Future Capability of the Armed Forces
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(1 week, 6 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, it is a great privilege to respond to this debate. I thank everyone for taking part and I will try to respond to many of their points. I start by declaring an interest: my son-in-law is currently mobilised as a reserve, so I just make your Lordships aware of that.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on introducing this debate, on the way he did it and on his own service. We all recognise the importance of that. He made the point that the Armed Forces, the defence of our country and our work with allies and friends is not a party-political matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, demonstrate. It is about how we challenge each other to deliver the best defence that the country needs. That is an extremely important point for all of us, and I am very grateful that it is the attitude across the Chamber.
I will answer some of the specific points from the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, then move to some other matters. It is important to say at the start that, although much of this debate has been about the future capabilities laid out in the defence investment plan—we can debate and discuss whether it has all the right measures in it to develop our future capabilities and the spending that we will need for them—the concern expressed by many in this debate is about the capabilities that we have now and how we will develop them. That is an interesting debate. I am going to commission the Ministry of Defence to produce a paper that demonstrates what we are doing now and what we intend to do over the next two or three years, and I will put a copy of that in the Library. That will help, because it is important for us to have concrete examples of the sorts of things that are being done now and the sorts of capabilities that the MoD and the Government are saying we will have in the next year, the next two years and so on—not only that but some of the changes that we need to make and things we need to do. That shows that this debate is making a positive contribution to the sorts of things that we are seeking.
I will point to many of the things that are happening, for those who watch and listen to our debates. A number of people have asked what we are doing about Russia at the moment. We have an aircraft carrier in the north Atlantic with F35s all over it and other things around it, deterring the Russians with our NATO friends and allies. What are we doing in the Middle East? RFA “Lyme Bay” is there with a Type 45 destroyer, preparing itself for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, I hope. A noble Lord mentioned the Baltic states, and we currently have troops in Estonia. Others mentioned the nuclear deterrent. It is quite rightly being modernised at the present time, which is costing billions of pounds, but is a deterrent not only in Europe but across the world and it contributes to peace. All those things are going on at the current time.
We have Typhoons on quick-reaction alert, in case of incursions or threats to our airspace. It is quite right to challenge what needs to be done now and what should happen in the future. All I say in defence—this will be the only time that I am defensive about this—is that we ought to say to our adversaries alongside this, “We have capabilities that we are using at the present time to deter and to defend our people”. I know that that is accepted, and that there is a belief that we need to do more, but that is the challenge for the Government now and in the future. I hope that the paper that I will commission, a copy of which I will put in the Library, will help.
I come specifically to two or three of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. He asked about the £4.7 billion gap, as I think he described it. The Treasury clearly confirmed to me, in preparing for this debate, that a further £4.7 billion will be confirmed in the 2026 Budget in a fair and balanced way. That is the information that I have had from the Treasury.
On the question of the ambition for the reserves, the noble Lord knows what is in the Armed Forces Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House. Investment is going into the infrastructure, training and equipment needed to support the reserves, and we recognise the importance of that.
I have answered the point about what we are going to do about current priorities. I think the paper will be of interest not only to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, but to all of us more generally, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as the Front-Bench spokespeople for their respective parties. As the shadow Defence Minister for His Majesty’s Opposition, the noble Baroness I think will find it very helpful.
I fundamentally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that you prevent war by preparing for it. I do not like thinking that, but it is a crucial point. A national conversation is important, as a number of noble Lords have said, and soft power is crucial. I wrote the defence diplomacy strategy in the Defence Investment Plan, along with my department, and I shared it with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, just before publication. It talks about the importance of soft power and developing those relationships with other countries, as well as hard power, of course. The idea that it is a choice—that you have one or the other—is nonsense. You have to have both alongside each other.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I appreciate that, and the Minister and other Ministers frequently say that, but the reality is that the British Council is nearly bankrupt, the BBC is struggling and our diplomatic forces are being reduced. On that particular point, can he feed back to the Government that, if we do not have diplomats on the ground, we are not able to influence the world?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will feed that back to the department. All I am saying is that there is now a much more co-ordinated, effective diplomatic strategy that links the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence together to deliver the objectives that the noble Lord wants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made the point about immediate threats. I hope that putting a paper together and putting in the Library will answer the particular questions she asked about what we are doing about those immediate threats, as well as future threats. I say to her that there are difficult decisions to be made. She made difficult decisions when she was in government. This Government made the really difficult decision to replace the Type 83 and Type 32 with the common combat vessel. That will help develop the hybrid Navy that we will need, rather than continuing with vessels that we were advised by the military advisers will not meet the threat in 10 or 15 years’ time. To have a warship that can deliver drone capability, above the surface, on the surface and below, increases the mass available to tackle the threats we face. That is the hybrid Navy concept.
We had the debate and we said, “We’re going to get criticised, you know? They’re going to say, ‘There you go, you’re cutting ships. You’ve taken away this capability and that capability’”. All I would say is that, if I have to take some criticism by doing that with others, because we believe that opens up the opportunity to create the Navy we need, I am willing to take that criticism.
However, I fundamentally agree with the point the noble Baroness made that drones are not the only answer. Of course you need warships, fighter planes and land vehicles—all those things are fundamental—but, alongside that, you need the increased capacity of drones.
On being optimistic, I know that a number of noble Lords were at the retirement of Pedro Serrano, the brilliant EU ambassador to the UK, who said:
“The United Kingdom is one of the most important military powers in Europe with a very important defence industry. If we’re going to be successful, we will be successful together”.
I spotted that when I read the Financial Times, as I normally do in the morning, and I thought, “I’m going to use that”. I am not being sarcastic. In the article, he points to the fact that the UK has joined the €60 billion EU defence loan scheme for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, asked me what the Government were doing to open up opportunities with respect to Ukraine. There is one example that I hope specifically answers the question the noble Lord raised.
I thank my noble friend Lady Carberry for her points about the importance of the defence industry, Rolls-Royce and SMEs. She is absolutely right.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a crucial point about RDEL and CEDL. He has made this point to me before. We made this point in the defence investment plan. I have the figures here. In 2026-27, RDEL was increased by £2.1 billion and CEDL was increased by £0.7 billion, so there was a significant uplift of RDEL rather than CEDL. Next year, it will be £1.6 billion compared to £1.2 billion. We absolutely accept the point about RDEL and CEDL, the necessity to focus not just on capital projects and the importance of resource allocation.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, about partnering more with private capital to try to do that—the defence bond argument—alternative financial mechanisms to support what we do are crucial.
I wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark well for the future. In his valedictory speech, he reminded us of the importance of international humanitarian law. That is important to our country and our democracy. We understand the need to use force sometimes, but we question ourselves about whether we have the legal basis to do so, and I think we should commend ourselves for trying to act, sometimes with force, in a legal way. I wish him well for the future. We all struggle with moral dilemmas, so I look forward to him struggling with that and trying to help others with respect to that when he preaches.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who spoke about the importance of soft and hard power. He and I have talked long and hard about that. Soft power is crucial, but it is not, as I said before, a choice, as he agrees, between soft and hard power. I totally agree with him about the speed of procurement and trying to deliver things much more quickly. I hope the paper that I am going to ask to be put in the Library will help answer some of the points on that. He asked about the defence readiness Bill. It will be in this Parliament, and it is being worked on as we speak.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about complementary groups under NATO. NATO is the crucial umbrella, but underneath that you can have other organisations, such as JEF or whatever, as long as it complements NATO—I think that is particularly important. The role of the US remains crucial. That is the only point I would say. We have to retain the strategic alliance with the US.
National Shipbuilding Strategy
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord will know as well as I do that if you went to Belfast a few years ago, as I did many times, you saw a derelict shipyard with nothing there. Now, you see investment going into Harland & Wolff and orders being placed there for the building of ships. It is a great credit to the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Belfast that this is happening. The Government are investing in shipbuilding.
On skills, which the noble Lord mentioned, he will know that Northern Ireland was given a growth deal, which can be used for skills. He will also know that just a couple of days ago, Queen’s University Belfast became part of the Defence Universities Alliance, which will also help with that. The blunt reality is that we need to invest money in our shipyards across the UK. We are doing that in Belfast, as well as other areas in the country.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we have more ships tied up than at sea. That was witnessed by the lack of a ship in the Med at the start of this recent conflict and the delay in mobilising HMS “Dragon”. Where is the urgency in covering that gap? Also, with no replacement for our destroyers, how are we going to protect ourselves against the growing threat of ballistic missiles?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
One of the things we are doing was announced yesterday by my colleague from the other place in Faslane: £26 billion of investment over the next 10 years into naval bases across the whole UK, so that we can improve the availability of our ships. We also need investment in our shipyards, which is taking place. That is one of the ways we are seeking to do this. We will improve availability, but it will take some time. On the Type 45 destroyers and their replacement, we are looking to the Navy of the future, which will have air defence and ways of dealing with the threats we face—but in a different way from simply replacing our existing warships.
Russian Shadow Fleet
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the boarding of the “Smyrtos” was conducted speedily, efficiently and without any casualties. It is a real credit to our Armed Forces. We all agree that it was a very impressive effort, and we should be grateful to them, but it is the first that has happened, as the noble Baroness has pointed out. My understanding is that the “Smyrtos” was operating under a Cameroonian flag, but Cameroon abruptly purged 36 shadow fleet vessels from its shipping registry last week. Can I ask where the other 35 are, and indeed who is pursuing them, and who is going to take any action to block them, deter them or prevent them from completing their journey towards Russia? What are we doing, either by ourselves or in co-ordination with others, to ensure that collectively we stop this shadow fleet? If you are talking about that number of ships, there is a huge amount of oil that is still being got through to Russia and that Russia is using to finance the Ukraine war.
On the oil that has been seized—which I think is 100,000 tonnes—what will happen to that? I assume that it will be sold on the market, but will those funds go to Ukraine to compensate it for the war? I hope the Government will consider that. Does this not also raise the case to lift the waiver on Russian fossil fuels now, rather than at the end of the year? Is it not quite ironic that we are launching military escapades to capture shadow ships while at the same time allowing oil to go to Russia legally? That is a huge contradiction, and a total lack of common sense. So I ask the Government: what are we doing to try to eliminate this shadow fleet—not by ourselves, but collectively with our allies? What are we doing to end the Russians’ waiver and apply the sanctions? Can we ensure that any oil seized is used for the benefit of the Ukraine war effort?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the comments that they have made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness for her thanks—and I know it is a sentiment shared by us all—to our Armed Forces for the work that they did. It is important that we recognise that, as well as the military, specialist officers from the National Crime Agency were involved. I know that noble Lords will join me in thanking them for the work that they did as well.
I will share a factual update which may be of use to the House, before I come to the questions that have been posed by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. One Indian national who was the captain of the ship has been arrested and is currently at Bournemouth police station. There were a further 24 Georgian and Indian crew on the vessel. The ship has been seized and is currently off Weymouth, and all those 24 members of the crew remain on the ship. The ship, having been seized, is now under the control of the Department for Transport. Many noble Lords will be aware of some of those facts, but they are worth repeating for the awareness of noble Lords, and there may be questions that will come from them.
I am not sure that I am going to do a lot better than my right honourable friend in the other place—I am not sure that the noble Baroness expects me to—but the situation is that the Prime Minister made the statement about acting when all the circumstances aligned, and when preparations were made. It was based on the briefing from the military and others that this was the right time to act, and it was a time when we could act. In the way that it was conducted, no shots were fired, and nobody was injured or hurt, but it was the right time to act, and that is why we did. That is the answer to the noble Baroness’s question; I am not sure that she will be totally satisfied, but that is the answer.
As far as I am aware, there has been no problem with respect to the law or being held back because of the law. The Government have always said we will act in accordance with the law, and there has been no barrier to action with respect to that. This operation was conducted totally in accordance with the law.
In answer to the noble Baroness’s question about whether this was a one-off, no, it was not a one-off. This was a purely UK personnel operation, and we will take action at any point, should it be appropriate. If the advice that we receive from our military and others is that it is appropriate, of course we will act.
The noble Baroness is right to say that the action was a deterrent. Some ships were immediately rerouted, with some veering off around the English Channel past Cornwall. It is my understanding, as she is right to point out, that other ships moved around the top of Scotland. We keep under consideration any other activity that we may wish to undertake.
I stress the importance of the noble Baroness’s point that we must show that we will act. It is important for others to hear that from this Chamber. We will act when all the circumstances are right, when all the legalities are in place, when the military capability is there and when the military advice that we receive says that it is appropriate to do so. None the less, the noble Baroness’s point about deterrence is really important, so I say again that this should not be seen as a one-off. The Government will act, with the support of everyone, where that action is appropriate.
More generally, on the noble Lord’s point, we have sanctioned 570 ships and we assess that some 200 of them have been restrained to port—in other words, they have become non-operational. I am aware of the actions to which the noble Lord referred, but sanctioning ships is also important.
In answer to the noble Lord’s question, of course we always work with others. We liaised with others on this operation, but it was led by the UK. He will know of other operations off our own coast, where we supported the Americans, and recently in the Mediterranean, where we supported the French. There is a lot of work going on, in which we act in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
We work hard to ensure that we do all we can to impact Russia economically. In this respect, it is oil, but there are other ways to ensure that we undermine Russia economically to have an impact on the war in Ukraine and to ensure the defence of our own country. What happens to the oil will be considered by the Department for Transport, which will no doubt have heard the noble Lord’s point on that.
The noble Baroness made a point at the end of her question about resources. I cannot add a lot to what I have already said on that, other than to repeat a point that I often make: the defence budget has gone up. From memory, it was approximately £60 billion in 2024-25, and it will be £73 billion in 2028-29. That is before we get the uplift from whatever happens with the DIP and, following the Prime Minister’s comments to the BBC, the spending review in 2027, when defence will be the number one priority.
We should be under no illusion about the actions that we have seen recently and the many others that we have seen in the Middle East and the north Atlantic, and the various other operations that take place. Notwithstanding the debate about resources and their adequacy or not, it is important to recognise, as I know your Lordships do, the significant amount of activity that our Armed Forces conduct on our behalf, in Europe and around the world. It is important to recognise that, notwithstanding the present challenges.
Defence Investment Plan
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
The priorities, and the moneys for the future, will be laid out in the defence investment plan. The noble Baroness is right to point out some of the important capabilities we have to protect our country and to work with our allies. She was right, for example, to point to the importance of the reserves—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, here—and to the ability to maintain our operational requirements. This goes back to a question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place. As the DIP goes on, an important thing that will have to be wrestled with is the relationship between RDEL and CDEL, which is crucial to the way we will operate in the future.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the Government have committed to increase defence spending to 3% by 2030 and to 3.5% by 2035. But what is required, and is chaotically missing, is a clear timeline that would enable the MoD and the defence industry to budget, plan and procure. Even if the DIP is published, as promised, before the NATO summit, it will not end the uncertainty. Holding out unspecified prospects for future spending does not really cut it. So when will the Government make a clear medium-term to long-term decision and remove damaging uncertainty for our defence industry and for other departments, which fear cuts, in order to fund what they do not know is happening?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Money for defence is already increasing, notwithstanding what happens in the DIP, which will further increase defence spending. In answer to various questions yesterday about defence spending going forward, I simply referred to what the Prime Minister told the BBC on Friday afternoon. The Prime Minister laid out that defence will be the number one priority in every spending review, including the next one, which, I remind the noble Lord and the House, will be in 2027. There is the additional commitment, which I made at NATO last year, to get to 3.5% by 2035. The commitment laid out by the Prime Minister to the BBC and Chris Mason was important.
Strategic Defence Review: Funding
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On the Chagos deal, the direct answer, fairly obviously, is that priorities across government are always being assessed and reassessed as policy develops or changes, but predicting that is very difficult. I cannot give a direct answer to what the noble Baroness has asked—as I expect she thought I would not be able to. On warship maintenance, the First Sea Lord is working extremely hard to improve the maintenance of warships to see how we can get them all ready and operational more quickly. It is not just warships but the whole of the Navy. He is working hard, as the noble Baroness knows, with respect to a hybrid Navy. He is also working extremely hard to improve submarine availability.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, first, is the delay in the defence investment plan partly due to the Government having to make cuts to existing programmes to provide for programmes that meet new and increasing challenges? How does that sit with the claim to be funding increased defence spending? Secondly, given that the SDR called for a “whole-of-society approach” to defence and security, when will the Government seek to engage the public and all political parties in a debate on the threats we face, how they are escalating and how we need to respond? At the moment, the public are not so convinced that increased defence spending is justified. Most of us know that it is, but we need to ensure that the public are carried with it. Will the Government take such an initiative?
Defence Industrial Strategy 2025: Economic Growth and Job Creation
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, of course we welcome the decision to award the helicopter contracts for Yeovil, which the local MP, Adam Dance, has been campaigning for, and we are glad that it has been signed. But the reality is that without this investment plan, there are jobs and investment on hold in defence installations right across the UK. They desperately need to know when the orders are going to flow and when the money is going to come through. We also need to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses have a real stake in building up our high-tech capacity and in filling in our munitions requirements.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the last point, of course munitions are important, as we see particularly at the moment. That is why the Government are investing £1.5 billion in six new munitions sites. Thirteen sites have been identified, they are being reviewed, and we will come forward with those munitions sites so that we have them available. Again, that is money being invested. We are also talking about small and medium-sized businesses. We know that the future is not just in the big primes but in small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have set up within the Ministry of Defence an organisation to drive that growth. Small and medium-sized businesses are crucial, and we will develop those as well.
Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
A key point for all of us in this House, our nation and our alliances is that it is a continuous at-sea deterrent, and I reassure everyone that we maintain that. The noble Lord is right that it has been the foundation of our alliance’s peace and security for decades under all Governments, and long may it continue.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister say how many of these submarines are operational at any one time? Many have been out of service quite frequently. Given the constraints, are we sure that we can maintain the programme that he has outlined and deliver AUKUS on time and on budget?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am confident about that. I will not go into the number of submarines that are operational for obvious reasons, but the noble Lord will have heard the First Sea Lord outlining the submarine recovery plan a couple of months ago, which was about doing more to ensure that our docking and maintenance facilities are of the standard that we want. That will also help us ensure that we get the availability that we want.
Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government explain it by using the figures I have just outlined. There is billions of pounds of additional money. You cannot alter the fact that it is going from the figure I just gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young, to the figure it will be. The noble and gallant Lord knows far better than me that choices have to be made within that budget about what capabilities you will spend it upon. One of the choices that confronts us is what lessons we learn from Ukraine, and what capabilities we need to ensure that we fight the war of the future and not the war of the past. That is part of the discussion that is going on at present.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Is not the reality that the defence investment plan has been delayed because of concerns inside government and the Cabinet about its affordability, especially given the commitment to increase our own sovereign capacity? In that context, is not the reality that cuts will have to be made to achieve that, and simply to fulfil the current budget? Will the Government recognise that we need to have a much clearer and honest declaration of exactly what is needed? The public need to know what the threat is and why we need to spend more on it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the last point about making sure that the public have greater awareness of the threats faced, and the national conversation. The noble Lord has asked me about that before, and we are seeking to do something about it.
Within the current budgets, we have signed more than 1,000 defence contracts since July 2024, 86% with British-based businesses, and spent more than £31 billion with UK industry. If the noble Lord were Secretary of State for Defence, he would have a budget and would have to make choices about which capabilities he believed were necessary to bring the country to the war-fighting readiness we need. Those are the discussions at the present time. I know there is frustration about the delay to the defence investment plan, but I would rather have a plan that is affordable and meets the needs of our Armed Forces and defence industry, so that we can fight the wars of the future.
Defence Spending
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with much of what my noble friend says about the threat that we face and the need for us to respond appropriately. All I would say is that we are increasing defence spending. My noble friend asked about the chiefs, and I will quote directly from the speech the Chief of the Defence Staff gave just a few weeks ago, in December. He said that he was looking at the greatest “sustained” rise
“in defence spending since the … Cold War”.
That is enormously positive. We are trying to respond to the threats that we face today, and there will be debates about how much we spend. My noble friend refers to the defence investment plan. It was due to be published by the end of the year, not six months ago, and we are looking to publish it as soon as we can. We want to make sure that the investment choices that we make within it are the right choices for ensuring that we have the capabilities we need now, as well as in the future.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, can I press the Minister on why the investment plan has been delayed for so long? Is it because there is disagreement within the Government about its affordability and how we can develop our capacity if we were to reduce dependence on Americans and yet have walked away from joint procurement with the EU, which Canada has joined, and we have rejected?
Lithuania: Balloon Incursions
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are contributing to a whole range of efforts to deter Belarus’s activity, or Belarus acting as a Russian proxy. Lithuania and a number of other states have requested a NATO counter-hybrid support team from us. In the next couple of weeks it will work with Lithuania to assess what is going on there and what needs to be done, and to support Lithuania and others, if necessary, in order to deter this activity and respond appropriately.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, in a normal world, Belarus would be offering co-operation to stop this smuggling, rather than sneering and saying that Lithuania has to solve it. Lithuania has offered €1 million to anybody who can work out how to deal with these balloons. What are we doing, in co-operation with NATO’s centres of excellence in Tallinn and in Helsinki for countering hybrid and cyber threats, to ensure that we can find ways of dealing with the balloons? They represent a threat to the whole of NATO.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the threat that they represent, and the destabilisation and disruption that they cause. We are doing exactly what Lithuania has asked us to do. It has asked us, with NATO, to send a counter-hybrid team to Lithuania to work with it and establish what it needs to do to deal with the threat from the balloons, and the drone incursions, and find the most appropriate way forward. We are doing exactly what Lithuania is asking us to do within the auspices of NATO.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference 2026
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I first thank the noble Lord for the comments that he made and his association with my remarks about the tragic death. It is appreciated by everyone in this House and beyond. The noble Lord will know that there is no difference between us all. We support the work of the IAEA in ensuring that Iran’s nuclear technology is not used for the making or establishment of a nuclear weapons facility; we take action with respect to that. The noble Lord will have seen the action that others have chosen to take. The UK takes this very seriously, and we continue to press Iran to ensure that it abides by the provisions of the NPT.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the challenge of the review next year is to prevent the escalation, never mind the reduction, of nuclear weapons, and to ensure that there is no worrying escalation by America, China or Russia of their threats to test nuclear weapons, for example. How can we be sure that we put the process into reverse rather than see it escalate?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The establishment and existence of the NPT, which involves 191 countries, including all the countries—Russia, China and the United States—that the noble Lord has mentioned, provides a conference and a venue in which much of this can be discussed. All I am saying is that the NPT has been a successful vehicle. We need to continue to support it to try to take this forward.
The noble Lord mentions the comprehensive test-ban treaty; that has been another success. I know the point that he is making about the apparent re-establishment—according to President Trump—of that. That is a matter for America. This country has not tested a nuclear weapon since the early 1990s. We adhere to the provisions of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and to the provisions of the NPT. We ask and call on other countries to do exactly the same.
President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Caribbean: US Military Action
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Defence Spending: Scotland
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that suggestion, which I will certainly ask the Ministry of Defence to consider. The increase in defence spending gives us a huge opportunity not only to protect our country better but to generate jobs and increase wealth across the regions and nations of this country. The idea of trying to ensure that deprived communities, particularly in Scotland but across the whole of the UK, benefit from that is something any Government should take seriously, and I certainly will take that back to the MoD.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is worth recording that Scotland has around 35,000 defence jobs and 11,000 people in the forces. We are building seven warships, and we have naval and RAF bases. Will the Government consider, in the new defence era, extending the engagement of the entire industrial complex of Scotland, including offshore oil and gas, the energy sector, IT and cyber, to ensure a proliferation of investment right across the economy and not just within the specialised defence sector? On recruitment, would it be worth considering reviving some of our traditional historic defence regiments, such as the Gordon Highlanders?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will take on board any ideas about how we improve recruitment, and that is one. The broader point that the noble Lord makes about defence investment is very important. Of course, we will continue to invest in the various sites I have mentioned. The noble Lord made a point about the involvement of the whole of business and the community in the new warfare and the new battleground of the future, so of course it will involve the oil industry and the business sectors because they are defending critical national infrastructure—the energy sources for our country. All those things become crucial not only in Scotland but across the whole of the UK. To deliver that, we need a whole society, whole community, whole business effort, which is what the new defence industrial strategy that we will be publishing soon will take on board.
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Bruce of Bennachie(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I welcome it in principle. When I was chair of the International Development Committee, I visited Afghanistan on two occasions—not just Kabul but Balkh and the Panjshir Valley. Other members of the committee went to Helmand. We saw for ourselves the engagement between the occupying forces and Afghan organisations and troops of all kinds—very much committed to the future. I also have experience, as I am sure have other Members of the House, of having to take up a case of an Afghan who was trapped because he could not get the necessary papers out. It was eventually resolved, but it was an awfully long and convoluted process, so I think noble Lords can understand how we got to this position.
The reality is that many of these people—Afghans who were working in Afghanistan—were looking for a free, tolerant and inclusive Afghanistan. They did not expect a sudden and chaotic evacuation, which amounted to a betrayal of their bravery and loyalty. They believed they would be protected for their commitment—what we have just heard about the Triples is dramatic proof of this fact. Let us be clear, the UK did not take the decision to evacuate Afghanistan; we had no choice but to follow the lead, but it was a dreadful decision carried out in an appallingly incompetent way which left many Afghans at continuing risk. In that situation, it is absolutely right that we demonstrate now our commitment to help those who have the right to come to this country.
The Minister has already indicated that the applications are being processed, many have been resolved, and papers have been signed. How quickly does he believe the process can be completed?
Many of the people affected are probably in hiding somewhere in Afghanistan. What steps are being taken to help them out safely? The Minister said that when they are in Pakistan they will be supported, but getting to Pakistan might be a high-risk process. What can the British Government do to try to help them get there so that they can be brought to safety?
The Minister mentioned families. It would be good to hear exactly what the status of their families will be, what definition of “family” will apply, and how they too will be given freedom. Although the Statement is specific to the Triples—I accept that, and it is a welcome outcome that a review started by the previous Government, which has probably taken too long, is now coming to fruition—does the Minister nevertheless accept that there are other Afghan nationals who loyally served the UK and may still be at risk and who still have the problem of not being able to entirely prove what their relationship was? I think your Lordships all know that for many of them there was a genuine and deep relationship, and they are entitled to believe that the UK will look after them if it can.
I understand the point that you cannot just have freeloaders—there must be real evidence—but will the Minister acknowledge that the Triples might not be the only people who have fallen foul of this lack of information and data? The case that I was involved in was precisely that—I am sure that other noble Lords had similar cases. He knew for certain and was fortunate enough that there was a British citizen who had worked with him and was ultimately able to provide the evidence that enabled him to leave Afghanistan. Without that evidence, he might still be languishing in hiding with his family—fortunately, that is not the case.
I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Government are doing the right thing; we just ask that they do it as speedily as possible. It would also be good to acknowledge that this might not be entirely the end of the road.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Bruce, for their contributions. This is a very serious Statement, as we all acknowledge; we can tell that by the tone of the House. I also thank both noble Lords for their acknowledgement of the heroism of those who worked with us and our need to ensure that we do all we can to stand with those who stood with us. For those who read or watch our deliberations, I make the important point that there is no party division on defending our country and standing up for our country. There are questions of any Government that people will sometimes want to ask, and that is quite right, but both noble Lords made the point that this is not a party-political issue. This is about His Majesty’s Government, of whatever party, trying to do the right thing by those who stood with us in conflict. There is no division between us on that, and that is an important starting point for us all.
I reiterate the point that has just been made: there is no suggestion that any Minister in the previous Government did anything other than use the information they had given to them in order to provide information to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, asked me to acknowledge the steps the previous Government took to instigate the review, and I do so. As a consequence of the review, the various things we are discussing today have come to light. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the MoD is working across government, including, where necessary, with the Home Office. That is how some of these things have come to light, but there will be others.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about adequate housing. We are working with the Home Office and local authorities to ensure that those who are resettled here through the Triples process are adequately housed. As part of that, arrangements are being made for permanent accommodation for them. As mentioned in the Statement made by my colleague Luke Pollard MP yesterday, existing transitional arrangements are having to be used which we had hoped would have ended by now. Indeed, the previous Government’s and this Government’s hope and expectation was that they would have ended, but we hope to see them end as soon as possible. Adequate housing, including some military housing, is being made available for some individuals and their families.
I was asked about the figures. We estimate that 2,000 applicants are eligible under this review. Some three-quarters have already been reviewed, and of those, approximately 25% have been found to be eligible because of the direct employment records we have uncovered. Some of the remaining 500 or so are the more complex or difficult cases, so I cannot say to your Lordships exactly when the review will be finished, but we intend to complete it as soon as we can, and we will keep the House updated.
As soon as a decision is made, applicants are informed immediately. They are not informed that their case is under review, but they are informed immediately that their case has been looked at again and they will be subject to that. I think the noble Lord asked how they are got out of Afghanistan. I think everybody will understand why I cannot explain how, but they are moved as quickly as possible out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
We are working really closely with the Pakistan Government, who have been very co-operative in this respect. My understanding is that nobody who is eligible under the ARAP scheme has been deported back to Afghanistan. We also know that, subject to certain checks being made, they are moved from Pakistan to this country as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord asked about family members. There is a difference between immediate family members and eligible family members: the usual terminology applies to “immediate family”—for example, dependent children, spouse—“eligible family” means the wider family. People are obviously free to make applications in respect of eligible family members and others, and they will be adjudicated in the appropriate way.
The noble Lord asked about other asylum routes. Of course, there are other asylum routes that people from Afghanistan can apply for—I see the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in his place. The noble Lord mentioned the figure; I think it is nearly 13,000 people now. There are those routes, but they are asylum claims; here, we are dealing with the Triples.
In answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, other special units may be in scope, but we have not looked at those yet. We will have to do so. As I say, other routes are available, but they concern asylum claims. Other special units, if that is what the noble Lord was referring to, may well be in scope of the review, but we have not looked at them. We will do so in due course.
Before I take questions from Back-Benchers, I reiterate that we will of course keep the House fully updated on progress on all of this. I hope the House appreciates why we thought it important to come forward with this as soon as we were able to. There is new information, which the Government are now working on. Above all, we are now taking decisions, changing some of the decisions that were made based on past available information. I think it highly appropriate in those circumstances that we come to the House to explain that.
The noble Lord mentioned individual cases. If noble Lords let me know of any individual cases, I will take them to Minister Pollard to see whether they are eligible and can be taken forward. Clearly, the case the noble Lord mentioned needed to be looked at.
With that, I welcome the Statement. It is an important step forward and I thank both the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench for their support for the Statement, and for their questions.