President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of President Trump’s statement on 30 October regarding the testing of nuclear weapons.

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom has ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and continues to press for its entry into force. We remain committed to our voluntary moratorium on nuclear test explosions, having ceased nuclear testing in 1991. The nuclear testing policy of the United States is a matter for the US Government, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment further.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it is easy to look on this as some sort of playground bravado by President Trump, who clearly did not understand the implications of, or what was meant by, the trials of delivery systems that Putin was conducting. With him having made his statement, President Putin wanted to show how tough he was and made his statement about doing tests again. This would be probably quite amusing if it was not so incredibly dangerous. The comprehensive test-ban treaty is one of the few treaties regarding nuclear weapons that are still in existence; many have fallen by the wayside. We are less safe than we used to be because of that. If the comprehensive test-ban treaty is broken, it opens a Pandora’s box. All of us will be far less safe. That is extremely worrying.

I know the Minister cannot say very much in response to my Question—in effect, it was nothing, but those are wonderful. However, even though something may not happen because the Department of Energy in America is unable to do a test straight away—it will take a couple of years and cost billions of dollars, so this thing may go away— and even though, as he says, it is their business, does he believe that the Government should make it very clear to the Americans how much we support keeping the test ban treaty in place and that we will be very disappointed if there is any break to that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The UK has a long-standing and important relationship with the United States—it is important to start out and say that on a number of occasions. The comprehensive test-ban treaty, as my noble friend has said, is a really successful treaty, and we continue to push and to do all we can to ensure that it is as effective as it is with as many states as possible. We look forward to everyone who signed it ratifying it in due course.

Caribbean: US Military Action

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government of the United Kingdom do prioritise the security of this country. We are acting in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. That is the guiding principle for the Government. As I have said time and time again from this Dispatch Box, the security relationship between the US and the UK is fundamental for this country, for Europe and for global security. That is the important principle to which this Government adhere. The noble Lord is smiling, but he agrees with that and he will know that that fundamental principle guides the actions of the Government.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows well that for many years we have been deeply involved in JIATF-East, the joint intelligence drugs task force in the Caribbean. We work very closely and share intelligence across the board. There is nothing strange in having over the years been selective sometimes in what intelligence is provided. We did that when we worked in Iraq and other places in the Middle East. It is not surprising. Would my noble friend agree that it is very important that we stay involved in stopping that drugs traffic, which is so destabilising, but that we must be very careful over what intelligence we share? That is nothing new. It is something that we have done over many years.

[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.

Ukraine

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it is inevitable that many speakers today will be covering the same ground, but I do not think that is important because the full impact of the war in Ukraine should be aired in this Chamber. I am delighted that this has been an opportunity to do that.

Putin’s “special operation” in Ukraine went wrong from the beginning. Five Eyes intelligence identified that it was about to happen, in great detail, and, very unusually, we actually promulgated that fact. That was quite a blow to Putin and his team. We know from our own intelligence what an impact it had. Of course, the Ukrainians resisted, and we saw the breathtaking incompetence of the Russian military. I have to say that, after many years watching Army intelligence try to work out what real threat the Russian army was, one did have to wonder slightly when it did so badly in that invasion. But all that is history.

The invasion of a nation state that Putin had categorically admitted was such—he had recognised that it was a nation state—showed him for what he had become. It is clear from his statements and writings that he believes Russia should have the same borders as the old Soviet Union, controlling vassal states within those borders. He went as far as to claim that Ukraine posed an existential threat to Russia.

The war has now been going on for three and a half years, as many speakers have mentioned. All of us, I think, reinforce what my noble friend the Minister and others have said: we must all admire the bravery, steadfastness and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. What they have been through is quite incredible—there is nothing like having people shooting at you and having people around you dying to make you realise how appalling that can be. When it is civilians, it is incredibly impressive.

There is no doubt that our front line, as has been mentioned before, is in Ukraine, because already there is a grey zone war with Putin, which I will come back to. If Putin is successful in forcing Ukraine into defeat and surrender, he will be emboldened and will invade his next victim, be it Transnistria, South Ossetia, Moldova or maybe even the Kaliningrad corridor. We really have to stop him now.

There is no doubt that the Russian military is more competent than it was in the early days. It is doing better on the front line than it was in those days, and its drone attacks are putting Ukrainian forces under immense pressure. A number of speakers have talked about the huge pressure on Ukraine, which is extremely worrying. However, the Russians are suffering massive casualties, and there is no doubt that it is western support—weapons and other support—that allows Ukraine to continue to fight.

The Russian economy is weathering the storm better than we predicted, not least because of the huge Chinese financial and other support. Russia has also been helped by countries such as India—much to my surprise, given that we have done a lot to help India—and Iran, and by troops from North Korea. Putin told Xi Jinping about his “special operation” before he launched it, saying that it would be over in three weeks. This has fully confirmed the Chinese view of the unpredictable risk of wars, and China is very unimpressed by how it has gone. At present, the support of Putin suits Xi, as he wishes the established world order to be toppled, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. But he has no love for Putin, and I think Putin needs to look carefully, because he is supping with the devil in dealing so closely with him.

The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit held in Tianjin should be a wake-up call for the US and for us. I found it quite horrifying that that was happening. Basically, it is showing that it wants to dismantle and change the world order that we established, with the Americans, at the end of the Second World War, which has given huge security to the globe and increased the wealth of many parts of the world. This meeting really showed that. The fact that this world order is under threat stems from the Ukraine war and is very worrying. It all adds up to the importance of thwarting Putin in Ukraine.

Our primary object must be to keep Ukraine in the war until the damage to Putin, financially and militarily, makes him recognise that he must reach a peace accord. What exactly that comprises, how it is implemented and the European involvement is downstream work to that primary purpose. What is needed now is commitment to major arms supplies and long-range, in-depth weapons, the imposition of secondary sanctions, which will make China and India stop giving their support, and the use of the frozen assets in Belgium to purchase Ukrainian arms and help reconstruction.

The important message to Putin will be delivered through NATO increasing defence spending. Putin is a dangerous maverick. It is extraordinary that he is already conducting a war in the grey zone. There have been two WMD attacks in Britain. His lackeys are constantly attacking our cyber networks. They are conducting online work to destabilise our society. He has facilitated kinetic attacks on our CNI. He is threatening to carry out attacks on our underwater cables. He is regularly penetrating NATO airspace. We must succeed in thwarting Putin’s illegal and appalling attack on Ukraine, or events could gain a momentum of their own, leading, I believe, to a major world war.

Republic of Ireland: Defence Co-operation

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that there has been a memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the United Kingdom since 2015. Michael Fallon and Simon Coveney signed an agreement in 2015 on defence co-operation between the two countries, while respecting Ireland's neutrality and the fact that it is not a member of NATO. Like many countries across the whole of Europe, whether in NATO or outside, Ireland has been forced to confront the reality of what we face. Like every country, including our own, it is increasing defence spending and looking at what more it can do, not least, as I say, through a refreshed memorandum of understanding between us and the Irish Government, which we hope to be in place during 2026.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentions that Ireland might increase defence spending. There is no doubt that, through the Second World War and the Cold War, in effect the United Kingdom made sure the defence of Ireland was secure, with almost no contribution from Ireland. We are now in a very dangerous world. If one looks at Norway and Ireland, which have about the same population, one finds that Ireland has 719 people in its navy while Norway has 4,000, and that Ireland has four coastal patrol craft while Norway has 69. Is it not time that we made it clear to the Irish that, in this globally dangerous world, they have to make an appropriate contribution to defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are witnessing the recognition on the part of Ireland that the changed environment in which it finds itself requires attention. These are decisions for the Irish Government. Like all Governments across Europe, they are looking at the changed geopolitical environment and the strains and stresses that puts on the defence of their own country. Discussions are taking place, in an appropriate way, between us and Ireland about what we can do around, for example, critical underwater infrastructure. Ireland is also looking at establishing its own radar capability. There are signs that Ireland is looking at what it can do to enhance its own defence and security.

Armed Forces: Recruitment and Retention

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. There are a number of different aspects to that. Clearly, mental health and the psychological impacts of modern warfare are things that any recruiting process will have to take account of, not only for recruits but for those who are serving and veterans. To answer the right reverend Prelate’s question, we have set up a new cyber direct entry means by which recruits can join, given the changing nature of warfare and the fact that traditional recruits may not be somebody we might regard as being fit for cyber recruitment. This issue is causing us to reflect and change in all sorts of ways, with respect to existing members of the Armed Forces and those who may serve in future.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we have slightly lost sight of why youngsters want to join the military? I do not believe youngsters have changed that much and I think Capita got it wrong in spades. The sorts of reasons one joined were for action, danger, excitement, comradeship, travel and pride. Being told that you are going to have a very good pension in however many years and that there is going to be career development and this sort of thing is all fine and dandy, but you have to remember the real reason you might get people in. I think we got it wrong, particularly with Capita.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree absolutely with my noble friend’s points and will not repeat them. He will know that we have replaced Capita with Serco, which will make a difference. In a couple of years’ time, we will have a single point of entry for applicants, rather than through the three individual services. Let me also say this. We ought to speak up and speak out about the Armed Forces. My noble friend will know about the carrier strike group which has sailed through the Red Sea and is now on its way to Australia. They are young men and women who this country is rightly proud of, and we should use them as examples for our young people of the sort of service they can do and of what a career in the Armed Forces means. It is exciting, but it also stands up for the things that we in this country believe in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has often raised the importance of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to the Royal Navy, and we will continue to look at what more we can do with respect to it. I was recently in Singapore, where, as well as seeing the carrier and HMS “Dauntless”, I went to see the RFA ship—I can remember everything else except the name of the RAF ship.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

RFA.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord West; that was very helpful—it is always good to hear your own side mumbling behind you. It was RFA “Tidespring”.

The serious point is this. As well as seeing the carrier and the “Dauntless”, I specifically went to see the RFA ship to ensure that I spoke to those people and discussed with them the importance of what they were doing and to see if they had any particular issues. That will inform the discussions that we have in the MoD.

F35A and F35B Jets

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the recently announced procurement of twelve F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons will affect the planned procurement of F35B jets.

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

I draw noble Lords’ attention, on my noble friend’s very serious point, to the fact that just last week I was in Singapore with the carrier strike group. What a proud moment it was for our country to see the “Prince of Wales” in Singapore harbour at the invitation of the Singapore Government, with F35Bs and helicopters all over it, to see the crew there and to visit the other ships that are part of it. I just wanted to say that but, in answer to my noble friend’s Question, I can confirm that the second procurement phase will consist of 12 F35As and 15 F35Bs, which will enable the stand-up of the third front-line squadron focused on F35Bs. Forty- one of the 48 F35Bs in the first procurement phase have been delivered, with 617 Squadron and 809 Naval Air Squadron both currently deployed on HMS “Prince of Wales” for Operation Highmast. We remain committed to 138 F35s across the life of the programme, and the defence investment programme will examine options on further purchases in the coming months.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, although my question has been rather shredded of various elements by the previous debate. It is worth remembering that 80 years ago as we speak, the British Pacific fleet was leaving the waters around Okinawa, heading towards the Japanese homeland. It consisted of a mere 21 aircraft carriers, four battleships and dozens of destroyers and frigates, which were in the same waters that the “Prince of Wales” is in now. They were under almost continuous attack by kamikazes, which you could argue are the ultimate drone. Whenever we discuss the military, we ought to remember those who have gone before and what they did to enable us to be here.

As for my question, I now have two bits left after everything that has been discussed. The first one is: does my noble friend believe that now might be time for us to review our nuclear doctrine? One could argue that it goes on all the time, but might it be time to do a proper review of our nuclear doctrine? The other one is: I had understood that major investment decisions—and this is one, bearing in mind the costs of having bases ready to take nuclear weapons and all of this sort of thing—were going to be made in the autumn as part of the defence investment plan to check out the national armaments director and the new strategic headquarters. Does the fact that this decision has been made now, without waiting for the autumn, mean that all the decisions from the SDR that we were expecting in the autumn will be taken piecemeal before then?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his questions. On his very serious and important point about those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Far East, he will be pleased to know that, on my visit to Singapore, I visited the war grave cemetery there, and that when I was in Jakarta a day or two later, I visited the war grave cemetery there and laid a wreath to remember those who had gone before. I think that is really important.

On the issue of the nuclear doctrine, of course one always reflects on these matters but, as it stands, the nuclear doctrine is as it is. The major investment decisions, in terms of the money and the direction of travel, remain the same. It was felt important, given the serious geopolitical challenges that we face and although the number of planes remains the same, that there should be some movement from F35Bs to F35As. It was important that we made that decision at this particular time in the light of the threat that we face.

Defence Industrial Base

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has been very clear about his commitment to ensure that the 62 recommendations are properly funded. The noble Baroness will know that the 3% is a commitment in the next Parliament, should the economic circumstances allow us to do so. The Prime Minister’s commitment is absolute, with respect to funding the defence review, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, accepts and understands that. As to when we will lay out the capabilities, the noble Baroness knows that alongside the defence review and the defence industrial strategy, in the autumn there will be a defence investment plan. This will be a line-by-line outline of the capabilities and choices needed to deliver the defence review according to the budgets that have been set.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask my noble friend the Minister: does the Treasury now understand that all this military equipment requires a drumbeat of orders? For example, if you want 30 frigates and they have 30-year life, one frigate has to roll off the production line every single year, year after year. The same goes for all other types of equipment. Historically, we have ordered little batches and then there has been a gap, so SMEs lose trade and cannot do anything. Then we order another little batch and there is a big fight about it. The Treasury has to understand the need for the drumbeat—have we managed to get the message through?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Treasury understands the need for that drumbeat. My noble friend is absolutely right that you cannot turn defence industry production on and off like a tap, and that we have to maintain the capability to produce ships or whatever military equipment that we need. It is also particularly important that we maintain the skilled labour and not allow those skills to be lost. My noble friend will know that the numbers of ships are now set out over the next few years, with designs for frigates and destroyers being planned for what comes next. I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the up to 12 additional AUKUS submarines. So the Treasury understands both the need for more money—which has been injected—and the need to ensure that we get that steady drumbeat, as my noble friend says.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course it will be in the most extreme of circumstances that the nuclear deterrent would even be considered for use. I just say that the whole point of the nuclear deterrent—this is something I have said many times at the Dispatch Box—is to deter people. It is that whole concept that sometimes seems contradictory: that by preparing for war, you prevent war. The strategic nuclear deterrent is the most significant example of that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it has always been the case that the nuclear programme has been at the very limits of our technological, industrial, scientific and cost profiles. The speed at which we produced Blue Danube bombs, for example, was excruciatingly slow, and so was the Beard process beyond that, and the other weapons. Now we have a lot of pressure from civil nuclear as well. Does my noble friend agree that we have to have a really national endeavour among all departments to pull together so that we can get the training of scientists and everyone focusing on this particular issue, because otherwise we will find it very hard to deliver—certainly within the cost parameters, but very hard to deliver anyway?

Just as an aside, when I was in government, the Prime Minister asked me to go and check on the independence of our deterrent. I was allowed access to all sorts of things, and the answer is that it is independent. Clearly, over time, over 20 or 30 years, that becomes more difficult, because of maintenance of missiles, for example.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point with respect to the nuclear enterprise and the need for it to be a national endeavour. It is true of the defence nuclear enterprise, as it is true with many other aspects of defence, that the need for us to upskill, to have more apprentices and to have more of the systems available to us in order for us to be able to deliver the defence programmes and projects that we want is a challenge. Let me be clear that we will make sure that we have all the necessary skills and capabilities required to maintain our nuclear deterrent.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The National Shipbuilding Office is based in the MoD but works across government. There is a review of the export guarantee, the fundamental point of which is that, where we have exports and ships that need to be built, there is access to finance. We are not satisfied with how that is working at present, and the review is going on to see if we can do better.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, a shipbuilding strategy is meaningless unless there are not just orders for ships, but a drumbeat of orders. I spent 15 years on the Opposition Benches pointing out to the then Government that we needed to get some orders going and get them in quickly, so that there was a programme of build; otherwise the Navy would be decimated—which it has been. There is now a threat to the continuous at-sea deterrence, for the same reason. Will the Minister speak to the right honourable John Healey and the Treasury? We must have a sequence of orders, a drumbeat of orders, or we will not get the shipyards and SMEs to recruit people, invest and get apprenticeships. It will be meaningless unless we manage to do this.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government are seeking to do exactly what my noble friend points out. The important point he makes is the necessity for a drumbeat: you cannot build a ship in one place and then, three years later, go back and try to build another ship; you have to have a continuous programme. The shipbuilding pipeline that has been outlined was partly intended to address that. We are already starting to see the MoD place orders for ships. I have mentioned Rosyth and the Clyde, and other shipbuilding orders are being made at various shipyards across the country. I say to my noble friend that I will be one of those advocating to make sure that, as far as possible, orders for ships required in the UK are built at British yards. I take the point he is really making, which is about the need for more ships.

Future Defence Capability

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed, that is the whole point of the growth agenda. The noble Baroness may have had the opportunity to read the Chancellor’s speech earlier today, which specifically talked about the defence industry, the growth agenda and the importance of that going across the whole of the UK. She has been an advocate, as many noble Lords have been, for Northern Ireland industry, and the £1.6 billion-worth of money to Thales in Belfast and also the drone capacity and capability of Spirit in Northern Ireland are examples. I also know that all of the Northern Ireland representatives with the Government there are seeking to ensure that it is not only big business that benefits but that small and medium-sized businesses benefit as well.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our armed services, I am afraid, are in a parlous state—it is no good pretending otherwise. They have been seriously hollowed out and they are nowhere near the capabilities that our nation thought they would have. Thank goodness we are now putting some money into defence, but there is a need to think in the short-term as well as the long-term. Are we making sure that we put money in rapidly to the areas that need to be resolved quickly, in case we are at war within the next couple of years, as well as just looking ahead to the way we would like to structure our forces for the future? This is what the SDR was going to do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Before I answer the question directly, I thought that my noble friend was going to welcome the statement in the Chancellor’s speech that the Portsmouth naval base was to be renovated and improved, but there we go. And we are going to try to provide ships there, as well.