EU Security Action for Europe Programme
Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Coaker(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent steps they have taken to explore the UK’s participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe programme.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government entered SAFE negotiations in good faith, but will only enter into agreements that are in the national interest. While no SAFE agreement was reached, we remain committed to EU co-operation under “NATO first”, whether through SAFE or other initiatives. It makes sense for Europe to work more closely together. In this context, we welcome the UK’s participation in the EU’s €90 billion Ukraine support loan, announced last week.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I also very much welcome that announcement and I agree that the price tag from the EU was totally unreasonable on the first round. The fact that the defence sector in Europe is divided is an indication of weakness in the West and a gift to Putin. Will the Minister and the Government renew their efforts to find a sensible solution to joining SAFE? If the Canadians can, surely the United Kingdom can.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, we remain committed to co-operating where it is in the national interest to do so, as I said. The noble Lord is right to point out that it is in all our interests for Europe to co-operate on industry and defence to generate the interoperability that we need to cope with any threat from Russia. That takes place within the overall umbrella of NATO. As he and all noble Lords know, the defence industry is a vital component of any means by which we deter any adversary; for them to believe that we can arm and supply the troops we put on the front line is crucial.
Defence Investment Plan
Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Coaker(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness an assurance about what the Republic will pay for, but let me just say that there has been improved and increasing co-operation between the Republic and ourselves where it is in both our interests to do so. She will know that underwater cables and underwater infrastructure are important to the Republic and to the whole of the UK, so it is in both of our interests to work together. I cannot give her a commitment about paying for that, but I can give her the commitment that there is increasing co-operation and working together to deliver the shared objectives we would all have.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Indeed, as I said to the noble Baroness, of course we need a conversation to more fully and carefully explain to the public why we need to increase our expenditure on defence and security and, alongside that, to help them to understand why that might mean changed priorities for budgets within the sort of priorities that people would have. Whether that means less spending on this area or that area of government, I think we would all agree that the increase for defence and security is essential, and there will be difficult decisions ahead. As part of resolving that, we need to talk openly to the British people.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, one of the unfortunate realities is that the United States is moving away from the defence of Europe. Whether we like it or not, this is not just for this Administration; it is a danger that is likely to happen in future as well as the US looks to the Pacific. We understand that, and we understand that Europe should take more effect of its defence, but there are a number of capabilities that are not replaceable if the United States is not there—strategic airlift, a lot of the space intelligence, ISR and missile defence. I see nothing in this strategy or this expenditure report that tries to replace that. Clearly, one sovereign nation cannot do that, so how does Europe, together perhaps with Canada, ensure that we can defend ourselves into the future?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There is a lot in the strategic defence review and the Defence Investment Plan about building up a greater sovereign capability in some of the areas that the noble Lord has addressed. But I think it is important in every debate to say that the alliance between the United States and our country and the alliance between the United States and Europe, notwithstanding the fact that the President has called for Europe to do more for itself, is absolutely essential to the defence and security of our country. The noble Lord may disagree, but I am telling him what the Government’s view is. The Government’s view—and, I am sure, the view of the vast majority of your Lordships’ House—regards the alliance between ourselves and the United States as absolutely essential for the security of this nation, so we have to be very careful about that. Of course there are challenges and difficulties, but the document refers to how we build up some of the capabilities to which the noble Lord refers. Of course Europe needs to do more, but it also needs to stand with the United States, not only in Europe but across the globe.
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Coaker(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have no knowledge at all of any commitment by Russia regarding the points the noble Lord made. On the American commitment to the discussions and the declaration of intent in Paris last week, it was very significant that people such as Steve Witkoff were saying how strong those commitments were and how much they welcomed them. That is extremely important. The Americans’ part in any security guarantee is really important and something we will continue to work on. As the noble Lord says, the fact that there was such high-level American representation is hugely significant.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, let us be quite clear that Mr Putin does not want a ceasefire under any circumstances—it is not going to happen. Without wanting to sound trite, I pay tribute to the armed forces of Ukraine, which are defending our freedom in Europe with their lives, blood and treasure. I am sure we all agree with that, but it is worth saying again.
The question I want to ask is slightly different. It strikes me that, over the past 12 or 18 months, when it comes to propaganda, Ukraine and its right cause has been on the defensive. During 2025, the Russian forces occupied a further 1%, to the nearest percentage point, I believe, of Ukrainian territory, with huge and obscene losses of their own troops and population, yet we still have the feeling that the White House understands that Ukraine has no cards, the cause is lost, and there is no future in successfully stopping Putin from winning. It is all very difficult, but those are the facts of military change over the past year. What are the Minister’s thoughts on how we can reverse some of that feeling, so that we can be more positive about what Ukraine is achieving in its work and its firepower and that side of the conflict? How can we change the narrative?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is an important question. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the Ukrainian armed forces, and acknowledge the stoicism and bravery of the Ukrainian people for resisting in the way that they have.
Whatever the debate about defence investment and how much we should be spending, we should remember what we actually are doing. Notwithstanding the difficulties and challenges that Ukraine faces in re-equipping and so on, we should remind ourselves that Russia was not expecting to be in the position that it is now. When it attacked, it was expecting to take Kyiv within a few days, put a puppet Government in place and have a vassal state. That was the intention. Has Russia been successful in doing that? Not at all. Instead of saying that this is where we are now, sometimes you need to go back and look at what the original objective was. I say to this House, this Parliament and this country that Russia has totally failed in its original objective. Ultimately, it has failed because of the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the support that most countries have given to them.
What else did Russia expect? It expected NATO to be weakened and implode. What has happened? Notwithstanding the discussions we have had about the United States, NATO has been strengthened. Who would have said at the beginning of the conflict that Finland and Sweden would join NATO? They have, and that has strengthened NATO. As well as looking at the challenges and difficulties that we face, we ought to remind ourselves sometimes about what has been done and is working well. Russia has failed in its original objectives, and we should remind people of that.
Undersea Internet Cables
Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Coaker(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Vallance stated on 3 December 2024, we continue to work closely with international partners following the breakage of subsea telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea on 17 and 18 November 2024. We must let those investigations run their course.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that on Christmas Day, the “Eagle S”, a Cook Islands-registered vessel and part of the Russian shadow oil tanker fleet, cut more cables in the Baltic Sea. I am delighted that the Finnish coastguard authorities arrested that vessel while it was still in international waters and brought it to port. Do the UK Government applaud the Finnish authorities’ reaction to that, as I do, and would they act similarly in UK coastal waters?
Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines
Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Coaker(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We will understand that more fully once we have finished the demonstrator project with HMS “Swiftsure”.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says—it is not his fault—that the new nuclear submarines will not be delivered for another six years, yet the current length of patrols for the Astute class is getting longer. The crews have to cope with long periods of being away from their families and their homes. There is also stress around the recruitment of those crews. How do we square the circle over the next five or six years when, because of the maintenance of the current fleet, the length of patrols is likely to get even longer?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me just say to the noble Lord that everything that happens is now my responsibility. If I gave the impression that it was not my responsibility, that certainly was not my intention. I will not evade responsibility for anything.
On the noble Lord’s question, I am not going to go into the operations of our submarine fleet in great detail on the Floor of this House, for obvious reasons. However, the noble Lord makes a point, as he has done here previously, about the welfare of submariners—indeed, the welfare of all our Armed Forces. That is something we take very seriously. We are looking to do all we can to support them and ensure that they are supported in the way they should be. In a few months’ time, or a year’s time, perhaps the noble Lord can ask the same question, and we will see whether we have made the progress we should have done; that will be my responsibility.
Combat Air Capability
Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Coaker(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Well, I do not know about that, but the use of drones will of course become increasingly important. With respect to the noble Lord’s suggestion, I am sure that people have heard it and will consider it in due course.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister confident that we can keep one Vanguard submarine at sea at all times, given the strain there is on crew and our loss of crew because of the increasingly long time each mission has to take because of maintenance of the rest of the fleet?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is a very important question and there should be no confusion here. The noble Lord is talking about the UK’s nuclear deterrent. That forms an important part of our deterrent. We are absolutely 100% certain that we will retain a constant at-sea nuclear deterrent presence. That needs to be heard from this Chamber and across the globe. There is no way that we will in any way allow our nuclear deterrent to be compromised. That needs to be heard loud and clear.