Middle East: Defence

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a couple of points. First, as a counterpoint to the point about China, if we are talking about Mauritius, the biggest friend it has got is India rather than China, and the Indians are just as worried about the influence of China in much of that region. The discussions continue around the Diego Garcia treaty, and we will see where that takes us, but the important thing is that Diego Garcia is and will be an important strategic asset for us. The debate the noble Lord and I would have is how we ensure the security of that base for us to continue operating in the way that we have done.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I say at the outset that I hold the Minister in great regard and see him and his Secretary of State colleague, the right honourable John Healey, in the same tradition as great Labour patriots such as James Callaghan, for instance. But I take him back to the very interesting question put by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. Is it not time at this juncture to step back and look at the cumulative damage to the reputation of the United Kingdom as a reliable and trustworthy ally to our most powerful friend, the United States, when even Tony Blair has criticised the Government’s conduct over this conflict?

This narrow interpretation of international law, as between defensive and offensive capabilities, has been applied erroneously, in my opinion. If it was 1939, with those same parameters, we would not have come to the aid of Poland, because the UK population was not under a direct threat. The point is surely that the Iranian Islamic Republic has been an ongoing threat to British, US, Israeli and other citizens for 47 years. On that basis, we should have been a more loyal and trustworthy supporter of the United States, because, at the end of the day, the United States and the Israelis are on the front line of a civilisational fight, which we will all be involved with very soon if we are not careful.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the comparison with James Callaghan; I appreciate that. The serious point is that we are all patriots in here. I would not question anybody’s patriotism in this Chamber. We all want the best for our country. We all support our Armed Forces and wish to ensure that the UK remains as powerful and significant on the world stage as it always has been. There will be points of difference within that. The UK is still hugely regarded across the world. It is still of huge significance to the large number of countries that want the UK to stand with them—and not always with regiments of troops or, say, 50 aircraft or 40 tanks. The fact that the UK will often stand with countries across the world gives those countries a sense of legitimacy, confidence and purpose about what they are doing. We should remind ourselves of that sometimes and be proud of that—I am, and I know the noble Lord is.

From the Government’s perspective, there is no doubt that it is imperative for our security and that of the United States, and the security of the values that we stand for, that we retain and maintain the closeness of our relationship. That is the Government’s policy. Does that mean that sometimes there are difficulties? Of course there are. The noble Lord and I could recount historical examples of where there have been very serious problems between the United States and the United Kingdom, but that has not altered the fact that, fundamentally, our two countries are united in standing for freedom, democracy and human rights. Considerable co-operation still goes on between the US and the UK, including on intelligence sharing and in the military-to-military discussions that happen all the time, notwithstanding some of the things that we read. The worst thing we can do—I refuse to do this—is to say, “The President said this and the President said that”. He is the President of the United States; we will do all we can to work with him to deliver common objectives. At the end of the day, the only people who gain from any division between the United States and the United Kingdom—notwithstanding the fact that, sometimes, there will be policy differences, as there were a week or two ago—are our adversaries, and we should not allow them to experience that at all.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I may be pre-empting the noble Lord—incidentally, I very much hope that if there is a Labour Government he will be a senior figure in it, because his service in the other place was exemplary—but what is his answer to the material change in geopolitical circumstances since the time of the 1951 convention and the European Court of Human Rights? There is an incompatibility between the weapons available in current domestic law and the stresses from international treaty obligations. What will his party do to square the circle?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will not take unilateral action but seek to work within the international framework to bring about any refinement that needs to be made, as many other countries across the world do in the light of their circumstances. I ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, a question that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just posed: why can we take action in the Red Sea? Because we are conforming with international law. Why can we say what we are saying to China about its attitude to Taiwan and its appalling attitude to Hong Kong? Because of international law. Why can we support Ukraine in the way we are? Because of our adherence to international law. In the past, as he will know, serious questions have been raised when people have been said to have acted in a way that was inconsistent with international law. That is its importance.

Anarchy will arise across the world if everyone simply abandons that and pursues what they consider to be their own interests. That way lies disaster. All I am saying, in a small but very important way, is that we do not believe we should be able simply to ignore international law in this Rwanda Bill. That is not the right approach for His Majesty’s Government.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Jackson of Peterborough

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

These are exactly the same arguments that were advanced by Labour during the discussion of grant-maintained schools, which were often supported by the local community and perfectly able to exercise the powers and responsibilities involved. Indeed, many of them did so very successfully. Unfortunately, Labour is still in an ideological time warp and hostile to the idea that parents, governors and other professionals can have effective local control over their own schools.

[Vernon Coaker]

Who will have local control over whether a primary school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency becomes an academy? It will be the head teacher and the governing body, and it will then go to the Secretary of State for approval. There is nothing in the Bill to say that parents, the community, local people or even the local authority must be consulted. If the hon. Gentleman’s point is that before a school changes its status or applies to become an academy it should have the support of all those people, I would agree with him in many respects. Certainly the academy model that we pursued—although it obviously related to secondary schools rather than to primary schools—was about trying to ensure that there was proper local support for the conversion.

One of the problems with the Bill is that it does not require the support of everyone in the local community for a school to convert to academy status. Indeed, an amendment tabled by one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues tries to address that problem. When we talked about special schools, some hon. Members mentioned the need to ensure, and demonstrate, that local parents, the local authority and local people supported them, but that is not what the Bill would do.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not ideologically opposed to academies—I approved a significant number of them, including all-through academies. In the last debate, we talked about the difference between the academy model presented in the Bill and the academy model that the previous Government pursued. As I said, I do not believe that people are motivated by anything other than a genuine desire to improve educational standards for children, but there is a difference of view about how to achieve that.

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but how can local support be proved when all the Bill requires is the support of the head teacher and governing body, and others as appropriate?

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it would be perverse for any head teacher with the support of the governing body not to take into account the settled view of the local community, whether that was as a result of consultation directly with the governing body or others, or of the local authority, local charities or others. The idea that this is some kind of top-down approach to be forced on schools is untrue.

[Vernon Coaker]

In the spirit in which debate has been conducted in Committee today, I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising that I was trying to be constructive in my response. He will have read the Bill and he will know that clause 5(1) does not specify who should be consulted by a school wishing to convert. It just says that it

“must consult such persons as they think appropriate.”

Similarly, clause 5(3) states:

“The consultation may take place before or after an Academy order, or an application for an Academy order”.

If the hon. Gentleman follows his point through to a logical conclusion, one might expect the Bill to list the parents, the local community and so on as parties which should be consulted and shown to be supportive of the academy bid, because that would strengthen the application and increase its potential for success. Similarly, one would have thought the Bill would require consultation to take place before the academy order was applied for. I agree that such consultation is necessary, and the hon. Gentleman’s point was not unimportant, but the Bill does not do what he would wish it to do.