Lord Coaker - Alert Sample

Alert Sample

View the Parallel Parliament page for Lord Coaker

Information between 4th March 2025 - 14th March 2025

Note: This sample does not contain the most recent 2 weeks of information. Up to date samples can only be viewed by Subscribers.
Click here to view Subscription options.

Calendar
Monday 24th March 2025 3:45 p.m. Ministry of Defence Lord Coaker (Labour - Life peer) Legislation - Grand Committee Subject: Armed Forces Commissioner Bill – committee stage (day 2) Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View calendar - Add to calendar

Division Votes
4 Mar 2025 - Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 163 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 213 Noes - 249
4 Mar 2025 - Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 155 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 200 Noes - 236
4 Mar 2025 - Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 160 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 214 Noes - 248
5 Mar 2025 - Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 139 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 228
5 Mar 2025 - Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 131 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 146 Noes - 189
5 Mar 2025 - Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 143 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 86 Noes - 159
5 Mar 2025 - Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 137 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 174 Noes - 207
11 Mar 2025 - Football Governance Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 167 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 224 Noes - 267
11 Mar 2025 - Football Governance Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 152 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 8 Noes - 168
11 Mar 2025 - Football Governance Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 167 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 203 Noes - 257
11 Mar 2025 - Football Governance Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 160 Labour No votes vs 1 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 181 Noes - 234
11 Mar 2025 - Football Governance Bill [HL] - View Vote Context Lord Coaker voted No - in line with the party majority and in line with the House One of 116 Labour No votes vs 0 Labour Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 43 Noes - 120

Speeches
Lord Coaker speeches from: Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report) Lord Coaker contributed 3 speeches (2,767 words) Thursday 6th March 2025 - Grand Committee Ministry of Defence
Lord Coaker speeches from: Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Lord Coaker contributed 5 speeches (5,182 words) 2nd reading Wednesday 5th March 2025 - Lords Chamber Ministry of Defence
Lord Coaker speeches from: UK Defence: Hypersonic Missiles Lord Coaker contributed 9 speeches (1,125 words) Monday 3rd March 2025 - Lords Chamber Ministry of Defence

Lord Coaker mentioned

Live Transcript
Note: Cited speaker in live transcript data may not always be accurate. Check video link to confirm.
6 Mar 2025, 12:17 p.m. - House of Lords "Trade Bill, when Lord Coaker had an amendment to prescribe the IRGC, " Lord Polak (Conservative) - View Video - View Transcript
5 Mar 2025, 8:34 p.m. - House of Lords "Lord Coaker and the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust scheme is what we should take part in and I had the " Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party) - View Video - View Transcript
5 Mar 2025, 8:34 p.m. - House of Lords ">> It is thanks to the Minister and Lord Coaker and the Armed Forces " Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party) - View Video - View Transcript

Parliamentary Debates
Iranian State Threats 29 speeches (4,448 words) Thursday 6th March 2025 - Lords Chamber Home Office Mentions: 1: Lord Polak (Con - Life peer) I even voted with the Labour Party on the Trade Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, had an amendment - Link to Speech
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 46 speeches (25,268 words) 2nd reading Wednesday 5th March 2025 - Lords Chamber Ministry of Defence Mentions: 1: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green - Life peer) My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his introduction to the Bill. - Link to Speech 2: Lord Russell of Liverpool (XB - Excepted Hereditary) The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was the person who suggested that I should immediately go and take part - Link to Speech

Parliamentary Debates

Iranian State Threats
29 speeches (4,448 words)
Thursday 6th March 2025 - Lords Chamber
Home Office

Mentions:
1: Lord Polak (Con - Life peer) I even voted with the Labour Party on the Trade Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, had an amendment - Link to Speech

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
46 speeches (25,268 words)
2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 - Lords Chamber
Ministry of Defence

Mentions:
1: Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green - Life peer) My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his introduction to the Bill. - Link to Speech
2: Lord Russell of Liverpool (XB - Excepted Hereditary) The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was the person who suggested that I should immediately go and take part - Link to Speech

Written Answers

Armed Forces: Complaints
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Monday 10th March 2025

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Coaker on 14 February (HL4757), what assessment the Service Complaints Ombudsman has made, if any, of (1) the average to time required to process a service complaint, and (2) how many different transfers between individuals a single complaint may pass.

Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)

Statistics regarding the timeliness and average time taken to close a Service Complaint can be found in the annual statistical tables published by the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF). The tables can be round below.

Whilst the SCOAF has not made a specific assessment on the transfers that take place between individuals during the course of a Service Complaint, the implementation of a new Service Complaints Case Management System and the introduction of regular workshops between the Services and the SCOAF will ensure that working practices are standardised.

Service Complaints Ombudsman For the Armed Forces Annual Statistical Tables

Table 1.13a: Average¹ time taken² to complete³ ⁴ ⁵ an investigation,
by case type and year closed, 2018-2023
Year	Admissibility Decision	ADM_RevChk	Undue Delay	DEL_RevChk	Maladministration	MAL_RevChk	Substance	SUB_RevChk
2018⁴	6.1	ʳ	5.7	ʳ	60	ʳ	58	ʳ
2019⁵	3.7	ʳ	3.7	ʳ	78	ʳ	75	ʳ
2020⁵	3.4	ʳ	3.7	ʳ	81	ʳ	82	ʳ
2021⁵	3.8	ʳ	4.2	ʳ	52	52
2022⁵	3.9	ʳ	4.1	ʳ	34	34
2023⁵	3.2		3.5		28		28
% annual change 2023	-18%		-15%		-18%		-18%
ʳ revised from Annual Statistical Tables 2022
¹ Mean.
² Number of weeks.
³ Includes the time an investigation is delayed by when it is unallocated to an investigator.
⁴ Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review.
⁵ Excludes investigation applications declined at triage.
Source: SCOAF casework
Table 1.13b: Average¹ time² a caseworker had spent on a (completed) investigation³ ⁴ ⁵
by case type and year closed, 2018-2023
Year	Admissibility Decision	ADM_RevChk	Undue Delay	DEL_RevChk	Maladministration	MAL_RevChk	Substance	SUB_RevChk
2018³	3.7	3.4	56	54
2019⁴	2.7	2.7	39	33
2020⁴	2.5	2.9	25	24
2021⁴	2.6	3.2	20	20
2022⁴	2.5	2.7	17	17
2023⁴	2.1	2.6	14	14
% annual change 2023	-16%		-4%		-18%		-18%
¹ Mean.
² Number of weeks.
³ Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review.
⁴ Excludes investigation applications declined at triage.
Source: SCOAF casework
Table 1.13c: Average¹ time² a completed investigation³ ⁴ ⁵
had spent unallocated to caseworker, by case type and year of closure, 2018-2023
Year	Admissibility Decision	ADM_RevChk	Undue Delay	DEL_RevChk	Maladministration	MAL_RevChk	Substance	SUB_RevChk
2018³	2.4	2.3	4	4
2019⁴	1.0	1.0	39	42
2020⁴	0.9	0.8	57	58
2021⁴	1.2	1.0	32	32
2022⁴	1.4	1.4	16	17
2023⁴	1.2		1.0		14		14
% annual change 2023	-14%		-29%		-13%		-18%
¹ Mean.
² Number of weeks.
³ Includes investigations closed at the mid investigation case review.
⁴ Excludes investigation applications declined at triage.
Source: SCOAF casework

Bill Documents
Mar. 13 2025 HL Bill 63 Running list of amendments – 13 March 2025 Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Amendment Paper Found: LORD COAKER _ Schedule 2, page 14, line 27, at end insert— “21A In section 340N— (a) in subsection
Mar. 12 2025 HL Bill 63 Running list of amendments – 12 March 2025 Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Amendment Paper Found: Schedule 2 LORD COAKER ★_ Schedule 2, page 14, line 27, at end insert— “21A In section 340N— (a)