Ukraine: UK Military Support

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we remain united with the Government in their condemnation of Russia and the actions that they have taken so far in meeting this threat. Once again, we also recognise the bravery of the people of Ukraine. We therefore fully support the Government’s recent announcement of the additional £1.3 billion of aid and, with that, the extra military equipment that they are providing. Can the Minister outline what the additional £1 billion of that £1.3 billion is to be spent on, and can she give any further detail about the inquiry into UK components ending up in Russian weapons?

In the light of the war in Ukraine and the provision of this military equipment, have the Government reconsidered any of their existing defence plans? Surely it is now time for a rethink on, for example, cuts to the number of soldiers—something that the head of the Army himself said only this week when he said that the British Army is too small.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I indicated in the Statement some of the equipment that is going out; I understand that this will include UAV systems to provide logistical support to isolated forces and that new, specialised Toyota Land Cruisers will be going out. I offer to write to the noble Lord with a more specific list of information. In relation to the use of equipment, we supply it to Ukraine and it is for the Ukrainian armed forces to then determine how they deploy and use it. However, our supply of that equipment is to enable Ukraine to defend itself.

On the size of the military, I refer the noble Lord to the integrated review, the comprehensive spending review and, importantly, Future Soldier, which detailed how we envisage the shape of the military in forthcoming years and was signed off at the highest levels in the MoD. It is interesting to reflect on how the conflict in Ukraine has unfolded. It has been clear that the might of Russia in terms of numbers of soldiers has actually been of questionable effect when, in Ukraine, an ably trained, very professional, well-equipped force, armed with intelligence, has been able to be very effective in its defence. These are complicated matters but it is perfectly clear that mere numbers are not sufficient.

Ukraine Update

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in this House and across Parliament and beyond, as the Minister knows, we are united in our support for Ukraine and the actions the Government have taken. The courage shown by the Ukrainian people, both military and civilian, has been remarkable, and this bravery has echoed across the globe since the Russian invasion began, inspiring us all.

We have all condemned the invasion of a sovereign country and the barbaric acts that have been carried out in its name. We remain determined to end this unjustifiable war and ensure that all those responsible are brought to justice for their war crimes. These efforts have seen Russia forced into a new phase of changed tactics this week. The goal of outright conquest has been abandoned and the focus is now on the east.

Can the Minister share what further military assistance the Ukrainian Government have requested from the UK to deal with this new offensive? As Finland and Sweden are reportedly seeking to join NATO in response to the invasion, what steps are the Government taking to reassure our democratic partners that we will stand with them against any Russian aggression and consider quickly such applications?

Is it not the case that, rather than weakening NATO, Russia’s actions have strengthened it: the complete opposite of what it intended and indeed expected? Overnight we have heard reports of false flag attacks in the breakaway Transnistria region of Moldova, as well as a renewed attack on the Azovstal steel plant, which houses resilient survivors of the brutal siege of Mariupol. It was also reported this morning that hangers in the Zaporizhzhia region, containing European and US weapons and ammunition, were destroyed by Russian missiles.

Can the Minister share what intelligence she can on this, particularly whether any UK-supplied provisions were lost? Talking of intelligence, does the Minister have any update on our assessment of Russian threats to attack Western targets? It is vital that we stand together to show that we will not be intimidated by any such threats. We welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State on Monday to further supply Ukraine. Armoured vehicles fitted with anti-air missiles will enhance the short-range anti-air capabilities of the Ukrainian military. We also welcome efforts to move equipment from other allies to Ukraine.

Could the Minister say what logistical support the UK is providing to our allies to ensure that military aid reaches the front lines? The Secretary of State has said that the UK will seek to enable, or supply more long-range artillery and ammunition, as well as anti-ship missiles which Ukraine needs. Alongside that, what aerial reconnaissance is being provided? It has been only two days since the announcement, but I wonder if the Minister can update the Chamber on what is being done to deliver these weapons?

What is required next is a shift from old Soviet-era weapons, which enabled a short-term response to the initial offensive, to a medium term strategy in response to the latest phase. This will require newer NATO weapons and training for the Ukrainians to use them. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to facilitate that?

I also understand that approximately 1,000 UK troops are on standby for humanitarian support in the countries immediately adjoining Ukraine. Is there anything the Minister can tell us about their deployment and work?

I now turn to the front page of the Daily Telegraph this morning and the article which reports the Foreign Secretary making a speech, this evening I think, calling for plane parts to be sent to Ukraine and for increased defence spending. Will the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Ministry of Defence be involved in signing off these plans, and what plans do the Government have to review defence spending? Can the Minister update us on the Foreign Secretary saying that the free world will need to “reboot, recast and remodel” its approach to tackling aggressors, and that Ukraine has to be a catalyst for wider change. What does that mean for our current defence posture, and is that being reviewed?

Could the Minister update us on the total amount that the Government has now spent on military aid to Ukraine, including non-lethal equipment and how does this compare to our key allies? Are we now confident that all NATO partners, including Germany, are united in the provision of military equipment?

To conclude, it is the case that the Ukrainians’ fight is our fight, and it is vital that we stand together against this unprovoked aggression, and prepare if necessary for the long haul. This country has a proud history of standing up for freedom and democracy and we must continue to do so today. We know the consequences of not doing so.

Ukraine: Defence in a Competitive Age

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I demur somewhat with my noble friend’s analysis. I have outlined an extensive programme of investment that will take place over the next 10, 15 and 20 years, and I think that that has been well received within the single forces. It is seen as a commitment by the Government to the serious business of defence and discharging our roles responsibly and effectively. The new model of the Army to which he refers, under the Future Soldier proposals, will in fact create a much more agile, flexible and resilient Army, able to deal at pace with the different characters of threats, whenever and wherever they arise. This is a matter of reassurance and commendation.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, given the new security situation in Europe following events in Ukraine, is it the case that, as David Williams, the Permanent Secretary, said to the Public Accounts Committee in February,

“the integrated review looks right to me, but we will of course want to review the calibration and our understanding of the threat and what the right response will need to be”?

So is there to be a review and what will that mean, particularly for the Army—as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, raised—which is losing 700 warrior infantry vehicles earlier than planned, facing troop cuts and losing a third of its Challenger 2 battle tanks, if we are to potentially fight the kind of land-based conventional warfare launched by Putin?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As we understand the impact of the threat from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we will of course keep plans under review—I have indicated that and we will of course do that. We will remain threat-led; that is our raison d’être and how we operate, and we continue to review our capabilities and readiness levels accordingly. All of that is predicated on both the integrated review and the defence Command Paper. But the integrated review outlined that defence forces must prepare for more persistent global engagement and constant campaigning to counter emerging threats. So although we may not have anticipated conflict so quickly, the review recognised the threats posed by aggression from our adversaries. I remind your Lordships that the integrated review and defence Command Paper set out a year ago that the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security is posed by Russia.

Ukraine: Lethal Weapons

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I respond to my noble friend by saying that the United Kingdom is a friend of Ukraine and Ukraine is a friend of the United Kingdom. We stand by our friends. We have a clear mission diplomatically, politically, economically and militarily as we continue our enduring bilateral partnership with Ukraine. As I said earlier, this hideous, barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin’s must end in failure.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reiterating our full support for the actions being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to help Ukraine in the face of unprovoked Russian aggression. We read in the media about the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary talking of the need to send more lethal weapons to Ukraine. Are we sending more of the same or are we sending different weapons? In other words, what does the Prime Minister’s statement actually mean? What is our response to President Zelensky’s call for more weapons of a type not only to defend Ukraine from Russia but to drive Russian forces from Ukrainian soil? Ukraine’s fight is our fight and we must do all we can to help.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I referred earlier to the second international donor conference held on 31 March. At that conference, the international community committed to widening its package of military support for Ukraine. This included exploring new ways of sustaining the armed forces of Ukraine over the longer term, including the provision of increasingly capable air and coastal defence systems, artillery and counter-battery capabilities, armoured vehicles and protected mobility, as well as wider training and logistical support. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that there is a coherent response.

Ukraine Update

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I state again the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition for the position the Government have taken on Ukraine. We welcome the military support the Government have given to Ukraine and our NATO allies. It is important to start this debate with a restatement of that fact.

The reports of the barbaric bombing of a children’s hospital and a maternity ward in Mariupol are just the latest horrors to emerge from Ukraine. Goodness knows how many men, women and children have been killed, let alone soldiers. Now we learn that ever-more devastating weapons have been used, such as the thermobaric vacuum bomb, with awful photos and videos emerging of the dead and injured—civilians, not combatants. In light of this update, can the Minister tell the House what the Government’s assessment is of the current situation in Ukraine? Can she also update the House on the progress of the additional military support being provided for Ukraine, including, as we read in our papers today, the Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles? If NATO planes cannot enforce the no-fly zone, we must surely enable the Ukrainians to do so themselves.

Chillingly, we also learned today that western analysts believe that Russia is contemplating the use of chemical weapons. Can the Minister tell us any more about this assessment and what our response would be in the event that they were, shockingly, to be used? What work is going on with the International Criminal Court regarding any future action that may take place as a result?

There is also growing alarm at the prospect of the danger the war poses to nuclear plants at Chernobyl and elsewhere. Can the Minister say anything about what assessment has been made of that threat to us all, and what can be done?

There are also heart-breaking pictures of people desperate to leave, fleeing the country in terror. Can the Minister report any progress on the establishment of humanitarian corridors to enable people to leave, even in the midst of the military conflict?

I very much agree with the Defence Secretary who, in his Statement to the other place yesterday, spoke of the fear of many people here about what will happen next, as President Putin threatens countries that offer help to Ukraine. What do the Government expect to happen? These fears have been expressed to me and, I am sure, to many other noble Lords. I am sure that we would want to do all we can to reassure the people of our country.

In light of all this, is not the Defence Secretary right to have said the following yesterday in the other place? I very much agree with this and am sure everyone will. In talking about this fear, he said:

“We should take strength from the peoples right across Europe who are standing shoulder to shoulder to protect our values—our freedom, our tolerance, our democracy and our free press. That is our shield.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/22; col. 327.]


I could not have put it better myself. I think the Defence Secretary spoke for all of us when he said that yesterday. Is not our unity of purpose and belief our greatest strength, even in these dark days? That unity exists here in this Chamber, as well as across the country. I assure the Minister of our full support on everything the Government are doing.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

In an expression with which the Minister will be familiar, brevitatis causa, I adopt the questions put by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Opposition.

Two matters arise, though, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments. The supply of the laser-guided Starstreak missiles is referred to in the Statement, and there is an element of doubt about whether it can reasonably be described as defensive. Might she expand a little on the Government’s thinking on that?

Turning to another element which I heartily support, there is an obligation or undertaking to make a substantial contribution to humanitarian aid, more of which will inevitably be needed. Many countries bordering Ukraine are taking its refugees, which must constitute a substantial economic burden for them. Will any of the sums referred to in the Statement be made available, in turn, to any of these countries?

This Statement is extraordinary because, on the one hand, it describes unmitigated barbarism and, on the other, breathtaking bravery. The targeting of civilians, their homes and refuges is certainly barbaric, but the bravery is shown in the extraordinary fact that this nation, against all odds, has mobilised to face an enemy described in the Statement as one with “overwhelming firepower”. This enemy targets the elderly, the vulnerable and the young. I ask, not in the hope of getting an answer: what sort of people attack a maternity hospital? Whether done by design or carelessness, by a bomb or, as has been suggested, artillery, it is still a war crime. There should be no doubt about that.

Now we have the use of thermobaric vacuum bombs, a particularly lethal form of attack. That has not emerged as some kind of intelligence information; it has been boasted about publicly on a Russian television network. There is too, as has already been mentioned, the threat of the use of chemical weapons. Indeed, that threat referred not only to chemical but possibly biological weapons. This undoubtedly raises significant matters for consideration perhaps in this country, but most certainly in Ukraine itself.

In spite of all this, the spirit of the citizens of Ukraine has not yet been broken. Russians claim that the people of Ukraine are their brothers and sisters. It is a very curious affection which relies on cruise missiles, helicopter gunships and artillery shells.

My concern is this: as Russian and perhaps Kremlin desperation increases, and as Mr Putin’s schedule is more and more incomplete, other considerations may arise in his mind. He has mentioned nuclear weapons on several occasions. Are we ready for that topic to be mentioned again? I draw to the Minister’s attention, although I suspect she does not need me to, the fact that Russian generals include the notion of nuclear war-fighting as part of their doctrine. It is an issue upon which the Government would be well advised to start consideration now.

Ukraine

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what a privilege it is to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition in this historic debate. I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, on his maiden speech. We were all informed by it and that is what is important, as the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Owen, pointed out.

This Chamber may be a revising Chamber, but the experience of the Members who come here informs the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in a way that makes for better legislation and better decision-making when it comes to historic and momentous events such as those which we are debating here today. To have former diplomats of the quality we have mentioned and former military officers, including those who have served at the highest level, informing these debates is of extreme importance. Alongside that, we have Members from the Church and those who have worked in humanitarian roles. All bring relevant experience to this debate, which can only help inform us on what are, to be fair to the Government—this would be the case whoever was in government—immensely difficult decisions as to the best way forward. There is no division between us—or 99.9% of us—but there is of course debate and discussion, even within government, on the best way forward.

I start by saying to the Government, as did my noble friend Lady Smith last night, that we stand four-square with them in supporting the actions they have taken in respect of Ukraine and trying to deter the aggression from Russia. That is a really important message for the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who introduced this debate with her usual clarity and provided information for us all. I thank her again for that. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will follow in that as well when he responds to this wide-ranging debate.

I will say just a few words of introduction. On days like this, people talk about rhetoric. Sometimes it is important. Sometimes words matter. People across the world will hear what is being said in this Chamber, one of the historic debating Chambers of the world. In this historic debate, words and voices should ring out from this Chamber in rightful condemnation of President Putin and support for the people of Ukraine—indeed, for all those fighting for freedom, including, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and others, the brave people we are seeing in pictures from Moscow and other cities in Russia protesting about the war. One can only imagine the bravery of those people in doing that.

As we have done throughout our proud history, we stand on the side of democracy, human rights and freedom. In the end, are those not what President Putin fears more than anything else? Going back again to the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as well as the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is it not democracy and freedom on the doorstep of Russia that frighten President Putin more than anything else? When the people of Russia look out to the way in which human rights are respected in an independent, democratic Ukraine, is that not what frightens him? Is that not what undermines his system—in many ways, more than tanks and military campaigns can?

Today is a day of many words. We have heard many great speeches but the words from this Chamber will echo around the world and across Europe. Let the people of Ukraine hear loudly and clearly that we stand with them, as we do with everybody across eastern Europe. Your fight is our fight. Your struggle is our struggle. Your battle is our battle. All of us thought—indeed, hoped—that the dark days of the past had gone. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, sought to remind us, we believed that one state aggressively invading another in Europe had been consigned to the dustbin of history along with the enormous human cost, as millions of lives were lost to establish this principle in Europe and across the world.

However, let Russia and its ally, Belarus, know that we will do everything in our power with our allies to stand up once again for international law and the right to national self-determination. More than anything else, alongside our debates about sanctions, the best way forward and all those things, these issues of principle need to ring out from this Chamber so that they are heard loud and clear across Europe, in Russia and around the world. We are proud to stand for that. It is our history and we are proud to remind everybody of it.

Specifically, we support the Government on sanctions. No doubt the Government will seek ways to extend those sanctions and make them more effective; they have our support in doing that. I stand with the people such as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who pointed out that this may be a long-term measure; it will not necessarily be won in the short term. I join the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Adonis and Lord Davies, among others, in saying that we need to prepare the British public to understand that this is their fight as well. This is important to them. This fight for freedom matters to people on the streets of Birmingham, Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff. Part of that cost, and part of what may happen, is that gas, electricity and petrol bills may go up. We need to be honest with people about that for them to understand that, in standing in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, that is the cost that will have to be paid. I tell noble Lords this: I do not believe that the British public will shirk from that. Never have they been found wanting when it comes to standing with other people in the defence of freedom and democracy across the world; I do not believe that they will be found wanting in this instance either.

We support the Government on sanctions and look to the Government to take what further action they can. I very much agreed with the Defence Secretary when he pointed out on the radio this morning that we believe action should be taken on SWIFT. Speaking on behalf of the UK Government, he said that we believe that and need to persuade our international partners based in Belgium and elsewhere that it is the right thing to do. We can only wish them well with respect to that because we think that it will make a real difference.

We need to stand with the people of Ukraine. They need to understand that we will work with them. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, we must support them with military equipment—not troops—and make sure that they get the equipment they need if it comes to resistance. As we speak, we learn of hundreds of casualties. Goodness only knows what the truth is and what the consequences of shelling are. We stand with the Ukrainian people so that they know they can have equipment. If it comes to resistance, again, there will be some hard decisions for the Government about how we will support those who seek to resist a Russian occupation.

No doubt the Government will be thinking about what we do with respect to NATO and defence spending. It might be that all of us—our country, the western alliances and all those standing up for freedom and democracy across the world—will have to re-evaluate where defence comes and what we spend on it. We all thought that the dividend from the end of the Cold War meant that we did not have to spend the money we should be spending on defence—none of us wants to spend on defence if it perhaps means less for schools, health or international aid and all the things we want to spend money on. But the defence of freedom, democracy and human rights also has a cost. We have to say to our public and to each other that we have sometimes taken it for granted, and we will have to spend more to defend that freedom. I know that point has been made by many noble Lords.

The importance of NATO was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Alton, Lord King, Lord Robathan and Lord Walney, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meyer and Lady McIntosh, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my noble friends Lord West, Lord Robertson, Lord Anderson, Lord Browne and Lord Adonis, and many others. Again, we have often taken NATO for granted. My noble friend Lord Robertson, who was Secretary-General or whatever the official title is—the leader of NATO—has reminded us constantly of NATO. But the serious point is that NATO was set up not as an aggressive alliance but as a defensive alliance, to protect the hard-won freedoms and hard-won democracy across western Europe that we take for granted. We need to be reminded of the importance of NATO and how we reinforce it. No doubt the Government will look at that.

We heard from the Minister about the additional troops, air power and no doubt ships that are being placed into countries in eastern Europe within the context of NATO. People say that that is not important. I say that, alongside what is happening in Ukraine, it is especially important for President Putin and others to recognise and realise that we mean what we say in NATO. That is why we are reinforcing the eastern borders in the countries that surround Ukraine. We believe that NATO is a defensive alliance, and we mean what we say: we will defend those countries. Those countries on the border of Ukraine need to know and understand that.

I have a couple of final points. I could not agree more with noble Lords who pointed out that this is a global issue—it is Russia versus the world. The great battle of the decades to come will be between democracy and autocracy. We need to stand with those such as the ambassador from Kenya, who stood up at the United Nations—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, might well have been there, as he has been in the last few days— and pointed out that what was a European fight was also Kenya’s fight, because he understood that if the rule of law is undermined it has an impact. Whatever continent you happen to be on, that will undermine it. We have to take action globally.

Let this be another turning point in history. Let this be another reminder that this country, with its allies, will never turn its back on those defending freedom and democracy. Let everyone know that, however terrible these days are, we will never be cowed from doing the right thing. We will always be ready to stand with those fighting oppression. We have done so in the past and we must do so again.

Defence: Type 45 Destroyers

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am almost tempted to answer the question the other way around and say that, with the integrated review, the defence Command Paper and the allocation of budget to defence over the duration of this Parliament and exactly what that means for both equipment and shipbuilding, we have seen that there is a very manifest political resolve to support defence and ensure our capability is as good as it can be. As to the more strategic questions of how you relate what you are doing at the MoD end with what is required out on the front, as the noble and gallant Lord will understand, we are constantly assessing, identifying and recognising threat and addressing that with the multifaceted character of the capability we have.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the chair of the Defence Select Committee recently said that

“our Navy will soon be too small to defend our interests and deal with emerging threats.”

Given that the noble Baroness has just told us that the six warships will not all be seaworthy until 2028, can the Government confirm that they have a Navy relevant to the needs of this country in terms of the threats we face? How does the fact that, at the beginning of February, all six warships were in dock help us defend our country and those of our allies?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Lord will be aware, all our ships are subject to planned maintenance schedules; that is how the Navy operates. As to the broader question of whether we have a Navy that is fit for purpose, I think the answer is yes, we do. If you look at the success of the carrier strike group, which was regarded as a universal declaration of naval strength across the globe, if you look at the supporting assets which were out in attendance to the carrier and if you consider that, for the first time in 30 years, we have two classes of frigate simultaneously under construction in UK yards—the noble Lord might be envious of that; I know he will regard that with pleasure, but it was not something that occurred when his party was in government—I would say that the Navy is in very good shape.

Ukraine: Military and Non-military Support

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

There has been a wide programme of engagement, not least by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, with colleagues across the globe, but also by the Foreign Secretary. There has been a desire to ensure that we canvass as wide a position of views as possible. Everyone understands that the proposals and activity of President Putin are completely unacceptable. There is a concerted voice asking him please to de-escalate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is important for Russia to know that Her Majesty’s Opposition stand fully with the UK Government in the actions they are taking with respect to Ukraine and the defence of its sovereignty, including the continuing military assistance, such as the defensive anti-tank weapons sent last week. These are worrying times for security in Europe, so can the Minister say more about the international diplomatic efforts to de-escalate? Can she also say something about the forthcoming visit by the Defence Secretary to Moscow and what he will be saying? Russia needs to know that we support a diplomatic solution, but we will be resolute in our defence of Ukraine and the security of our NATO allies.

Migrant Crossings: Role of the Military

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, following the failure of the Government to deal with record numbers of migrants crossing the channel and, rightly, the abandonment of policies such as wave machines and sonic booms, the Navy has been called in. What is the plan? Where are the ships that the Navy will use coming from? Can the Minister also clarify whether the awful policy of pushback is still government policy? The Minister in the other place said only on Monday that pushback remains an option, as has the Home Secretary, but the MoD apparently says that it is not. Who is in control? What is the policy? Although a naval ship might not be used, what about a Border Force vessel? This is a real crisis involving real people, with only a confused policy coming from the Government. It is time that they got a grip.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

I am very proud to stand at this Dispatch Box once again on behalf of the MoD to say that, once again, the MoD is going to contribute to dealing with a crisis that has perplexed not just the Government and the Opposition but the public: the danger being encountered by migrants who seek to come to this country and have been enduring appalling experiences while trying to cross the channel. That is why the MoD’s primary role will be to ensure that all vessels transporting illegal migrants across the channel are intercepted before or as they land, preventing the uncontrolled arrival of migrants on UK shores. The Armed Forces will not be engaged in turnaround tactics.

Ajax Noise and Vibration Review

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, £3.2 billion has been spent, with only a couple of dozen of the Ajax tanks delivered out of an order for 589, all of which are supposed to be delivered by 2024 with a total cost of £5.5 billion. The Public Accounts Committee in the other place has called it a catastrophe. How has it come to this? It has to be the biggest defence procurement failure of the last decade, does it not?

Now we have a further damning review just published by the Government called the Ajax Noise and Vibration Review. It catalogues failure after failure of process, accountability and procedures. Some 310 soldiers were exposed to noise and vibration, with a small number discharged because of hearing loss. According to the review, senior Army officers and MoD officials knew of these problems for two years before any action was taken. How and why was that possible? Who knew? Did Ministers know?

The review’s conclusions are stark and extremely worrying, not only first and foremost for our soldiers but for what it means for a central part of our future military capability. I quote directly from the Government’s own report:

“Nothing in this Review detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification.”


What does the Minister have to say to that specific quote? The report concludes that

“from a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues. Society and the law expect MOD to do better”.

Is the MoD doing better? What has changed? Who is being held to account? We cannot tell from the review what is actually happening.

One of my final quotes directly from the review is:

“Within the acquisition system, safety is not viewed as an equal partner to cost, schedule and military capability, and the culture in MOD does not currently ensure safety is considered within strategic decision-making.”


The word is “currently”. Does the Minister recognise that term—not 10 years ago but currently? What is urgently being done to change that culture? What steps are being taken? Are any other defence procurement projects subject to such a culture? Even during the Minister’s Statement yesterday in the other place, he talked of reports such as that from the Defence Safety Authority in May 2020 identifying some of these issues, entitled Serious Safety Concerns on Ajax, and then tells us that that was retracted and not pursued. Who retracted the report? Who decided not to pursue it? Where are they now? Have they been promoted? Have they been sacked? Was any Minister aware of it and, if not, why not? The Government’s response is to have announced that following this review they are to launch another review. To what purpose and timescale is that further review to operate?

This is deeply disturbing and unsatisfactory. Ajax is in limbo. A major military capability for this country is in real trouble. Are the Government sticking with Ajax or are they going to scrap it? What confidence can we have that they have a grip of the Ajax programme? Are we sure that there is no impact on the Army’s ability to deploy the planned strike brigade?

As the review concludes:

“To have confidence that the events covered in this report will not be repeated, culture change needs to be progressed.”


For the sake of our Armed Forces and the security of our country, it certainly needs to be. I am sure that we will all appreciate the remarks of the Minister in response to this serious and damning report.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I can associate these Benches with many of the questions from the noble Lord. He rightly highlights the fact that many government assertions over recent years have not been matched with what we now learn from the review.

I agree with the Minister in the House of Commons when he indicated that he read the report with a deep sense of regret. If anything, he needs a degree of commendation for highlighting these issues. The problem had been that many of them had not been highlighted thus far, and we have had to rely on this review. As the noble Lord indicated, the review states that nothing in it

“detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification”.

The Minister replied that the key element of that was “thus far”, but he did not tell the House of Commons when he believed that these vehicles would be fit for purpose, and he did not say when they would meet the contracted specification. As the noble Lord indicated, the National Audit Office, in reviewing the procurement of MoD equipment, highlighted that the expenditure as of March 2021 had been £3.755 billion. How on earth can that amount, of a total of £5.5 billion, be committed when the review had indicated that these vehicles were not fit for purpose and would not meet the specification? If the Government’s position is that the vehicles will do so, when will that happen?

The NAO in paragraph 11 of its report highlighted part of the challenge as being the Government changing the specification. However, it said that that accounted for an 11 months’ delay to the programme. It high- lighted more than 13 programmes with 254 months of delays in MoD procurement—an astonishing amount. Paragraph 5.11 indicated in relation to Her Majesty’s Treasury that:

“The assessment for the Ajax armoured vehicle (October 2020), stated the programme remained a VFM”—


value-for-money—

“solution despite slippage of entry into service from July 2020 to June 2021, with a worst-case scenario of slippage to December 2022.”

How can the Treasury claim that there is a continued value-for-money solution while this review indicated that the vehicles were not fit for purpose and did not meet the contracted specification? Will all the vehicles now be in operation for our servicemen and women by the time of the worst-case scenario of December 2022 or are the Government changing that position?

I should declare that I represented a military barracks in my former constituency and was in northern Iraq last week. I know well the great pressure that our Armed Forces personnel have had to endure over many years. The welfare of those individuals should of course be a paramount priority. The Minister in the Commons did not indicate any detail about how support will be provided to those affected, so if the noble Baroness could provide more details, I should be grateful.

My final question relates to a Statement that the Minister made to this House in March this year. When asked about procurement in the MoD, she said in relation to a question from my noble friend Lord Addington about overruns and expenditure increases:

“The scenario that the noble Lord envisages is unlikely to arise because from now on procurement will proceed on a very different basis from what we have known in the past.”—[Official Report, 24/3/21; col. 845.]


However, we had to rely on this report and the Minister in the Commons stating in his concluding remarks yesterday that the report

“lays bare a deep malaise, which is cultural and results in systemic failures across our organisations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/21; col. 1082.]

How on earth can those two areas be reconciled? Can that department be relied upon, even by commissioning a senior legal figure, to learn these lessons? Would it not be better if that legal figure responded to a different and external organisation to ensure that deep malaise and cultural and systemic failures are not repeated in the future?