Defence Readiness Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards drafting the Defence Readiness Bill recommended by the Strategic Defence Review; and whether they intend for the scope of the Bill to include national resilience more broadly to encompass preparations for other risks contained in the National Risk Register.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. The starting point for today’s debate is that we live in a turbulent, uncertain, volatile world. The need for the nation to be better prepared and resilient is ever more pressing. We are closer to widespread war in Europe than we have been for over 60 years. We have seen the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the routine targeting of civilian infrastructure with cheap drones and cyber attacks.

But this country is already subject to hybrid and grey-zone aggression: the Salisbury poisonings, using nerve agents; arson attacks on industrial sites, Jewish premises and even properties associated with the Prime Minister; cyber attacks such as those on Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and JLR; and submarines taking an unhealthy interest in the undersea cables and pipelines on which we rely.

The SDR recommended a defence readiness Bill with a framework of powers to improve the preparedness of key industries and to ensure sufficient supplies to support critical national infrastructure and the defence forces. An essential part of our commitment to Article 3 is the need to ensure continuity of government and vital services, requiring resilience against all types of shock, including natural disasters and cyber attacks, as well as military threats.

A defence readiness Bill, although originally promised for early this year, was not in the King’s Speech, but my noble friend the Minister has assured us that work on it is progressing. Inevitably, legislation that codifies how to prioritise the supplies and support needed in the event of a national defence emergency is complex. The Bill must include national resilience more broadly and address what, as a nation, should be our core preparations to equip us for the acute risks contained in the published national risk register, and for the longer-term, slow-burn threats in the Government’s chronic risk analysis.

So what is needed is a national resilience and defence readiness Bill, and the unfortunate delay permits that wider focus. The country’s resources may have to be mobilised not just in the event of hostilities against the nation but of other civil emergencies not necessarily arising from nation state action. Mechanisms are needed to respond to another pandemic, to extreme weather events precipitated by climate change, and so on.

We know that the Swedes, like those in most other European countries, have a booklet that goes to every household, “If Crisis or War Comes”. What do we have in the UK? We have the GOV.UK Prepare website, a separate story to which I might return. The Swedes also have a booklet for companies. It recognises the decisive role of businesses in ensuring that society continues to function. Its message is:

“When your company is prepared to operate under the threat of war, it is also better equipped to manage pandemics, natural disasters, and other peacetime crises”.


That message should apply here: it is not just about geopolitics and the threats from Russia or wherever; it is about being ready for everything else as well.

We have just seen the highest temperatures ever recorded in May, and again in June. This had consequences: the largest number of category 1 call-outs ever for the London Ambulance Service, train disruptions and IT failures. Last year’s hot temperatures saw wildfires, with the busiest night for the London Fire Brigade since the Blitz. Then there were the unprecedented 12 named storms in the 2023-24 storm season, to say nothing of West Nile virus being found in mosquitoes in Britain.

What should such a national resilience and defence readiness Bill encompass? It should set the framework to enable us to make the best use of the nation’s resources in the event of hostile action—importantly, not just above but below the threshold of war. It should systemise how to maintain military and civilian reserves—I see the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, in his seat. But just as importantly, that framework should be readily activated in the event of other emergencies. Like the Climate Change Act, which has some parallel provisions, it needs to place a duty on government departments, public bodies, local authorities and large businesses and organisations to build their resilience and bolster their preparedness to respond to all sorts of threats and emergencies.

Such a Bill should place reporting obligations on the Government and other agencies to report back regularly on what they are doing in respect of their resilience and preparedness. It should establish an independent, arm’s-length body, a bit like the Climate Change Committee, to monitor the adequacy of the progress made. It would, in effect, be marking the Government’s homework—which I appreciate my noble friend the Minister may not like but it is an important component. It should mark that homework to see what is being done to build the nation’s resilience and the progress being made on defence readiness and national preparedness. It would need annual reports to Parliament, and this House and the other place would need to set up committees to scrutinise progress.

As the world becomes more transactional—or, dare I say it, deals-based—with increasing competition for strategic raw materials, we will need to mandate stockpiles and take action to protect our sovereign capacity in key areas. We have, after all, the most open economy among the G20. Our food supplies and our pharmaceuticals, plus key industrial materials, are imported and vulnerable to blockades and embargoes. We need to be ready for those imports to be disrupted or even shut off. In the event of conflict, we will need to be able to divert the nation’s resources to the support of our military and homeland defence.

Legislation is needed to create the mechanisms to deliver the collective national endeavour needed to defend our country and make it resilient against all the other shocks that we may face. Every part of government, every part of society and every business, large and small—indeed, every one of us—have to see resilience and defence preparedness as part of their responsibilities. It must be designed in. It must be part of the national fabric. We might not have long. That is why we need the national resilience and defence readiness Bill as soon as possible.

In the spirit of the outgoing Mayor of Greater Manchester’s article in today’s Times, we must deliver that

“concerted action to enhance our resilience, starting at the local level”.

Russian Shadow Fleet

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have not got that in my briefing, but it is important to recognise the contribution that many have made through the ages, which is reflected in their families and their descendants today, and I take the noble Lord’s point. Alongside that, it is important that we look at how we more effectively work together across the international community to ensure that the sanctions regime is implemented much more effectively. As many people know, through history, economic sanctions and the denial of economic benefit to a country undermine its war effort, so we have taken action to do that. Can we do more working with our international allies? Of course we can.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, it is reported on Sky News that the “Admiral Grigorovich”, a Russian warship, has fired a warning shot at a yacht in the English Channel. Should we regard this as being a sign of an escalation in the tensions between us and Russia?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will not expect me to say too much on, as I understand it, an ongoing incident that clearly is potentially very serious, as I do not know the full facts of what has happened. I know it has been reported; I have just found out about it through a text on my phone, so I say to the noble Lord that he will realise why I do not really want to say much about it, given that I may, unfortunately, just add to the problem. It is certainly a developing story, as they say, and will need to be reflected on. As soon as I go back to the MoD, I will ask for a full briefing on what is actually going on.

King’s Speech

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech was notable for many things, not just the welcome list of Bills. I rather suspect that your Lordships’ House is going to be even busier in the next Session than it was in the last. There are many Bills that we can look forward to debating and considering in detail over the Session ahead. I also welcome it because—and here I disagree, but only slightly, with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—there was a narrative thread running through it, albeit a slightly thin narrative thread, about building better resilience for the country. Before I go any further, I refer to my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

For example, there are to be Bills to strengthen the resilience of critical infrastructure and to safeguard sovereign supplies, with Bills on energy independence, the steel industry, clean water and highways. Others will reinforce national security, looking at cyber and state threats. The Armed Forces Bill will take steps to expand the pool of reservists. All that is welcome, but the two decades of external shocks that have left our nation in a weakened state merit rather more. We cannot continue to apply, as is suggested, sticking plasters. What is needed is a bold strategy to deliver a stronger, more resilient society for everyone.

Alas, there is one striking omission in the gracious Speech—there is no defence readiness Bill. This was recommended last summer in the strategic defence review led by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. That recommendation was accepted by His Majesty’s Government, but apparently it is not ready. I know that work is progressing on this, and draft legislation to provide the powers needed to prioritise the supplies and support required in the event of a national defence emergency inevitably calls for substantial consultation across government. I understand that, but in an ideal world we would have had it before us this Session, particularly as the international situation has become even more threatening in the short period since the SDR reported.

Indeed, such legislation is a necessary part of the UK’s commitment to Article 3. NATO expects each member country to maintain its own resilience as part of collective defence, and that involves preparedness against all types of shock, including natural disasters, cyber attacks and military threats. That is needed because it is there to ensure the continuity of government and critical services at times of crisis.

I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to use this unfortunate delay as an opportunity for the Bill to have a broader focus than perhaps is suggested in the strategic defence review. Let us be clear that the nation’s resources may need to be mobilised not just in the event of hostilities but in other civil emergencies, not necessarily arising from nation state action. We will need those mechanisms, and we would need those powers, in another pandemic or to deal with extreme weather events precipitated by climate change and, indeed, many of the other acute risks listed in the National Risk Register.

Something much broader is needed: a national resilience and defence readiness Bill to provide a framework to make the best use of the nation’s resources in the event of any emergency or in response to hostile action. Such a Bill could place a duty on government departments, public bodies, local authorities, large businesses and organisations to build their resilience and bolster their preparedness to respond to different sorts of threats and emergencies. It could set structures to facilitate this and underpin it as part of a concerted national effort to address the dangerous and volatile world that we now face as a nation. This must now be prioritised and brought forward as soon as it is ready—perhaps even before the next gracious Speech. It would be gross negligence for us not to do so.

Civil Preparedness for War

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble namesake for securing this debate. I declare my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

Not only are we closer to widespread war than we have been for 60 years, but conflict has become much more hybrid, with increasingly hostile cyber activity coupled with deniable sabotage and other disruptions already affecting us here at home in Britain. That is to say nothing of the misinformation and disinformation that floods people’s social media feeds non-stop.

Despite the events since this debate was originally scheduled, the public remain blissfully unaware of the various threats and risks that the nation faces, let alone their urgency and scale. This must change. We urgently need the national conversation called for in the SDR, but it should not be couched solely in terms of defence; it must encompass everything else on the national risk register. The whole of society needs to be engaged. It is not sufficient simply to rely on the GOV.UK Prepare website; we need messages that are repeated in household booklets, as in other countries and as referred to by the noble Baroness. These then need to be amplified through broadcast and social media platforms. Think back to the major public health programmes that have taken place in the past: these were multimedia and you could not escape them. Everybody knew about them and everybody understood them.

We should also be building the sort of civil reserve they have elsewhere: a reserve of volunteers, with skills, that can be deployed in an emergency here at home. It is an emergency whether it is caused by a hostile state, by severe weather events or by another pandemic. Perhaps we could have a register of electricians who have had extra training to repair the grid, or retired doctors to be brought back into the NHS, or those willing, with the right skills and equipment, to clear fallen trees or masonry from roads and railway lines. We could also have people to help pile sandbags. The list is endless. Why do we not have such a public register of reserves for use in those circumstances?

My questions for my noble friend the Minister are as follows. When will the national conversation called for in the SDR start and what will it consist of? It must be much more than a top-down message; it must also foster dialogue at local level and within communities. Will it recognise that this is not just about war preparedness but all the other acute and chronic threats we face as a country? In advance of the defence readiness Act called for in the SDR, will steps now be taken to seek volunteers to offer their help and skills in emergencies and crises? Resilience and preparedness must not be an optional add-on; it is our obligation to future generations—to our children and grandchildren.

UK Homeland Defence

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of UK homeland defence in light of the long-range missile capabilities demonstrated by Iran in their strike on the Diego Garcia military base.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and in so doing I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

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

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the Secretary of State for Defence will shortly make a Statement in the other place, and I will not pre-empt what he will say. However, I will say that the UK has taken a series of actions to strengthen our collective defence. NATO remains the cornerstone of allied deterrence and defence. NATO’s ballistic missile defence system was designed to deal with precisely this type of threat. We have already seen it in action during this crisis, successfully intercepting missiles that were aimed at Turkey. The MoD is strengthening homeland security, investing up to £1 billion in capability, including air and missile defence, improved munitions stockpiles and readiness at scale to deter and respond to threats.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that response. I am reassured by some of what he has said. However, it looks as though this Iranian capability is not necessarily hugely accurate and under those circumstances it may be difficult to be precise in terms of interception. What thinking is going on regarding guidance to people in this country about what to do in the event of some form of alert? Will there be alerts through the telephone emergency system? What will the guidance be for what people should do in the event of some form of incoming missile?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, the priority of the Government is to intercept any missiles, and the NATO umbrella is designed precisely to tackle that. Of the £1 billion that I outlined as a result of the SDR, we have committed to air defence and already started to spend some of that on various initiatives, including a £118 million contract to deliver state-of-the-art Land Ceptor missile systems to deal with some of the threat. My noble friend is right that, alongside the actions that the Government take to intercept the missiles, we need to talk to the public about the potential threats that they may face. Our assessment is that Iran poses no threat at the current time to the UK. However, we will, as my noble friend rightly keeps asking us, take the action needed to inform the public of the appropriate action that they should take in the event of any such threat coming about.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is an important challenge and an important question put by the noble and gallant Lord. The starting point is to speak up and speak out, in a way that sometimes does not happen. For example, there is very real resilience among the population in many respects, but we need to explain to people, through government, devolved Governments and local government, the very real threats and challenges that they face now. The point that members of the public, more generally, need to understand is that it is not the traditional warfare, necessarily, that is the threat we are currently facing but the cyber attacks that we have already seen many examples of in our country, the threats to underwater cables and the threat to data. Indeed, it is why the carrier strike group was in the Indo-Pacific recently, protecting the trade routes on which this country’s economy and prosperity also depend. We need to do more on that, because, as the noble and gallant Lord says, building resilience among the population is something that needs to be done. I have confidence in the British people that if that is explained to them, they will stand up for it.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. The Minister is saying all the right things; he is talking about how urgent it is, how it must be the whole of society and the whole of government, but he did not answer the question put at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on when this national conversation is going to start. Could he give us a clearer indication of the Government’s timescale on that, and an indication, for example, of when the defence readiness bill—proposed in the security review—is going to come forward, and whether it will include a wider definition so that it looks at all the hazards we face, including climate change, criminal cyber gangs as well as hazards from overseas states?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sure that when it comes forward, a defence readiness bill will include many of the things that my noble friend has pointed to. Defence in that sense, as he says, is more than just military equipment and troops; it is about climate change and many of the other things that he mentioned. The conversation has already started. We have started having conferences and conversations with different parts of industry. What I am saying to the Chamber, to my noble friend and to all those who spend so much time working on this, as I know he does, is that we need to accelerate and expand that, and to do that more than we are doing at present. A conference here and a conference there, while worth while and important, are not at the level of the sort of national conversation that needs to take place regarding our country. That is the point that I am trying to make. We have an Armed Forces Bill next year, but we are exploring defence readiness legislation—we look forward to seeing whether we can deliver that in this Parliament.

Undersea Cables: National Security Threat

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord McCabe and his excellent maiden speech. I have known my noble friend for probably more years than either of us would care to remember. We worked together in the All-Party Group on Policing, and in the PLP departmental group on home affairs.

He describes your Lordships’ House as quaint but charming. I wonder if that was how he was described in Birmingham Hall Green when, as an export from Port Glasgow, he was given his peanut butter. His many years working with young offenders and children who have experienced trauma may not seem like it would be immediately valuable in fitting into your Lordships’ House—then again, it might. That pragmatic experience of needing to find practical solutions to problems will certainly add value to the deliberations we have here. Indeed, his self-description of being a generalist with common sense, focusing on solutions rather than ideological fantasies, could be seen as encapsulating the very best traditions of your Lordships’ House. My noble friend is very welcome, and we look forward to hearing from him frequently in the future.

This House, and indeed the nation, owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team for the review we are debating. The assessment is candid: the UK is closer to the reality of war than it has been at any time in the last 60 years, and we are woefully unprepared for conflict.

As chair of the National Preparedness Commission, I particularly welcome the SDR’s focus on building a national defence effort that includes the whole of society, and the express reference to building

“national resilience to threats below and above the threshold of an armed attack through a concerted, collective effort involving—among others—industry, the finance sector, civil society, academia, education, and communities”.

The public have, to some extent, been shielded from the escalating risk, so the willingness of the Government to start the national conversation that my noble friend called for about national security, resilience and preparedness, is welcome and indeed essential.

Grey zone aggression is already threatening our daily lives. Cyberattacks against public and private organisations are detected daily. Russian submarines are encroaching into British waters. Geopolitical unrest is threatening continuity of supply chains, and disinformation campaigns threaten national cohesion. We have to improve our preparedness for all of these. The nature of these attacks will change and intensify. They will demand a nationwide response, a nationwide endurance, and, in the same way, we need to be prepared for all the other risks that we face.

Just think of what has happened in the last few months. We have had the cyberattacks on M&S and the Co-op, and four substation fires in five weeks—one of them shutting down Heathrow. They are probably not malicious but demonstrate the consequences of clapped-out, aged infrastructure and certainly highlight that vulnerability to future malign actors. West Nile virus has been detected in mosquitoes here in Britain. A wildfire shut the M25, following on from the driest UK March on record. Most recently, three ne’er-do-wells were found guilty of an arson attack on a warehouse that they carried out on behalf of the Wagner Group. I could go on. That is why the National Preparedness Commission has advocated the need for a threat-agnostic preparedness. As a nation, we must be ready for whatever may happen.

The SDR proposes a defence readiness Bill that would give the Government new powers to improve preparedness of key industries, support the mobilisation of resources when needed, and mandate annual reporting on our war-fighting readiness. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us when this will be introduced? The National Preparedness Commission has separately proposed a national resilience Bill, following the model of the Climate Change Act, that would place a legal obligation on government departments and public bodies to take account of and prioritise the need for preparedness and resilience in all their actions. Such an Act could establish an independent national resilience committee, akin to the Climate Change Committee, to advise the UK Government on their assessment of the progress being made and what additional measures should be taken.

So why not bring these proposals together? Let us have a national resilience and defence readiness Bill in the next Session of Parliament. This should spell out the respective roles of the UK Government, the devolved Administrations, mayors and local authorities. It would place explicit expectations on the critical national infrastructure and businesses more generally. It would strengthen and rationalise the network of local resilience forums and require them to engage with local businesses and the local voluntary, community and faith sectors.

We need the national conversation proposed in the strategic defence review. We must raise public awareness of the threats we face, the escalating risk of conflict, as well as the consequences of climate change, the associated extreme weather events and other hazards. The SDR has kick-started that process. The Government have acknowledged what needs to be done in the national security strategy, but now that must be turned into action. We have not got long.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the point about deterrence, and I have been making it in various debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has been present at those debates, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asked me about this during the previous Urgent Question we had on defence. We need to re-establish deterrence. We need people to know that there are lines which, if crossed, will result in consequences. Perhaps we have not given the priority to deterrence that we should have, but the noble Earl is right that it must play an appropriate part in future. Countries know that, with our allies, we stand up for certain things and that if those lines are crossed, there will be consequences.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register, as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Do we not have to look at defence holistically? It has to be a whole-of-society response that includes the resilience of the nation to all sorts of attacks and measures that undermine our future. Unfortunately, that is about the scale of not merely of our Armed Forces but our investment in other resources to ensure that we are resilient. The reality is that the 2.5% figure is probably not enough just for conventional forces, let alone for that whole-of-society resilience. I hope the Minister is considering that and will discuss it with his Treasury colleagues.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for his question. It is not just me who is considering that; the whole of government is considering the need for homeland resilience. Indeed, my noble friend has asked me about this issue on a number of occasions. Part of the remit of the defence review is to look at what we should do about homeland resilience; that is an important step forward. What do we do to prepare the population for the threats we may face in future? What about hybrid warfare? What about, as we have seen in Ukraine, attacks on critical national infrastructure? What about some of the other data breaches we have seen? These are wholly important issues to which we have perhaps not given the priority needed. My noble friend is absolutely right, and the defence review is looking at this. Homeland resilience will have to be a proper part of how we take our defence and security further in future.

Drones: RAF Bases

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might build on the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, if I may—or not.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is this side. I refer to my interests in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. I too wanted to follow up the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is a widespread issue. Drones are comparatively cheap; they are easy to mobilise; they can be used, potentially, with an explosive or chemical or even a radiological payload; and they can be used for hostile surveillance. There are all sorts of uses, not just by hostile nations, but by criminal gangs and terrorists and so on.

This is not just a question for national defence against national defence assets, but it must be a question of the police around the country having the appropriate equipment and facilities. Can the Minister reassure us that we are going to have that country-wide, whole-of-government response to the threat from drones, which, as we have seen in other countries, can be extensive?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. The defence review will address national resilience. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has also said, of course air defence means missiles and other things in the conventional way in which we interpret that term. It also includes being able to deal with low- tech mass efficiently and cost effectively. Clearly, we will need to address that—and we will—as the hybrid threat and the low-cost, low-technology threat will be part of the warfare of the future.