Ukraine and Russia
Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Antrobus(1Â week, 6Â days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their overall constructive remarks and rightful challenge to the Government.
As both noble Lords started by saying, the House will be aware that a member of the UK Armed Forces died in a road traffic incident in Ukraine on Saturday 12 September. I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending our deepest condolences to the individual’s family, loved ones and colleagues in the Armed Forces at this difficult and tragic time. Further details are expected to be released in due course. However, I must reiterate that this incident was not the result of hostile action.
Over the weekend and into this week, noble Lords will have seen reports of continued Russian long-range attacks, including on gas and rail infrastructure near the Ukraine-Poland border, as mentioned by the noble Earl. We saw yet another Russian drone incursion overnight into Lithuania, which prompted a swift response from allies, particularly the Italians. These reckless and dangerous strikes against civilian infrastructure underline the wider security threat that Russia poses to Europe.
The UK continues to stand firmly with Ukraine. I am proud that support for Ukraine continues to unite this House. I genuinely thank the noble Earl and the noble Baroness for their comments on that and the noble Earl for his points about the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence. In that spirit, we remember that the last Government also stood steadfast in their commitment to Ukraine and to defending it against the illegal invasion by Russia. That political unity is of such immense importance to the way that Russia sees our response. That is true of the last Government, this Government and support right across this House. It is something that we should never tire of saying, because it is repeated time and time again with our adversaries.
That is why at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group earlier this month we announced that we will contribute a further ÂŁ100 million towards PURL to support the delivery of Patriot missiles and other air defence equipment. We reaffirmed our commitment to provide more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine over the year. In total, the United Kingdom has committed ÂŁ25 billion to Ukraine. That includes nearly 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition, more than 1 million artillery shells, more than 100,000 drones and thousands of air defence missiles and armoured vehicles. We must remind ourselves that, if Putin has achieved anything through this war, it has been to strengthen NATO, strengthen the West and weaken Russia.
I have started with a few introductory remarks before answering specific questions because it is important to lay some of that on the table and to repeat it in your Lordships’ House. I will deal with defence spending towards the end. On small and medium-sized enterprises, they form a major part of the Government’s attempts to ensure that we have the defence industrial base that we need now and for the future. Both noble Lords and many others will know that small and medium-sized businesses provide the agility that sometimes the larger companies cannot. There is an issue around regulations, which they have no doubt continually raised. We will see what we can do to ensure that those small and medium-sized enterprises can develop as quickly as possible. The noble Earl asked about munitions factories. Feasibility studies for future energetics facilities are due to report later this month, while construction of new UK energetics facilities is planned to commence later this year. I hope that answers the specific point on munitions factories.
On the Falkland Islands, there was a very well-attended, thoughtful and united discussion and debate in your Lordships’ House last week. The Government, all noble Lords and the other place reiterated our strong commitment to the protection of the Falkland Islands and a reminder to everyone that their sovereignty is a matter for the Falkland Islands themselves. We will support them in that. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has had the opportunity of going there—I am sure some Members of the House have—to see the defence base, with its Typhoon jets, air defence system, troops and other defence equipment that are there to protect the Falkland Islands. I just highlight that that is purely from a defensive posture. That remains the Government’s position, as it has been our country’s position for decades.
On the Russian threat, to try to make the point for the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and to make the issue real for us all, I will highlight some of the statistics. NATO has scrambled aircraft over 700 times in the past two years to intercept Russian aircraft that were approaching allies’ airspace. The current rate of Russian long-range aviation in the High North is the highest in six years. I think it is helpful to give some of these statistics. Russian aircraft and drones have violated airspaces across multiple NATO countries and UK aircraft have experienced GPS jamming. There has been a 30% increase in Russian vessels threatening UK waters in the past two years. The Navy escorted Russian vessels for 21 days in July and activations to monitor Russian activity are up 25% in the first eight months of 2026 compared with 2025. Just to give your Lordships’ House a flavour of the threat from Russia, there have been over 90,000 attempted cyber attacks in a year on UK defence networks, with a large proportion coming from Russian-speaking actors.
I hope that is helpful to the House, because we are not hiding that there is a very real threat. This takes us to the whole discussion about defence spending. I do not think we should dismiss the fact that the Government have increased defence spending; there is an argument about the pace and the amount, but they have significantly increased it. The ÂŁ15 billion being announced in-year was a significant thing for a Government to do. As some noble Lords who have had more experience of government than I have will know, to change a budget in the middle of the budgetary year is quite difficult. Finding ÂŁ15 billion from other government departments to increase the Ministry of Defence budget was quite a significant change. I have made that point to your Lordships before.
The final piece of that jigsaw is the ÂŁ4.7 billion that will be provided in the Autumn Budget that is coming up. I do not know whether anybody in this House has had this, but a number of people in the other House have had experience of changes being made to budgets in local areas to fund defence causing some controversy. That shows that we need to win that debate about increased defence spending. As the noble Earl knows, the Government will lay out the trajectory to 3.5% by 2035 at the spending review next spring. At some point, clearly, 3% will be passed, but when that actually is will be laid out by the Chancellor in the Budget next year.
On national security and social security, of course we want to see a reduced social security bill because it means that more people will be back to work, be active and all those sorts of things. With the Government’s “back to work” campaign and the various measures there, hopefully we will see a reduction in that budget. National security remains the prime duty of government, but as well as winning the debate in here, we have to win the debate with people out there and show that any changes to the social security budget, and any reductions that may or may not be made, will not be done at the expense of the people who depend on those funds, but that we also have that money available to spend on defence in the way that we would want and in a way which is supported by the population of this country. I suggest that that debate still has to be won with some sectors of our population and we should not take that for granted.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)
My Lords, we now have 20 minutes for questions from the Back Bench. I remind noble Lords to keep their remarks brief and to ask a question, so that we can get in as many contributions as possible.
EU Security Action for Europe Programme
Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Antrobus(2Â months, 1Â week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, we remain committed to co-operating where it is in the national interest to do so, as I said. The noble Lord is right to point out that it is in all our interests for Europe to co-operate on industry and defence to generate the interoperability that we need to cope with any threat from Russia. That takes place within the overall umbrella of NATO. As he and all noble Lords know, the defence industry is a vital component of any means by which we deter any adversary; for them to believe that we can arm and supply the troops we put on the front line is crucial.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, in this week of the Farnborough air show, and following the excellent Global Air & Space Chiefs’ Conference last week, which I attended, does the Minister agree that these opportunities for us to bring together our European counterparts and, importantly, European industries are significant events in our annual calendar?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Alongside our failure to get an agreement on the SAFE project, as the noble Lord, Lord Teveson, highlighted through his Question, there are numerous initiatives taking place and numerous things happening. My noble friend is right to point out the Farnborough air show, which brings together industry from across Europe and across the globe. It is at those sorts of events where industry can co-operate to provide the equipment and resources that we need to deter any threat. You can see initiative after initiative, and I may get the opportunity to lay them out further on this Question, where we and other European countries have come together to establish defence agreements which take forward all our defence needs.
UK Defence Capability
Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Antrobus(3Â months, 2Â weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Yes, I really do. If people feel that their country, their livelihood, their families and way of life are threatened, and they understand that, I think people will. I am sure there will be a small minority who will not, including some conscientious objectors and others who may not have that view, but I take the view that the context is everything. If people feel threatened, I believe passionately that the British people, as they always have done, will defend their democracy, their homes and their family.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s point about the national conversation, only last week I was briefed on research showing that senior military leaders and the heads of the security services have a particularly significant impact with the public when they talk in the media about the threats that we face. Does my noble friend agree that it would be beneficial for the national conversation that he is now responsible for, and which we need to have, if we could hear more from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the other service chiefs?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have always been of the view that in many situations—my noble friend has served, so she will know this—a military uniform gives a legitimacy to things that are said. That is quite right because, over many centuries, people have felt that those in military uniform have earned the right to be heard, and they believe that those people speak with integrity. In direct answer to my noble friend’s question, using all military personnel—not just senior personnel but military personnel of every rank, in their local communities and areas, including the reserves, and even cadets talking to other young people—in terms of a national conversation would be an immensely powerful thing to do. I shall make sure that we do that.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Antrobus(5Â months, 1Â week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that the reserves are an essential part of the defence of our nation; they will be an increasing part of the defence of our nation. As such, they deserve a budget which matches the responsibility they are going to be given.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, on Tuesday, my noble friend the Minister called on all sides of the House to come together to deal with the threats we face. However, my noble friend Lord Robertson this week called out the lack of engagement of the Liberal Democrats and Reform, who did not respond to his offer—at least until this week—to brief them on the strategic defence review. The Green Party is at best, if I am being charitable, ambivalent about NATO. What needs to be done to bring all sides together in the face of the toughest compounding circumstances in decades? It is apparent, from recent conversations, that noble Lords on all sides care and think deeply about this issue.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The point I was trying to make on Tuesday—I am happy to reiterate it—is that the threat we face needs the country to respond as a whole. The Government’s responsibility, working with others, is to ensure that the population understand that threat and the increasing nature of it. I think that, in response to that, we can expect everyone to come together, as our country always does.
Atlantic Undersea Cables: Russian Subsurface Operations
Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Antrobus(5Â months, 2Â weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Antrobus
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the Armed Forces in deterring Russian sub-surface operations threatening Atlantic undersea cables.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, as demonstrated by the operation that the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, our Armed Forces are continually ready to respond to threats against our and our allies’ critical undersea infrastructure. We are further supporting our Armed Forces in this effort by: launching the Atlantic Bastion programme, which will create an advanced hybrid naval force; providing an extra £100 million for vital P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft; and working closely with NATO allies, including delivering the Lunna House agreement with Norway to build a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and uncrewed systems.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that taking a more overt approach to highlighting Russian aggression is necessary to send a message that attempts to attack critical undersea infrastructure will be called out and attributed to Russia, and to ensure that the public are fully aware of the dangers that we face from our primary adversary? Additionally, given that the UK military operation lasted for more than a month and involved 500 British personnel, 450 flying hours and several thousand nautical miles sailed, does he acknowledge that our Armed Forces are confronting the most challenging security circumstances in decades, and that we must all understand better that this is no longer a world of isolated crises but one of interconnected threats?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend about interconnected threats. The important thing that flows from her Question is that, notwithstanding our focus on Iran, on Ukraine, quite rightly, and on many other operations across the world, it is a tribute to our Armed Forces personnel that they recognised the threat they found in the north Atlantic and responded to it. It is important that we demonstrate that to Russia, which, as my noble friend rightly said, is a major threat to us. As I have said from this Dispatch Box time and again, part of the Armed Forces response—and the response we need from our NATO allies—is to deter people from taking action against us, knowing that there will be consequences should they break international law or threaten us. The action we took in the north Atlantic on the attempted covert operation of those submarines was a tribute to all of us and to our country.
UK Homeland Defence
Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Antrobus(6Â months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As the noble Viscount will know, discussions continue around that. As the British public consider the threats that they face and the turmoil in certain parts of the world, there will be an interesting debate about that. From talking to many people who, frankly, do not share the noble Viscount’s opinion, I know that they would rather see money spent on other things—health, pensions, schools, children and so on—but my view is that the first priority of government is that to defend your country. Some of the rights that everybody enjoy are there only because of the people who fought in the past. Hopefully, nobody will have to fight again, but let us remember that and remember that it needs defence funding to fund it.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, I would argue that societal resilience is very much part of a country’s aura—how it comes across to its adversaries and how it is perceived—and that adds to our deterrence presence. Some of us heard from President Zelenksy last week about what it is like to live in constant fear of attack from the air and how that affects everything in life. Reinforcing the point that my noble friend made in questions, now is the perfect time to use the opportunity—that is a terrible word, but the fact is that we are seeing what is playing out in the Middle East—to have a direct conversation with the public, this week, next week and over the next few weeks, because they are focused on this and it is super urgent that we do that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is very urgent to have that conversation. I think everybody understands and accepts that. I go back to the noble Lord’s point about defence spending; it requires that conversation, so that will take place. To pick up the other point, I have said time and again from this Dispatch Box that NATO, we and many of our friends and allies need to rediscover the theory of deterrence. You prevent war by preparing for war. You prevent war by people believing that you will actually respond if they break international law. That is a really important point. The rediscovery of deterrence is important. My noble friend’s point about having a national conversation is really important.