The manufacturing industry in this country has been allowed to decline over decades, in a way that puts our homeland defence at risk. It is in our own national interest to grow our defence industries, which is why it will be at the heart of what we do. It is not only about what we do here. The noble Baroness will have seen that the carrier strike group was out in the Indo-Pacific and is now back in the Mediterranean. There have been numerous round tables, conferences and industry events on the carrier, and on the ships with it, to promote growth. One of the ways to do that is by expanding our growth to the rest of the world.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I revert to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. When it comes to MoD procurement within the United Kingdom, there are two certainties: there is a £2.6 billion black hole in the defence budget and domestic procurement has virtually dried up. In addition to that, the defence investment plan appears to have evaporated. Can the Minister tell this House what is happening to put this country on to the Government’s much-vaunted phrase, “war readiness”?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the specific question of the defence investment plan, that will be published this year, so the noble Baroness and the House will not have to wait too long. It will lay out the investment decisions we are going to make. On the basis of a growing defence budget, that defence investment plan will lay out the sorts of capabilities we need and the decisions that will need to be made to ensure that we have war readiness. We need to learn from what has happened in Ukraine and look at the wars of the future. The defence investment plan will look to fight that war to ensure that we are war ready.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, in the two or three years after the end of the Cold War, around 150,000 jobs were lost in defence manufacturing. Everyone is right in hindsight, but now, looking back, that looks extremely short-sighted. Is there not now a need to reverse that process and expand our manufacturing base, at least as far as weapons manufacture is concerned, in this insecure world?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point, and of course he is right to say that. The total number of direct and indirect jobs supported through MoD expenditure with UK industry a couple of years ago was 272,000, which was up from 244,000 the year before—so defence is growing. Is it growing fast enough? We would all like to see it growing more quickly. But there is no doubt that the development of a UK defence industry is crucial to our defence and the defence of our allies.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

Noble Lords will recall the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier this year of £1.6 billion in contracts for Thales in Belfast to supply air defence missiles for Ukraine, creating 200 jobs in Northern Ireland. The deal also included the prospect of a further £500 million of additional work to be added in collaboration with the Ukrainian industry partner. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on progress, including how many new jobs have been delivered and whether the extra £200 million of work for Thales in Northern Ireland has been secured?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

One of the key points that the Government have pursued is to ensure that the increase in defence expenditure is felt across the nations and regions. Northern Ireland has secured significant sums of money: Thales, as the noble Lord mentioned, as well as other manufacturers, including small and medium-sized businesses. It is a massive success story for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland plays a huge role in the defence and security of our nation. There are huge numbers of jobs being created there, and there is a huge amount of investment taking place as well.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, as Defence Procurement Minister back in the 1990s, I recall receiving almost daily communications from No. 10 Downing Street. Does the present Prime Minister play any part?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me answer a couple of questions, and I hope it addresses the noble Lord’s point. The Prime Minister is very supportive of the defence industry and the development of this country and has supported that a great deal. He allows the defence industry and the MoD to carry on with their work. The important point is that he is very supportive of that, as noble Lords can see by the increase in the defence budget and the interest he takes in both defence and foreign affairs.

Caribbean: US Military Action

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of US military action in the Caribbean, including airstrikes on vessels and the threat to use force against Venezuela.

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

My Lords, recent US military action in the Caribbean and the Pacific, including strikes against boats allegedly involved in drug trafficking, is a matter for the United States. The depth of our defence relationship with the US remains an essential pillar of our security and we jointly recognise the significant threat that organised crime presents at home and abroad.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the US claims that the boat strikes are justifiable as acts in self-defence, and because it contends that there is an armed conflict with drug cartels. It is fair to say that very few outside the US Administration agree with those views. The Government have repeatedly said that their policies are guided by international law. Can the Government tell us what assessment they have made of the position under intentional law in respect of the boat strikes? Separately, a number of countries with which we have good relations, including Colombia, are being threatened by some of the US’s actions. What steps are we taking to defuse the risks?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising an important question. The position of the Government has not changed. We continue to state that the lawfulness of the strikes is a matter for the United States. That is our position and what we believe. The United Kingdom, as far as the Government are concerned, was not involved. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America, such as Colombia, and the Caribbean, in accordance with international law and the UN principles. If we are acting according to UN principles and the principles of international law, the UK Government can be proud of that.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it seems from all the media reports that the Attorney-General has struck again, now banning the sharing of intelligence with the US on this issue. I am sure that the Minister will not comment on whether the US has retaliated on this. To his credit, he has again today told the House of his commitment to national security and defence. Does he think that putting our crucial Five Eyes intelligence relationship under threat because of a debate over the US use of force against Caribbean drug smugglers is prioritising the security of this country?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government of the United Kingdom do prioritise the security of this country. We are acting in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. That is the guiding principle for the Government. As I have said time and time again from this Dispatch Box, the security relationship between the US and the UK is fundamental for this country, for Europe and for global security. That is the important principle to which this Government adhere. The noble Lord is smiling, but he agrees with that and he will know that that fundamental principle guides the actions of the Government.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows well that for many years we have been deeply involved in JIATF-East, the joint intelligence drugs task force in the Caribbean. We work very closely and share intelligence across the board. There is nothing strange in having over the years been selective sometimes in what intelligence is provided. We did that when we worked in Iraq and other places in the Middle East. It is not surprising. Would my noble friend agree that it is very important that we stay involved in stopping that drugs traffic, which is so destabilising, but that we must be very careful over what intelligence we share? That is nothing new. It is something that we have done over many years.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. At the end of the day, of course we must act according to the UN charter and international law. The UK Government do that. This is nothing new across the world, let alone between the US and the UK. We are always sensitive about intelligence sharing and about how much we discuss that.

My noble friend has highlighted the fact that the UK, along with our friends in the Caribbean and with the alliance with the US, acting in accordance with those principles of the UN Charter, has stopped hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of drugs coming out of that area of the world and into the US or Europe. Sometimes we should talk about that as much as we talk about other things.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the regime in Venezuela is authoritarian, represses dissidents and is probably involved in drug trafficking. Does that justify extrajudicial killing without evidence by our ally? If the Government have withheld intelligence, as the press reports say, we on these Benches welcome that, but can he clarify? Does he not recognise that when an ally loses trust or changes a relationship of trust to one of transaction, transactional decisions can go both ways?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

What I am saying to the noble Lord is a really important point. The lawfulness of the actions of the US is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, we act in that region in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. By doing that, we protect many people’s lives, in the United States, the rest of America and in Europe. That is something we ought to celebrate as well.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, what actual involvement do HMG have at present in Venezuela?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a very good question. What we have in Venezuela is an embassy in Caracas; we are the only Five Eyes member who has an embassy there. We make our points to the Government in Venezuela, but we also recognise the responsibility of having that embassy there and the importance of keeping it there so that we have a line of communication to all the parties in Venezuela. That embassy is extremely important.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I do not want to comment on this individual case, but my noble friend also knows that our intelligence sharing is governed by the Fulford principles, which came from a review of the consolidated guidance in 2019, which came out of the report of the ISC in 2018 into rendition and detention.

A principle, implemented by the Conservative Government at the time, is that we do not share intelligence if there is a likelihood that an individual is going to be extrajudicially killed or tortured. That is accepted by our international partners and well known and implemented by the security services. Does that not show that we have the highest regard for international law and that this was something the last Government were right to actually implement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point, and he is right to point out that the last Government implemented the particular review and the principles that he is referring to. All I am saying is that the lawfulness of the strikes that the US has conducted is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, what we are doing is consistent with international law and consistent with the principles of the UN charter, and that is something I am proud of with respect to our own Government.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is being uncharacteristically coy in declining to say the Government’s position on whether the extrajudicial killings are a breach of international law. Surely it is not simply a matter for the United States, as the Minister says. This Government have been very vocal in announcing their view of the conduct of other nations under international law, whether in Ukraine or in Gaza. Why not on this occasion?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government have not been coy at all in saying that international law should be adhered to. They have not been coy at all in what they have said about adherence to the UN charter and its principles. What I am trying to do, as a responsible Minister in a responsible Government, is deal with a difficult international situation and to say we have to be careful about what we say in terms of intelligence sharing. It is not in anybody’s interest sometimes to discuss these matters in the open, but what is important is for us to lay out the principles that the UK Government operate according to, and that is what I have done.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Government quite properly did not recognise the last Venezuelan election, which was marred by fraud and widespread human rights abuses. I ask the Minister whether, consistent with that decision, His Majesty’s Government have plans to make available the interest from the Venezuelan gold reserves in the Bank of England to the legitimate Government of Edmundo González, and whether they have any plans to evict the Chavista squatters from the Venezuelan embassy on the Cromwell Road.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to some of what the noble Lord has just said, and I do not think I even understand part of it; I have no idea of the road he has talked about, for example. I will review it and get back to him.

I will just lay out what the UK’s Venezuela policy is, because I think it is important to put this on the record: “Nicolás Maduro’s claim to power is fraudulent. The UK continues to call on the Venezuelan authorities to publish the results of the 2024 presidential election in full. This Government announced sanctions against 15 members of the Maduro regime last year, and the UK will continue to work with our international partners to achieve a negotiated transition in Venezuela. That is the only solution which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected”. That is the position of the Government. I hope that in part explains to the noble Lord what our position is, and more generally informs the House as well.

Ukraine

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That this House takes note of the situation in Ukraine.

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

My Lords, almost exactly 12 months ago, we debated Ukraine here in this Chamber. Let us once again proudly say that, in that time, there has been no weakening of our resolve or that of the British people to support Ukraine; no stepping back from our determination to stand up with our NATO allies and beyond for democracy and freedom; and, so importantly, no division among us—virtually unanimously, this party, all parties and none, as I look across this Chamber, and both this Government and the last Government stood up against Russian aggression. And we will see it through, as will the British people. NATO has been strengthened, not weakened, and Europe stands ready to do what it takes. Let that message resound from this Chamber today.

Twelve months ago, Ukrainians were approaching their third winter of courageous resistance, defending their homes and homelands against Putin’s full-scale invasion, including many women on the front line. Let me start by paying tribute to the Ukrainian people, their resolve, their determination and their bravery. They humble us all, bringing tears to our eyes, including mine, when you see this at first hand. Whatever our words today, let that always be at the forefront of our thoughts, and we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, the former Ukrainian ambassador, making his maiden speech today.

Today, as they approach their fourth winter, on a macro level, depressingly, the picture remains broadly unchanged. While, thanks to Ukrainian courage, determination and ingenuity, and support from allies, Putin has still not achieved any of his overall strategic war aims, Russian forces continue to ruthlessly wage his illegal war, continuing to inch forward in a full-frontal assault on Ukrainian sovereignty and international laws and norms.

Let us remember, as we debate this here in the beauty of this Chamber, proud of our democracy, that Putin is increasingly hitting and killing Ukrainian civilians, with, according to the UN, a 40% increase in the number of civilians harmed this year compared with last. He continues to send Russians to their death in horrifying numbers, coupled with the targeting of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure. These are sickening and cynical tactics that expose Putin’s comparative failures on the battlefield, where a long and increasingly blurred line of contact, and Ukrainian courage and ingenuity, have turned an invasion that Russian planners thought would be measured in days and kilometres into a quagmire, measured in years and metres. A special military operation to remove President Zelensky, take Ukraine and weaken Europe in days was the original intention—a puppet Government in Kyiv. A protracted war for four regions that Russia has proved itself incapable of taking has galvanised President Zelensky and, indeed, galvanised Europe.

Yet, behind this familiar big picture, much has changed over the last 12 months. The Government, with the overwhelming support of Parliament and the British public, have massively increased the scale of UK support for Ukraine as, together with partners, we have ramped up our sanctions to constrain Putin’s war machine, and after three and a half years of brutal and deadly war, the strength of Ukraine’s resistance and European resolve, coupled with the election of President Trump, have finally put peace talks on the agenda.

Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary outlined the latest tranche of UK sanctions designed to weaken Putin’s war machine and ensure that his thirst for war comes with a clear cost. She set out measures that outlawed 19 new Russia-related individuals and entities, including Russia’s two largest producers of oil—Rosneft and Lukoil. We warmly welcome President Trump’s decision to mirror those sanctions.

The latest UK sanctions package also targeted refineries around the world that import Russian oil, suppliers of drones and missile components, and 44 additional shadow fleet vessels, taking the total number of Russia-related individuals and entities sanctioned by the UK to over 2,900, including more than 500 shadow fleet vessels—more than any other country. That uptick in our Russia sanctions mirrors the uptick in our support for Ukraine.

To help get bomb-damaged power supplies back up and running, and help Ukraine through the winter, the Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in UK aid during her visit to Kyiv last month. To help protect Ukrainian civilians from Russia’s urban bombing campaign, ensure Ukraine can stay in the fight and secure a just and lasting peace from a position of strength on the battlefield, we have used interest from immobilised Russian sovereign assets to step up UK military support, with this year’s military package hitting £4.5 billion—the largest ever level 4 UK support for Ukraine.

We have invested £600 million this year to arm Ukraine’s forces with a variety of drones, which is on track to boost the number delivered by the UK from 10,000 in 2024 to 100,000 drones this year. The Defence Secretary’s 50-day delivery drive over the summer provided nearly 5 million rounds of small-arms ammunition and around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, along with drones, counterdrones and air defence equipment. Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we would continue to provide Ukraine with long-range capabilities and confirmed that the expansion of a UK missile-building programme will enable us to deliver 140 air defence missiles ahead of schedule—part of the £1.6 billion deal for more than 5,000 lightweight, multirole missiles that are being made by workers at Thales in Northern Ireland.

Over the last 12 months, we have also extended Operation Interflex, the multinational training operation that has now trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the UK, until at least the end of 2026. As a demonstration that the whole of Europe has stepped up military support for Ukraine, in the eight months since the Defence Secretary took on the role as co-chair of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, we have raised pledges of military aid totalling over £50 billion. Of course, we also continue to work with the United States.

Because Ukrainian resistance has turned a war that Russia thought it would win on the battlefield into a war of production, let us never again read of Ukraine retreating because of a lack of equipment. We are greatly intensifying our support for and collaboration with Ukraine’s defence industries, which are at the cutting edge of drone development and are building increasingly effective long-range strike capability. We have entered a new technology sharing agreement with the Ukrainian Government, an industrial partnership, to develop and advance a new air defence interceptor drone—co-operation that will boost our respective capabilities and also boost British jobs. That builds on the recent £200 million investment in the UK by Ukrspecsystems—one of Ukraine’s biggest drone-manufacturing companies—which will see the latest drone technologies being developed and manufactured in and around East Anglia, creating 500 jobs.

The intensification of our military support and co-operation should not be necessary, because, this month, President Trump again opened a door and invited President Putin to stop the fighting and pursue peace. President Zelensky is ready to order a ceasefire and step through that door. The UK and Ukraine’s other allies are ready to support negotiations and have advanced plans to support peace. But Putin stubbornly refuses, choosing instead to instruct Lavrov to shun President Trump’s call for meaningful negotiations towards a lasting peace and, just a day later, fire another barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and drones into Ukrainian cities, killing at least seven people, including a mother and her 12 year-old and six month-old daughters in Kyiv, and hitting a kindergarten full of children in Kharkiv, where one person was killed. Putin, again, chose war and civilian deaths over negotiations and peace.

Our Prime Minister, together with President Zelensky and 11 other prominent European leaders, issued an unequivocal joint statement in response to Putin’s latest rejection of President Trump’s diplomacy, insisting that Ukraine must be in the strongest possible position before, during and after any ceasefire, and that we must ramp up the pressure on Russia’s economy and defence industry until Putin is ready to make peace. That is why we so warmly welcome the new US and EU sanctions and why the UK and France continue to lead more than 30 nations in a coalition of the willing that will, in the event of a ceasefire, strengthen Ukraine’s path to peace and stability by deploying a multinational force for Ukraine, to secure Ukraine’s skies, secure safer seas and regenerate Ukraine’s forces.

Multinational force planning was discussed by the Prime Minister at the recent coalition meeting in London attended by President Zelensky. Command structures have long been agreed. Reconnaissance missions to Ukraine have been completed and the Defence Secretary has accelerated funding to ensure the UK force contingent is ready to go when called upon. UK and European partners are also working up options to use the full value of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine.

Today, we will debate battlefield tactics and strategies for peace. We will debate our support for Ukraine’s defence and how to ratchet up pressure on Putin’s war machine. We will debate how we stop Russia bombing civilians and—let us remember—how to reunite the thousands of abducted Ukrainian children with their parents, for which the First Lady of Ukraine deserves huge credit, as indeed does the First Lady of the United States. In 2025, children are being used as a weapon of war—what a disgrace, and what a shocking indictment of Putin and Russia.

It is beyond debate that Putin’s war remains illegal, immoral, unjust and unjustifiable. He could stop it today. In fact, he should stop it today, because rather than weakening Ukrainian statehood, Putin is galvanising it. Instead of turning a peaceful neighbour into a vassal state as he planned, he has turned Ukraine into one of Europe’s most capable military forces, which, after three and a half years of a brutal invasion, will never accept Russian rule or a Russian puppet Government. Each day that this war continues, Putin not only strengthens Ukrainian resolve but he also strengthens our resolve and the resolve of our allies and of our people. The last Government, this Government, all parties across this Chamber, and our European allies, remain in no doubt that democracy and the rules based international order matter, and that is what is at stake in Ukraine today.

Ukraine’s security is our security and Ukraine’s fight is our fight. The front line of European security runs through Ukraine. I am proud, as a UK Defence Minister, to say at the beginning of this debate that, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, this country has always stood up for freedom, democracy and human rights. We will never forget that, or the sacrifice of so many; a sacrifice that continues to inspire us today as those values are once again threatened by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Let it ring out from this Chamber today—however hard, however challenging, we can, we will, and we must prevail. Democracy, human rights and freedom demand it.

Undersea Cables: National Security Threat

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest: I was a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy earlier this year when we agreed to hold an inquiry into this subject.

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

My Lords, the Government keep the threat to undersea cables connected to the UK under close review, working to deter and mitigate identified risks. My noble friend will appreciate the limits to what can be said publicly, but the MoD constantly monitors activity within UK waters. This includes patrols conducted by Royal Navy assets, maritime patrol aircraft and the multi-role ocean surveillance programme. Following the strategic defence review, the Royal Navy will play a new leading and co-ordinating role, alongside the private sector, in securing undersea pipelines, cables and maritime traffic.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The House knows better than it did that undersea cables—not to mention the land cables under the City of London—are part of our critical national infrastructure because of the vital importance of the data they carry. The Joint Committee’s report said that “security vulnerabilities abound”. It recommended that we develop a UK-flagged sovereign repair ship, which the Royal Navy should practise escorting. Should we develop a seabed warfare strategy and, if so, what are the Government doing about it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly should develop one, and we are developing one. My noble friend is right to highlight that. We are undertaking a number of actions including surveillance aircraft from Lossiemouth, the ship “Proteus” looking at how it protects underwater assets, and the Royal Navy ship “Stirling Castle” looking at how it might operate drones from its deck to secure underwater pipelines, data cables and so on. We are doing a lot, but my noble friend is right to point out the importance of this.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, Ireland is a crucial hub for undersea infrastructure crossing the Atlantic, but it lacks the capabilities to defend against and be resilient to the destruction of that infrastructure. Moreover, its individual tailored partnership programme with NATO is coming increasingly under threat with recent political shifts in Irish leadership. What assessment have the Government made of the UK’s vulnerabilities to Ireland’s position, and what plans do they have for developing a resilience strategy in that regard in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. I wish to limit my answer, for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that we talk with our Irish colleagues about some of these threats. Wherever a threat may come from, we take measures to defend our homeland from it. That includes surveillance aircraft, developing underwater technology and working with private industry to see what we can do. We are taking a range of measures. The noble and gallant Lord can rest assured that we take all threats seriously, wherever they come from.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

While most of the undersea cables are privately owned, much of the servicing and upkeep need to be carried out by Governments. What co-operation do we have with Norway, which is seriously involved in protection—not only regarding wear and tear but against sabotage?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have huge co-operation with Norway, as we have with many other countries, to protect underwater cables. The noble Baroness will know of Baltic Sentry and Nordic Warden, specific things dealing with the Baltic and the North Sea and particular operations that we have undertaken to protect them. She is right to point out that Norway is a key ally for us in so many ways, not least in underwater provision. We work very closely with Norway.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that our vital undersea infrastructure—including gas pipelines, internet connectivity and electricity interconnectors—faces an ever-increasing hostile landscape. I kindly ask the Minister to comment on the agreement signed last week with Germany that will see eight German P-8 Poseidon submarine hunters based in the UK, specifically for the purpose not just of hunting submarines but of adding greater protection for our industry infrastructure.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing that out. In answer to all these questions, the Government are doing a lot to tackle the threat that we face. He specifically references the meeting that took place between the Defence Secretary and Defence Minister Pistorius from Germany at Lossiemouth. He will know the crucial part that Lossiemouth plays in the support for our various aircraft and other surveillance that takes place. He will know that Germany offered to bring some of its aircraft to visit Lossiemouth to work with our aircraft with respect to underwater surveillance and other surveillance tasks. That is an important step forward for us all.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given that the Minister has confirmed that he has had conversations with the Irish Government in relation to the undersea cables, can he confirm that, given all the threats that are out there, Northern Ireland is a strategic place for the United Kingdom, particularly the Port of Londonderry?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I confirm that the MoD has had discussions with Ireland, rather than me personally. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK while the people of Northern Ireland want that. The noble Baroness’s point with respect to the importance of protecting that, and the important part that it plays for the whole UK, is really important, and we will certainly take that on board and keep it on board.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Disruption to cables would have potentially huge effects on communications, data and so on—so too, incidentally, would disruption to the satellite systems on which we all depend. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation about raising the country’s awareness of the threats we face. Is there any plan to have a national exercise, involving large businesses as well as government departments, local authorities and local voluntary organisations, to prepare for a major communications or data disruption?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There are certainly plans to do exactly as my noble friend asks. There certainly needs to be work on those plans, and they need some more detail to them, but there certainly are plans to do that. I have said a number of times from this Dispatch Box that the threats we face from others are now different in many respects from the threats we faced in the past. The disruption to data, the disruption to energy supplies and the disruption to communication are all part of the threat that we now face. Clearly, we are going to have to do more as a homeland to stand up against that. Part of it will require a conversation with industry, the public and the defence sector in order to protect ourselves.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, following the line just observed by the Minister, in recent months the principal threat to United Kingdom infrastructure has been from cyberattacks, notably against Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer, Co-operative Group and Heathrow Airport. Can the Minister confirm that the National Cyber Security Centre, currently located within GCHQ, is adequately resourced to deal with what it recognises is an escalating challenge? How does the National Cyber Security Centre liaise with the CyberEM Command, now sitting within the Strategic Command in the MoD?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is a co-ordinating committee, whose name escapes me, that brings together all those various parts of government to which the noble Baroness has just referred to ensure that we have that co-ordinated defence and co-ordinated work that, as she rightly points out, we need. I would say, without going too far, that we see it as a major priority for the Government, which is why we have established that new command to defend ourselves against cyberattack, but we also need to work closely with private industry and private business to achieve that. Suffice it to say that it is a really important point and something we are working on very hard to ensure that we protect our country.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, following up on the question in relation to Ireland from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the Taoiseach set up a Ministerial Council on National Security earlier this year. What government-to-government conversations are going on to ensure either increased information sharing or that extra infrastructure investment for the security of those cables is more co-ordinated?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really important point. Clearly, we are in conversations with countries such as Ireland to ensure that we work as closely as we can with our friends to try to ensure that we have the protection we need. Suffice it to say that we need 360-degree protection.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure what the dozen or so cables that are under the Atlantic between the UK and the US carry, but if you are a UK business, what should you be preparing for in case these are cut? How long will these cables take to repair if there is an incident of that kind?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The repair record for this country is one of the best in the world. This sits with DESNZ and DSIT, as well as with the MoD, but I think the average repair is eight days. There is also a co-ordinated plan to ensure that were a cable, for whatever reason, not to continue to work in the way that it should, the companies responsible for that can reroute whatever is flowing through those cables. In that sense, we have a pretty good story to tell.

As far as the MoD is concerned, we work to ensure that people know that should they threaten us, we have deterrents. In answer to my noble friend who sits on the Joint Committee, it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that we also operate a policy of deterrence, and we certainly try to do that.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Swire (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

Nuclear Regulatory System

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

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

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

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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