Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I associate myself with the first remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in supporting His Majesty’s Government in their response to the Russian ship, and thanking the Minister for being here today to answer questions, as well as the Secretary of State for his Statement last week. It is clearly important that parliamentarians have the opportunity to understand what is happening: equally, we understand the Secretary of State’s point that there is a limit to how much operational information can be given.

We support the Government’s action, but I have a series of questions. The Minister will probably be quite relieved that, for once, they relate not to defence expenditure but to defence posture and practice. We are looking in our own waters at the North Atlantic area —the Euro Atlantic area—which is the most important for our security. We are, in many ways, benefiting from the fact that NATO has two new members, Sweden and Finland. They are both committed to serious defence and Finland, in particular, is committed to national resilience. At the end of the Secretary of State’s Statement is a point about securing the UK’s borders and our own security. What are His Majesty’s Government doing in terms of United Kingdom resilience? Are we considering giving further information to ordinary civilians about the security concerns that we are aware of but perhaps they are not thinking about?

That is not necessarily to go as far on civilian training as Finland does—I am certainly not calling for conscription—but are we at least thinking about widening the discussion with society to include the threats in not just traditional hard military concerns but cyber? Are we thinking about the need for us all to be vigilant and to be aware that we need to think about the threats coming from Russia as a whole society? At the moment, there is a reluctance to understand that we need to devote more time and resource to defence. This is a plea not for a percentage of defence expenditure but about the need to talk to citizens about the threats we all face.

There have been clear threats in our waters, but we have also seen threats in recent days in the Baltic states and a potential threat to Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty. To what extent are His Majesty’s Government willing and able to speak truth to power, in the form of the President of the United States? The idea that the United States somehow requires a sovereign territory for its own security is wholly unacceptable. For it essentially to threaten the sovereignty of a fellow NATO member state is also unconscionable. While I do not expect the Minister to tell us what the Prime Minister and the President spoke about recently, will he at least suggest to the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we need to ensure that NATO is fit for purpose and that the whole edifice is not in danger of coming down? After all, NATO has kept us secure for over 70 years.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their tone and their remarks. They both asked perfectly legitimate questions, but I should start with the statement that I always make—as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, always used to—that all of us want to see the defence and security of our country and that we stand together to ensure, as far as we can, that we and our interests abroad, with our allies, are kept secure.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about support for maritime activity. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, behind her, because I said in an Answer to a Written Question from him on the important point behind her question that the UK Government, either on their own or with their allies, will take action to deal with any potential threats. The noble Baroness referred to the rules of engagement, which are particularly important and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. She congratulated the Secretary of State on his candour. It is important to reflect that he said that to ensure that the message went out we will take appropriate action. Changing the rules of engagement to allow our ships, where appropriate, to get closer and carry out closer observation is important.

The really significant point, as the Defence Secretary laid out in the other place last week, was in response to the November activities of the “Yantar”, when a submarine surfaced. He outlined to Parliament that he authorised that submarine to surface. The noble Baroness is right to point out how important it was for him to say that, both as a reassurance to us and our allies that we will take the necessary action and as a message to others. She was right to highlight that and I thank her for doing so.

In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about some of the other activities that the Government have taken both to support us and our allies and to defend undersea structures and shipping in the Baltic, the North Sea, the southwest approaches, the channel and so on, there are a number of things to say. Noble Lords will have seen the activity rate. On HMS “Somerset,” the crew were recalled on Christmas Day, and we pay tribute to them for that. Two days later, they were at sail because of the concern about ships that were going through the English Channel. That shows, again, our resolution to do that.

The noble Baronesses will also know that, with respect to the High North and to the JEF, we have recently seen the establishment of the Nordic Warden operation, which is particularly important. With Nordic Warden, we see the use of artificial intelligence, based at Northwood, to track shipping, using the various signals and other data to inform either ourselves or our allies where potential harm could be done. Again, that was outlined in the other place. Noble Lords can read it online. Nordic Warden is another example, through the JEF, which the noble Baroness asked about, of projects that are UK-led, where we are acting to ensure that the appropriate action is taken there.

The noble Baronesses will also know, with respect to NATO, that Baltic Sentry has been announced recently. Again, that is where maritime assets have been laid out by some countries to ensure the protection of undersea cables and that other laws are maintained. They will have also seen the Defence Secretary lay out for us that Rivet Joints and P8s have been used as a contribution to Baltic Sentry. In many areas, therefore, we are seeing the deployment of UK military assets with our allies to defend our underwater structures and to take action where necessary with respect to all of this. That is a really important statement.

I turn to the point about spending. It is particularly important to lay out that, notwithstanding the debate about what we should be doing, it is vital that this country has the assets—and I have laid out some of the specifics—to take considerable action to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm in the ways that I have outlined. Similarly, with respect to Ukraine, which both noble Baronesses mentioned, our resolve remains steadfast. We thank them and all noble Lords for the support they give to withstanding the illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is particularly important at this time for us to continue to reiterate that.

On spending, the noble Baroness will know the position of the Government, and I hear the point that she makes about my unvarnished language, which I would have said is pretty varnished in here. Having said that, I take the point. The noble Baroness will know that there is £3 billion additional spending in the 2025-26 budget, and the Government’s position remains the same, that in the spring we will set out our pathway to spending 2.5%. I was rather taken aback when the noble Baroness mentioned £9 billion. I thought for a moment that she was going to praise the Government for the £9 billion investment in Rolls-Royce for the development of the nuclear-powered submarines that we are going to see with respect to AUKUS. There we go: I shall do that instead. Notwithstanding the debate about spending, there are considerable investments being made.

I take the point that the noble Baroness made about homeland security. We are going to have to consider more carefully the information that we give to the public, as well as what is the most appropriate and sensible way of doing it and how much information we can give people. I am of the view that we should share as much information as we can, where it is sensible to do so and it does not compromise operations or the security of our country and our personnel. We should always think about how we might do that and what more we can do.

On threats to homeland security, a couple of weeks ago I made the point that we are not in the situation we were a few years ago, given that we now face threats to underwater cables, cyberattacks, and concerns about critical national infrastructure and others, such as unauthorised drone activity—although it is unconfirmed exactly what the causes of that were around certain places. All of these things raise issues for us. It is extremely important we have a public understanding of that. We need to ensure we have the resources to deal with these things properly when there are other calls on the public purse. The defence of our country is important—sometimes the most important—even when set against some of the other priorities that people quite naturally want to see money spent on.

On the new President of the United States, it is important to recognise that the relationship between the US and the UK is key to the defence and security of the values and freedoms not only of our own country but of our alliances across Europe and the globe. They underpin NATO and many of our other alliances and interests. It is important we reiterate that, time and again, to the new President. I see many comments and much speculation, but, for the defence and security of our country, the most helpful thing to say is that we look forward to continuing to work with the United States and the President. It is in the United States’ interests and our interests, and the interests that our two great countries have always stood for: freedom, democracy and human rights across the globe. That relationship remains as important now as it ever was.

I hear what the noble Baroness said about the questions the President has raised about this or that country or region. I think the President and others are thinking about the security challenges in those areas. The Arctic, for example, is opening up in a way that climate change is making possible—that would not have been possible a few years ago. That raises security challenges for us all, and responding necessarily means discussing those. Russia is reopening Cold War bases in that region and China is looking to exploit that. Somehow, we have to work together to understand those new threats and challenges, and to consider how we face them. We are trying to do so through the defence review, which will look at many of the challenges that we face. My noble friend Lord West has raised a number of times the importance of the maritime capabilities that will be needed and the differences within that, which will be something that the defence review will have to address.

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and to all noble Lords across the House for the sometimes challenging questions they quite rightly demand of the Government. Those watching or reading this should know that this House, as with the other place, remains united in the defence of the freedoms and values that this country has always stood for. There will be difficulties and challenges, but no one should doubt our resolve to continue in the defence of the freedoms that we have always stood for.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Russia’s malign maritime activities are not confined to its navy. My noble friend the Minister will recall that, on Christmas Day, the Finns impounded a vessel and took it to their home port; it contained spy equipment and, allegedly, dragged its anchor and damaged a number of cables. That was part of the Russian shadow fleet, which is underinsured, potentially polluting and sanctions-busting. Can my noble friend say what can be done to counter the threat of the Russian shadow fleet?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that, for any ship posing a threat to this country, there will be an appropriate maritime response from our military, primarily through our maritime capabilities. He raised a really important point. So far, we have sanctioned 93 vessels, which means that they are unable to access some of the normal arrangements that ships have, including access to financial markets. As a result, some ships—I think there are two, but there may be others—have had to remain in port. The sanctioning of those ships is an important way forward. We are well aware of the various activities taking place, and where we suspect it and can prove it, we will take action.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for sharing the Statement. In the context of tactical action, it is not a bad tactical response. Having read it only just before today’s sitting, I think it aspires to be an element of strategic messaging—but, as that, it is close to hopeless. It aspires to be a strong message to Putin, to reassure the British public and to demonstrate the UK’s leadership role in NATO. However, it is a statement of reassurance based on a complete delusion about the true state of our military capability. In truth, it feels as if we are on a frustratingly slow-moving SDR, in the context of a complete vacillation regarding funding, and at a point when—this will hurt, though I am not blaming the Minister, whom I personally like, tremendously—our reputation in NATO is at an all-time low.

Let me give the detail on that. The experts will know that NATO has a process of setting military capability targets, which go to the NATO nations to be politically agreed on, and they then become binding on nations. There are now, thankfully, 32 members of NATO. Where do we figure in the delivery table of those 32 nations? I will tell the House: 32nd. We are brilliant at writing papers and we can talk wonderfully within NATO, but on the delivery of military capability, we are bottom of the league. Does the Minister agree that our messaging, both domestically and internationally, will be completely without substance until we fund defence appropriately and in accordance with our international commitments?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know what the noble and gallant Lord would say to me if he disliked me.

Having said that, he raised a number of really important points. He heard what I said about funding in response to the noble Baronesses, and we are looking to set out the pathway to that. Others will have heard his call for more resources. There are issues around what capabilities we have and how we take them forward; we have heard demands not only to provide traditional capabilities but to be prepared for the changing threats we face and to establish how we develop the capability to deal with them.

My reading of the view that other countries have of us does not entirely accord with that of the noble and gallant Lord. In many respects, the NATO countries that I have met, notwithstanding the debates about capabilities, often look to the UK to see what we think about what we should do and for leadership.

I have already outlined the NATO response to what is happening in the Baltic with Baltic Sentry. That is a group of allies from NATO: eight countries coming together to provide maritime capability and do other things, and we are providing the reconnaissance for some of that. That is a NATO project, a NATO alliance acting together to deliver security. Of course, the whole point of NATO is that each country comes together to do that. We are looking at the capabilities that the noble and gallant Lord mentioned, but also as part of that, we have the JEF, which is a complementary part of NATO specifically looking at the Northern region, and the UK set that up; the UK is the lead for that. The Nordic Warden campaign that has been set up is run from London, based at Northwood, and the JEF countries are looking to us to provide that leadership, because we are the only country that has the necessary artificial intelligence which allows us to track some of the vessels that we may be concerned about.

Yes, there are issues, and the noble and gallant Lord laid them out very articulately. I just say to him that we are developing abilities, and I would say that, in my view, our role and status within NATO, and the view that many other countries have of us, are perhaps higher than the noble and gallant Lord set out in his remarks. Certainly, that is what people say to me when they say, “Where is the UK on this, because we want to see them there with us?”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, whether one signs up to the noble and gallant Lord’s view or the Minister’s, I think it is safe to say that the NATO theatre is becoming ever warmer and the requirements from the United Kingdom are getting greater. But it is not only in NATO that we make commitments. As the Minister will know, we are set to join the US-Bahrain Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement—a very long name—which cements us into quite considerable naval activity based in Bahrain. Does the Minister share my concern that we are cementing and placing resources that we cannot move back into the European theatre by signing this treaty, and it puts another strain on already strained resources?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making with respect to Bahrain, but let me say this. The UK acts wherever it needs to to protect its interests. I often make the point about the indivisibility of conflict. I went to Vietnam recently. Vietnam is concerned about Ukraine, because it has brought Russia and China closer together in a way that it never expected. I am proud of the fact that, notwithstanding Bahrain, later this year, we will lead a carrier strike group out into the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate that the law of the sea, the international rules-based order, is something that is important to us. There are numerous countries, both in Europe and in the Far East, including our allies Australia and New Zealand, that will stand with us in delivering that capability. Defending the rule of law in those areas is important. You cannot divide peace and security in one part of the world from peace and security in another, and I for one am pleased that the carrier strike group is going out into the Indo-Pacific later this year.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer and pay tribute to the Minister for the fulsome and frank responses which he always gives when defence questions come up. In his earlier remarks, he mentioned AUKUS. That, along with the Tempest programme, are two key flagship defence procurement projects. The US Congress has recently raised concerns about the US side of the deal and that their shipyards are not currently where they need to be to start producing the boats. We have had warm messages of support for both projects from the Government, which are welcome, but actual project updates are thin on the ground, so, perhaps not now, could the Minister commit to updating the House that both projects are where they need to be?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I certainly can do. First, I again pay tribute to the service that the noble Lord demonstrates through his activity in the reserves—it would be wrong not to do that.

I will deal with the projects one by one. AUKUS is a phenomenal project. The Government have just announced £9 billion of investment in Rolls-Royce to deliver the propulsion units for the nuclear-powered submarines. That relationship between the US, the UK and Australia is fundamental to the peace and security of the globe as we go forward. As far as we are concerned, pillar 1 is moving forward at pace. Issues may well arise with a project such as AUKUS, but they will be dealt with as necessary, and the AUKUS project moves at pace.

The pillar 2 aspects of that—the technology and development of other capabilities—are also moving along. Discussions are taking place about whether we move beyond the initial three countries to involve other countries. So, as an update to the noble Lord, I say that AUKUS is moving forward at pace.

On GCAP, which noble Lords know is the relationship between ourselves, Japan and Italy that aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter, I can say that that too is moving. Various treaties have been put in place and various commitments have been made to it. We will see a sixth-generation fighter produced by those three nations, which again will contribute to the defence and security of the globe.

Both those updates are not good news stories in terms of gloating and saying what a wonderful thing this is; but it is good to say—notwithstanding the noble Baroness’s challenge about money—that with both AUKUS and GCAP we have capabilities that are being developed that will secure our own country and alliances and enable us to stand up in the future for peace and security in Europe and beyond. As such, we should celebrate both of them.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

Perhaps I might come back to the homeland issues first raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and indeed by the Minister. Are the Government satisfied that business and commerce, particularly the City and energy sectors, are taking all the precautions they can to protect these critical national assets? What are the Government doing to co-ordinate the preparations?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the first point, like the Government and like defence industries, companies and businesses will have to look again at how much priority they give to that: that is an important point. Whether it is a telecommunications company or an energy company, it is responsible for the protection of much of its infrastructure. In terms of the co-ordination that the noble Lord asked about, that is something that I have asked about as well. If we are calling on businesses to do this, energy companies to do that, the defence industry to do this and the Foreign Office do that, that requires perhaps greater co-ordination across government. As we meet the challenges and threats as they change in the future, it may be that government needs to look at the co-ordinating mechanisms it has to ensure that they are as up to date as they need to be.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, how nice it is to be talking about ships. I do not agree totally with the noble and gallant Lord about the perception of us within NATO. However, maybe its perception should be that, because our capabilities have gone down to such an extent. Indeed, there is a sort of sense of déjà vu because, sitting over there for years and years, I have been saying to the Opposition, who were then in government, that we were reducing capabilities far too fast and not really keeping them, and that is a worry.

I would like to come back to the actual underwater tapestry and defence of that. I do not know whether the Minister has visited the Joint Maritime Operations Centre in Fort Southwick, but, if not, he should do. It has an ability now to co-ordinate a view of where all Russian and other ships are throughout our territorial waters, the exclusive economic zone and beyond, and then take executive action to do things about it. The examples given by the Secretary of State of actions taken recently against the craft are a very good tactical example of what can be done; I think it surprised Putin, not least because they know how few submarines we have got, and for one of them to pop up like that was a bit of a shock for them. There is no doubt it was the right sort of action to be carried out.

Could I ask the Minister whether he will go and visit the Joint Maritime Operations Centre? It is important and actually ties together all the things that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, was discussing. Responsibility for this is beyond just the Navy, which can co-ordinate it. There is a whole series of other departments, and we need to ensure that they all work together.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord West for his question. No, I have not been there but I will go. I will write to let him know when I am going so that I do what I say I am going to do.

I take my noble friend’s point about capabilities. There will always be a debate about the capabilities and their development, but we are also entering the realm of the capabilities that we need. He will be pleased about the order for eight Type 26 frigates, which will be delivered by the middle of the 2030s. I think I laid that out in answer to a question from my noble friend.

On that development, although there will be differences, I give credit to the last Government where it is due. They ordered the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship “Proteus”, which deals with many of the underwater threats we face and has capabilities that are developing all the time. That has made a big difference. As my noble friend Lord West has often asked, what has happened to the commitment for the second? It will not necessarily be exactly the same type of ship as “Proteus” but it will have similar aims and objectives. That will certainly be part of the defence review as well.

My noble friend Lord West is right to make the constant demand for capabilities, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, did. That has to be a consideration: how many of such a platform we do have and what sort of platforms do we need to meet the future threats we face?

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

The Minister is right when he says that the threat from the Arctic to the NATO area is increasing, with the melting of the ice and many other factors. When the Secretary of State for Defence has a first contact with his new US opposite number, who has just been confirmed, will he argue that we need to protect all the assets that NATO has in the Arctic and not be diverted and distracted by the issue of who owns Greenland or who wants to buy it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I could get myself in a lot of trouble here. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I am seeking to outline that it is important for us to start with the point, which is obviously true, that the US-UK special relationship and alliance is fundamental to our country and to the alliances to which we belong for the freedom and defence of democracy in Europe and beyond. One then goes on to say that of course we face various challenges, not least because of the opening up of the Arctic, so how do we best meet those challenges together? That is the way to take forward that relationship and those discussions, whether they are with the new Defense Secretary in the United States or the new President. That is how we can deliver the peace and security that we want and a sensible policy objective, rather than get into, “This is what somebody said”. That is a grown-up, sensible foreign/defence policy. If I am wrong then I am wrong, but that is the way I would approach it and that is the sensible and pragmatic way in which our country should do so.

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, may I pick up a point raised by both the noble Baronesses on spending? I have always supported a considerable increase in spending on defence and share the frustration at the speed at which we are reaching it. My concern is that I am not sure the British public recognise that need. How are the Government proposing to raise awareness in a positive way that will support such an increase in spending?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Leaving aside the debate about the amount of spending and the increase to it, in a few months’ time we will celebrate VE Day. A few days after that, we will celebrate VJ Day. When we have these great celebrations of the victories of democracy against fascism or those who have undermined the rule of law—which we see in the present day in Ukraine—people understand that it is necessary to protect the freedom and democracy that we enjoy in this country. In many respects, our country leads that fight with our friends and allies.

However, I often think that we lack the confidence as a nation to say that and for politicians to stand up and say it. Yes, of course there are demands for spending on hospitals, schools and all the other important demands on the public purse but, ultimately, people live their lives that they do in this country because of the money paid and sacrifice made in the past to enable our democracy and freedom to flourish.

People may not feel that freedom and democracy are being attacked directly, but rest assured, through some of the hybrid and other threats that we are seeing in other parts of the world, our way of life is being challenged. That needs spelling out and saying to people because, if it is never properly explained to them, they will not forgive that in a number of years’ time. That leads to difficult but important conversations, from which we should not shy away.