Defence Industrial Strategy

Debate between Lord Skidelsky and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comment about the Type 26 success that our country had and the frigates that will be built on the Clyde. It is a massive success for our industry. I also thank her for her continued efforts with respect to small businesses, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the UK.

I hope the noble Baroness will notice that in the defence industrial strategy we tried hard to make sure that all the regions and the nations of the UK were properly represented. In one diagram on page 33, the noble Baroness will see the number of jobs in Northern Ireland: a total of 3,300 MOD-supported direct industry, civilian and military jobs. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that we need to make sure that it is not only Thales in Northern Ireland which is of benefit, important as that is, but the small and medium-sized businesses. I do not want to incur the wrath of my noble friend Lord Beamish, but we have set up a specific body to drive small business growth and made a commitment to ensure that billions of pounds-worth of investment in the industry is directed towards small and medium-sized businesses.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, but some noble Lords will be used to that. I strongly support industrial policy, but the coupling of defence and industrial strategy needs some thought. It suggests that industrial policy is driven by military needs, whereas in fact the case for industrial policy needs to be made apart from that. To a student of economic history, it is reminiscent of military Keynesianism, which was born in the Second World War, continued in the Cold War and dropped only with the end of the Cold War. There seems to be a pattern here.

Is the Minister entirely comfortable with basing the case for industrial policy on the need to rearm, as developed in the strategic defence review? I support industrial policy, but I would not want to hinge my whole argument on the need to rearm. That itself is something that needs to be discussed quite independently of the case for industrial policy.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord has an opinion that not many people agree with, including me, but I appreciate that he puts it forward time and again in a respectful, calm and intellectual way. He is to be congratulated on that.

My argument to him would be this. There is a need to rearm and a defence industrial policy has to be geared towards the rearmament that needs to take place. I will give him one example, with which I know he will disagree. My premise is that it is a good thing that we are supporting Ukraine. Despite what we have been doing, with the defence industry as it was, we—not only us but other European countries—were not able to deliver the equipment necessary for Ukraine to do all that it wanted to do as easily as it could. That is a difficult, if not dangerous, position for us and our allies to be in.

I made this point at DSEI yesterday. I said that, as a Minister of State for the UK MoD, I do not want to be in a position where I believe in supporting Ukraine but read in the paper—as I did, going back probably a year—that Ukraine had had to withdraw because it did not have the necessary military equipment to continue the fight. That is not a situation we should be in. Part of dealing with that is to develop our defence industry and improve its capability and capacity, so we are not in a position where we cannot support those we would wish to support.

Ukraine: Negotiations

Debate between Lord Skidelsky and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current state of negotiations for ending the war in Ukraine.

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

My Lords, before I answer the Question, let me quickly pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins for all the work he did with the Foreign Office and wish him well in the future.

We remain focused on putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We welcome President Trump’s efforts to end the war and are working closely with the US, Ukraine and our other partners to achieve a just and lasting peace. We continue to work with partners to ensure that Ukraine is able to defend itself against Russia’s aggression. The UK has committed £4.5 billion in military support this year alone, and we continue to ramp up economic pressure on Russia to get it to stop the killing and engage in meaningful talks.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I press him more fully to explain what contribution he thinks our country can and should make to the peace process? The Government have insisted on the need for British and European forces to be stationed in Ukraine to guarantee the integrity of any ceasefire and, indeed, of the peace settlement. The Russian Government have said that they would not accept the presence in Ukraine of boots on the ground from that source. Given this, does not the Government’s insistence on the need for such a force imply that they expect the war to continue indefinitely? If not, how and when, and with what result, do the Government expect the slaughter to end?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. The first point that needs to be made is that it is up to Russia as well to engage in meaningful talks, and it is up to Russia as well to be sincere in the efforts that it is making to bring about the ceasefire and, in the end, to come to some agreement. The contribution that we have made is by insisting that Ukraine has a voice in whatever solution we can come to an agreement about; to keep the US involved, which is crucial to the integrity of any agreement or settlement that is reached; and to move towards what we are calling a reassurance force, as the noble Lord will know, to ensure that the security guarantee that Ukraine has after any settlement is real and meaningful. That is what we are trying to do to ensure that we end the war as quickly as possible. We are supporting President Trump in his efforts to do that, but I say again that it also requires Russia to enter the talks meaningfully.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Lord Skidelsky and Lord Coaker

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to which I put my name. The principle it seeks to uphold is that the offending person must be the one committing the offence or intending to commit the offence, rather than somebody else connected with that person. That is a very important point, because “in connection with” is another of these vague phrases that have crept into this kind of legislation. It is also there in counterterrorist legislation. How connected? Friend, lover, colleague, co-religionist? What is the nature of the connection? All these things are undefined. What counts as a malicious connection? That is why we want this amendment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank those who have supported the various amendments in my name. I very much supported the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made when she opened the group. Similarly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his support and the arguments he put forward on the various amendments. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. She made some very good comments about “serious disruption” and “key national infrastructure”.

This is the first contribution I have made. The Minister said that the Government had listened to the House of Lords by withdrawing amendments when they came up in the Bill at the beginning of the year, putting them through the Commons and then bringing them to the Lords, that constitutionally that was the right way of doing things, and therefore that the Government had correctly brought the Bill forward to the Lords. I say to him that we as the Lords have a constitutional right to review legislation that comes from the Commons, to say where we think it is wrong, to put forward amendments and to seek clarity where there is none.

That has been the purpose of all the amendments put forward here this afternoon as we go into the evening. Each amendment put forward has sought that clarity of definition—what the Government actually intend and mean—so that as this law goes through and the Bill passes, as it will, it will be a better Bill that delivers what the Government want. That is what we seek to do with all the various amendments.

The key question that will keep coming back to the Government is: why is the Bill necessary? There is no dispute in this Chamber—we all totally and utterly feel that the Just Stop Oil protesters went too far, and that was serious disruption that was unacceptable. It is an Aunt Sally, or whatever the politically correct term is, to say, as the Government sometimes do, that they are in favour of the great British public who object to having their lives disrupted while there is a group of others, in this Chamber or elsewhere, who seek to be on the side of the protesters instead. We are all on the side of the public. We all agree that there is a right to protest but that there should be limits to it, and there will be a debate about where that should come.

The third group deals with the scope of the offences. Again, there is a series of questions for the Government in this group about where we are with the drafting and the scope of the offences. As I say, we keep coming back to the need to draft good law and the need for clarity, not offences so broad that they impinge unreasonably on the British public’s rights and are unenforceable. Other key issues include focusing police resources on where they actually matter, not criminalising lawful behaviour or peaceful protest by members of the British public who are causing minor disruption. Our various amendments seek to probe the Government so that we can consider what to bring forward on Report.

Amendments 18 and 20 deal with being equipped to lock on. Currently, Clause 2 provides that an offence of being equipped for locking on takes place where a person is carrying an item that “may” be used “by any person” in the course of a locking-on offence or “in connection with” such an offence, or which may be used “by any person” in the course of or in connection with a locking-on offence. The amendments that I have tabled and others in the group would narrow that scope so that an offence was committed only where a person was carrying an item with the intention that it “will” be used to commit an offence by the person carrying it. As I say, those amendments are to probe the scope of the offence. Why is the word “may” there, not “will”? Why is the phrase “in connection with” used?

What does “by any person” mean? Any person in the group? Any person standing next to them? Any person who happens to be standing nearby? We heard from my noble friend Lady Armstrong about the difficulties one has where you just imply that someone in the group may be associated with a particular person, and the problems that causes. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said to me, there is already a well-used piece of legislation containing the offence of being equipped. He would know, as a magistrate. Why does that legislation not work here? Time and again, the Minister has been asked to say why the current legislation is inadequate to deal with such situations.

Last Friday when Just Stop Oil called off its protest, I heard one of the protesters say on Radio 4—it was the “Today” programme, and the Minister can go back and listen to it—that among the reasons why they did so were the number of people who had been arrested and the number who were in jail or on remand. They said that was having an impact on the ability to carry out protests. Is that not part of the existing legislation dealing with these problems? Maybe it should have been used or enforced quicker but that is a process issue and a policing issue, not a legislative one.

Under current drafting, if an item is not used and absolutely no disruption is caused to anyone, has the person committed a criminal offence because something in their possession may have been used by someone else—not even themselves—to lock on? Is that a criminal offence or not? What does “in connection with” a locking-on offence mean? What activity does that cover?

The classic example that we have all used is a bike lock. We keep coming back to that because it has not been properly addressed. If a person walks through Parliament Square with a bike lock, they could be caught by that clause—is that not the case? Will it be up to that member of the public to prove to a police officer that they have no intent even though it might be used by someone else, not even to commit locking on but for an action that is somehow connected to it? Again, clarity is needed in the law because that police officer will be required to enforce it.

It is worth noting that the clause does not include a reasonable excuse defence. In practice, that is what happens when someone has a reasonable excuse, such as they work close by and own a bike. How is that going to work if there is no reasonable excuse defence available in the clause. Or have I misread it? Asking these questions is, after all, the purpose of Committee.

Amendment 52 concerns the obstruction of major transport works. Clause 6 makes it an offence to obstruct any actions that are

“reasonably necessary … in connection with”

constructing or maintaining transport works. The amendment would remove “in connection with”. Again, this is to probe what actions that may cover. Clause 6 currently provides that it is an offence to obstruct a person

“taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating, or in connection with, the construction or maintenance of any major transport works”.

What does “in connection with” mean? Imagine the list of activities that could be considered as any step that was reasonably necessary in connection with maintaining a transport work. If a local protest prevents a person from painting a railway generator for a few hours, is that now a criminal offence? As the JCHR said:

“For example, the offence would be committed by moving any apparatus that ‘relates to’ construction or maintenance of major transport works (such as a shovel, a broom or a traffic cone) or, indeed, moving any apparatus (even if unrelated to the works) that belongs to a person acting under the authority of the person in charge of the works.”


Is the JCHR wrong to have used those examples? As I say, poor, open-ended drafting will make these offences unusable, casting the net so wide that it means that in no way is the Bill focused on the small number of highly disruptive protesters who are purposefully breaking the law.