Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, if anyone was left with any lingering doubt about the naivete of losing sovereignty over this base, recent events have emblazoned that folly for all to see. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, arguably one of the most respected defence experts in the world and defence adviser to the Government, today accuses the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of “corrosive complacency” over defence, and vents his frustration and anger at the lack of decisive political leadership in defence. That is an excoriating criticism, so can I ask the Minister two questions?
Given this explosive intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will the Government respond positively by binning this discredited deal now and redirecting the money, say, for immediate investment in defence? Assuming—I am almost tempted to say “knowing”, but let us stick with “assuming”—that the Minister is in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will he, as someone whose reputation rightly stands high, ask his Secretary of State to tell the Prime Minister to remove the Treasury’s decision-making from people who know nothing about military strategy and military planning, and order the Treasury to lay out a new plan for a rapid escalation of defence spend during this Parliament and the next one?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that we are not binning the treaty—I think that was the word she used. We will look to take it forward and discussions will continue; it just will not happen in the current Session, because parliamentary time will not allow it. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we cannot take this forward without US support, but discussions will carry on.
As for the investment programme, as I have said to the noble Baroness on many occasions, the Government are increasing defence spending and we will continue to do that. There have been various commitments: 3% in the next Parliament, should economic circumstances allow, and then on to 2035, with further investment. As I have said time and again, whatever the argument about the totality of spending, let us recognise that there are significant sums of money being spent on shipbuilding and aircraft, dockyards, and all of our Armed Forces across many parts of our country and indeed abroad. We need to recognise what we are doing, as well as what we are not.
Atlantic Undersea Cables: Russian Subsurface Operations
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There have been many meetings across government and there are always meetings across government, with DSIT and DESNZ, which have responsibility for underwater structures. I think that the meeting the noble Lord referred to is a meeting that the Defence Secretary announced last week in which he talked about the need for them to come together again to look at the increased threat from Russia with respect to that. That demonstrates the increased co-operation across government to meet what is a very real challenge and threat to our country.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the professionalism of the RAF and our Poseidon P-8 pilots operating out of Lossiemouth in monitoring the recent activities of that Russian attack submarine and the related Russian spy ships is to be commended. We thank them, and I hope everyone in this Chamber acknowledges their contribution. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, for her distinguished career in the RAF and her contribution to our defence and security. If the RAF surveillance operation had identified a malign attack on undersea cables, what UK assets were available in these seas to thwart such an attack?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks a very reasonable question, but I cannot go into some of the operational details that she requires. Suffice to say, the important thing was that the Poseidon P-8s that she identified, flying from Lossiemouth, identified the threat. We also put a Type 23 frigate out there, HMS “Somerset”. Working with other assets, they made sure that the Russian submarines were aware that we were aware of them, because of course the whole point of submarine warfare is covert activity. We found them, we saw them, we took action against them and, if we had needed to, we would have been able to deal with that as well.
Strait of Hormuz: Mine Clearance
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, when President Trump triggered the war in the Middle East, the sole naval response by the UK, to protect significant British interests in the region, was to belatedly order a Type 45 destroyer, in maintenance in Portsmouth, to be made sea-ready. It departed on 10 March and reached Cyprus approximately two weeks later, then to go into dock some days later for short-term maintenance to repair the onboard water supply system. That has been our naval response. The Minister will agree that this is as extraordinary as it is embarrassing. Although the new frigates in the Clyde and the Forth, ordered by the last Conservative Government, will be an important augmentation to the Royal Navy, I ask the Minister: is HMS “Dragon” back in deployment, what other naval assets are currently sea-ready, what are the Government doing to accelerate sea-readiness of the remaining naval assets, and is the elusive—indeed, now evanescent—defence investment plan not now pointless, completely overtaken by events?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know my answer with respect to the defence investment plan. As I have said, it will be published in due course. HMS “Dragon” is available in the eastern Mediterranean and, as she says, is currently undergoing some limited work—but is still available with respect to its air defence weapons.
I pay tribute to the last Government for the 13 ships being built in Scotland and their importance. With respect to what the Government are doing with the mine-hunting capabilities in the region, in the Answer I gave my noble friend Lord West, I spoke about the autonomous mine-hunting capabilities that are already deployed there. The noble Baroness will know, because she is well aware of these things, that the hybrid Navy that the First Sea Lord wants will ensure that we not only have ships but that the mine-hunting capabilities of the future will involve much more the use of drones. That was why I made the point about RFA “Lyme Bay” being made a mothership from which drones can be used to tackle a mine threat, although no decision has been made to deploy that yet. That is also a way forward. Of course, ships are important, but there are many other ways mines can be tackled as well.
UK Homeland Defence
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this conflict has laid bare the acute geopolitical threat that we face and the embarrassing sparseness of readily deployable UK military assets. The first is frightening, the second completely unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm that the discredited UK-Mauritius treaty is now dead and beyond resuscitation and that the excessively and embarrassingly delayed defence investment plan will now be elevated to an issue of urgent national security and published immediately?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On the issue of the defence investment plan, I have nothing further to add to what has been said by the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. It will be published when it is ready to be published and we have completed work on it, which will be as soon as possible. Discussions continue on the appropriate way forward with respect to Diego Garcia, so discussions continue on the treaty. The noble Baroness and I are completely united, as everybody in this House is, on the importance of the Diego Garcia base, as we can see at the current time. The difference between us is on how best to protect that base. I take the noble Baroness’s point, but let me reiterate that we see the base as strategically important for the UK and will seek to defend our interests there.
Middle East: Defence
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the briefing on the current conflict that he made available to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank all our Armed Forces personnel who are currently deployed and protecting this country and all our interests in the region, whether British citizens, bases or military assets. We admire their courage, professionalism and unstinting commitment to serve in an environment that is unpredictable and frightening. We are in their debt, and we never take their contribution for granted. We are particularly mindful of that as we remember the United States service personnel who have lost their lives in the conflict. Sadly, conflict delivers inevitable death and injury, so we think of all those impacted by recent events.
I am not going to engage in hindsight. I want to focus on three things: what the Government knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. Unlike His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government have access to high-quality defence, security and military intelligence, so answering these three questions is important. Candour in answering them may help to inform what to do the next time a threat manifests itself.
To focus the Minister’s mind, I will share what I knew, when I knew it and what I would have done with that limited knowledge. First, we have always known the toxic threat presented by Iran. It is a malign and evil regime, with a hatred of western culture, that is intent on developing nuclear weapons. By the beginning of this year, it was clear that President Trump was heading for decisive action.
Secondly, by February, President Trump had adopted a bellicose approach, making it more, rather than less, likely that the US would trigger a conflict. On 11 February, 16 days before the first American missiles hit Iran, the United States formally requested the use of British bases to facilitate that attack. His Majesty’s Government therefore knew, two weeks in advance, that there was an overwhelming likelihood of an Iranian response that would threaten our citizens, Armed Forces personnel, military bases and sovereign territory.
Thirdly, given that knowledge, I would have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to move heaven and earth to muster whatever assets he could lay his hands on and get them out to the region. Unfortunately, it appears that that was not the Government’s response. We had no warship in the Gulf, we know that no Type 45 destroyer was deployed in those intervening two weeks, HMS “Anson” remained in Australia, and no Type 23 was sent to the region either. Removing our one warship from the region, with no replacement at such a critical time, is extraordinary. A Type 45 destroyer dispatched to the region would have provided invaluable protection against air attack on our Cyprus base.
The public assessment of how the Government responded is unflattering. I shall leave the Minister to counter that negative view but, to do so, he needs to provide specific answers to the three points that I have raised.
The crux of the matter appears to be this: we have been attacked, our bases and sovereign territory are under threat, and UK citizens in the region have faced attack. Whether we were involved in the initial strikes is immaterial; Iran does not discriminate. The United Kingdom is in this war now, whether we like it or not. Given that simple fact, distinctions between offence and defence are semantics; they are simply not relevant. If someone fires a missile at you, you have to do everything within your power to stop it and then stop them firing another.
I shall await the Minister’s response, but if part of the Government’s dilemma was uncertainty about what assets could be mustered then that is extremely serious and, in such dangerous times, unacceptable. I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government immediately audit the availability of naval assets and urgently improve sea readiness? As this conflict underlines the imperative of the defence industry plan being finalised, can it be published immediately? Adhering to the agreed build timescales for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates is now critical. These ships are needed by the UK, so will the Minister confirm that no export order will be permitted to dislocate that delivery schedule? What lessons does the Minister consider that we need to learn from the UK’s pace of response to this conflict? Finally, disquiet has been expressed publicly that the new contract that the Government entered into with Serco ended round-the-clock staffing at the naval base. Can the Minister confirm whether that was one of the reasons for the extraordinary delay in getting HMS “Dragon” ready to leave port?
Iran and the Middle East
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think we all remember the experience from 2003 and the decisions made around Iraq. Somebody who fought in Iraq—a Member of Parliament, Calvin Bailey, who was a wing commander in the RAF—said to me last week that there were two things that the British Government need to bear in mind before they take such a decision again: one is the legality and the other is what happens next. I think he is right. As a mother of boys of fighting age, I do not want to have to look into the eyes of anybody else’s mother and say that we had not done our work adequately ahead of making such a decision ever again.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, sadly, it was universally acknowledged that this conflict was more likely to occur than less likely, with predictable consequences for British interests in the region. May I ask the Minister: why was our military response so tardy and so incomplete?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I just do not accept that that is the case. We are just over a week into this conflict. Decisions were made rapidly at the outset. The initial request was declined—as is well recorded and well discussed—for reasons that have been explained, and I refer the noble Baroness to my answer to the previous question, which I hope explains why. The decision now is around defensive activity, and I think that that is the right position for the UK to take at this point.
Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I also take this opportunity to welcome this provision. I just have one question, and I apologise in advance to the Minister that it is detailed, but I am attempting—dare I say—to help the Government. Since this Act became an Act, the Armed Forces Bill has been published, and an element of the Armed Forces Bill is to seek to reinvigorate the reserve.
Schedule 1, paragraph 4 talks about disqualification in the original Act:
“A person is disqualified from being the commissioner if the person is a member of the regular or Reserve Forces”.
Most people reading that would assume that the Reserve Forces refers to the part-time volunteer reserve. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. But, of course, on leaving regular service, former regular personnel also have a reserve liability, initially as part of the irregular reserve, where they can be called to training at any point for up to 15 days. This depends between service, but potentially for six years. If this also applied to the irregular reserve, as we refer to it in the Army, it would effectively disbar former members of the Armed Forces from applying for this job for six years.
There is then a more interesting question, given what the Armed Forces Bill is seeking to do with the recall reserve. It seeks to align the three services where a recall liability would then be for a further 18 years, part of what we call the strategic reserve—which is confusing. That would effectively disbar a former member of the regular forces who is not in a part-time volunteer reserve for up to 24 years. I have got no problem with the period of how long they would be disbarred but, given that we are seeking to reinvigorate these other two aspects of the Reserve Forces, it is causing some confusion. When we are talking about the reserve, do we mean just the active reserve, or that if you are a member of a strategic reserve—that is, recall reserve— it will not apply?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations, defining “relevant family members” under the Armed Forces Commissioner Act. That clarity is welcome, and these Benches will not oppose the regulations.
Having said that, there are still one or two unaddressed concerns which emerged during the debate on the passing of the Bill in this House. Recent cases have raised serious concerns about the way in which complaints are handled. There continue to be too many service personnel who lack confidence in the system and fear adverse career consequences if they come forward. That culture of hesitation is precisely what the creation of the commissioner was intended to address. As the Minister knows, these Benches supported the establishment of the commissioner; we recognised the need for a stronger, accessible and trusted route through which serious welfare concerns could be raised. That is why we also welcome the extension of the commissioner’s remit to relevant family members. Service life affects not only the individual in uniform, but the families who support them. On the face of it, the definition in these regulations is broad and sensible, and it is reassuring that it has been developed in consultation with the Armed Forces Families Federations.
However, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the legislation, I sought to strengthen the provisions specifically in relation to whistleblowing. My concern was and remains that, given the reputational damage suffered by the Ministry of Defence in recent years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, we should provide a simple, clearly understood and protective route for raising serious concerns. I was not persuaded that existing mechanisms were sufficient. There is already statutory precedent for whistleblowing protections within Armed Forces legislation and, although my amendments were not accepted, the Government committed to a review of whistleblowing in defence, an undertaking which I welcomed and accepted in good faith. I ask the Minister to give us an update on where that review has got to, because I would be personally interested to know if there is an interim or final report scheduled to be published.
Against that general backdrop, I will ask the Minister two questions specific to the regulations. First, what practical safeguards will prevent career or informal detriment, direct or indirect, to the victim, where a family member approaches the commissioner? If families are to be empowered to raise concerns, they have to be confident that doing so will not harm the serviceperson whom they seek to support.
Secondly, although these provisions will be monitored, there is no statutory review clause. Given the novelty and sensitivity of this expanded remit, will the Government commit to publishing a formal review within a defined period?
As I indicated, we on these Benches do not oppose these regulations. They form part of a broader, necessary reform if confidence in the complaints system is to be restored, and that restoration of confidence is vital. Our service personnel and their families deserve a system that is independent in spirit, deserving of their trust and does what it says on the tin. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, everybody knew that this contract between Palantir and the MoD was going to expire in 2025, with, we understand, interest from British companies in tendering for the new contract. We now know that, in February 2025, the Prime Minister attended a meeting in Washington DC with Palantir, at which the now disgraced former ambassador, Peter Mandelson, who held shares in a company engaged by Palantir, was also present. In December 2025, the MoD, without competition, awarded a lucrative three-year contract to Palantir. There is a very unpleasant smell hovering over this particular bucket of fish. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what was discussed at that February meeting in Washington and, if he does not know, go away and write to me? Why, given the interest of British companies, was this contract not put out for competitive tender?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the courteous way in which she asked the question. I will reflect on what she has said and respond appropriately once I have discussed it with others.
On the fundamental issue of single-source contracts, I can do no better than to quote the Conservative spokesperson in the other place, who said:
“It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/26; col. 691.]
In this particular instance, the MoD judged the capabilities and record of Palantir in the delivery of the systems that it has, and the artificial intelligence and data sharing that can take place, which started with the enterprise agreement that the last Government entered into in 2022, enabling Palantir to embed itself in all sorts of operations that were and are ongoing and will continue. The transparency notice that we published a few weeks ago, in December, laid out why the direct award was justified in this case, giving it to Palantir as a single-source contract and not making it available to more general competition. It was in our interests, the interests of the MoD and the interests of our country that we let that contract to Palantir to deliver the very special capabilities that it has.
Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There are debates about the defence budget, and it is a matter for the Opposition to explain some of the promises that they are making, as my noble friend pointed out—we will no doubt hear much on this in a later Question. I am pleased to celebrate that this Government are investing record amounts of money in the Ministry of Defence and our defence industry and capabilities.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the nuclear submarines out of service? Can he say what conclusions the submarine dismantling programme has come to, based on HMS “Swiftsure” at Rosyth? What are the current projected costs of the overall decommissioning and dismantling programme?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I can give some of the information that the noble Baroness has asked me for. The Defence Nuclear Enterprise submarine dismantling project has achieved a major milestone as it completes the fin cut and removal on HMS “Swiftsure”. She will become the first decommissioned Royal Navy submarine to be dismantled by the end of 2026, establishing a unique and world-first methodology for submarine disposal. Over 500 tonnes of conventional waste have already been removed and recycled from HMS “Swiftsure”, and the innovative programme of work will enable around 90% of the submarine structure and components to be reused or recycled. That demonstrates to the noble Baroness that considerable progress is being made, and HMS “Swiftsure” is an exemplar for what will come next.
Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
First, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the service that the noble Lord undertakes on behalf of our nation; perhaps he can pass that on to the other reservists he will be training with at the weekend.
What the noble Lord asks will, again, be subject to the defence investment plan. Reserves are important to this Government. They will be an important part of how we ensure that we have war-fighting readiness in the future, and alongside that they will need the necessary training.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the premise of my noble friend Lord Young’s Question could not be simpler: if the money is not there, what will be cut? The Minister’s admirable verbal limbo dancing has not answered that Question, so let me try to help. Can I turn this on its head and invite the Minister to start spelling out what is being funded? For example, in reply to me yesterday, we seemed to make some encouraging headway on training and equipping the Special Boat Service to enable our elite soldiers to board sanctioned, illegally flagged vessels. Could that one get a tick?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not going to comment on the operation of Special Forces, and the noble Baroness would not have done that in her previous role, however nicely she was asked. I outlined the money being spent to other noble Lords: we are developing munitions factories and money will be spent on that; there is a defence housing strategy and money will be spent on that; the Typhoon and T26 deals are enabling imports and money to be spent there; we are spending money on the DragonFire laser system; there is a new programme to build drone factories; and we are spending billions of pounds on the nuclear deterrent. All sorts of moneys are being spent.
While we are talking about this, let us also reflect on what our Armed Forces have done in the last few months, notwithstanding that this debate is about budget. We have seen RAF Typhoons take action in Syria, the carrier strike group, a commitment to the coalition of the willing, forces in Estonia and elsewhere, and support for the American action to deal with the shadow fleet. I know that the noble Baroness supports all of those. I understand the point of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Young, but we should also reflect on what we do and the challenges this country faces.