Defence Spending

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of their progress towards spending three per cent of GDP on defence by 2030.

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

My Lords, the defence investment plan published in the summer increased defence spending by £15 billion over what was agreed at last year’s spending review. This means that MoD spending over the next four years will total almost £300 billion. Under current plans, defence spending will reach 2.7% of GDP from 2027. By the end of the decade, the MoD budget will be 27% higher in real terms than in 2023-24. The Chancellor has said that at the spending review the Government will set out a clear path towards the NATO commitment to reach 3.5% of GDP on core defence spending by 2035. This will include a target date for increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in July, ahead of visiting the Trident build at Barrow-in-Furness, the Prime Minister said:

“Keeping this country safe is the first responsibility of any government”.


Yesterday, at Prime Minister’s Questions, he said

“national security … cannot come at the expense of social security”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/26; col. 1036.]

The Benches behind me, particularly at this critical time, are resolute that the first responsibility of any Government is keeping this country safe. Can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister has reneged on his priority?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me first say something that I have always said from the Dispatch Box: I do not believe that there is anybody in this House or the other place who does not want to keep this country safe—I just do not believe that. On the noble Baroness’s question, presumably about cutting welfare spending in order to put it into defence, this Government’s position is very clear. Of course we all want to reduce the welfare bill, but we will do it in a planned, methodical way that gets people into work, and we will act on what the Timms review and the Milburn review say. What I do not think is helpful for a debate on spending is to pitch welfare against defence spending; that is a really unfortunate way to frame the debate. Of course we want to reduce the welfare bill and to spend more on defence, and this Government will do both.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am probably about to provide a less fascinating speech. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and, as such, I am pleased to support his amendment. Clause 48 will automatically expand the protection provided by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 to every vessel lost in military service, rather than requiring each one to go through a separate designation order. That is a welcome and overdue reform.

However, the issue that my noble friend has raised, while related, pertains to a slightly different problem. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 currently applies the ordinary civil law of salvage to His Majesty’s ships in much the same way as it would to a vessel in private ownership, subject only to a narrow procedural safeguard on how any claim may be brought. In practice, that treats the wreck of a Royal Navy vessel, which very often will be the final resting place of Royal Navy sailors, as well as the property of the Crown, as though it were, to be honest, fair game for private salvage.

Amendment 55A is an attempt to rectify that situation by restoring the principle of sovereign immunity and aligning the law on salvage with the spirit of what I think Clause 48 is trying to achieve. In setting out the case for his amendments, my noble friend has referenced a group of academics who have highlighted this issue with the application of civil salvage law in relation to Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I would also be grateful to the Minister if he could confirm the Ministry of Defence’s interpretation of that position.

The Government may very well believe there to be no problem and the Minister may not agree with the interpretation of the law by the academics mentioned by my noble friend but, whether or not the Government agree, is not the key issue that the law can even be questioned in the first place? The fact that there exists sufficient legal ambiguity to allow academics to come to this view means that there is a risk of people attempting to salvage and recover military wrecks, believing that they are allowed to do so. I hope that the Government will agree to meet my noble friend and those others who are concerned so that the legal position can be clarified.

The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, proposes to remove the clause entirely. I remember with pleasure our extensive exchanges on the “Gloucester”, but I most respectfully do not entirely agree with that proposal. It is my interpretation that divers will remain free to visit sites on the same “Look but don’t touch” basis that already applies to protected places. I remember numerous letters as a Minister in that context. What becomes unlawful is the disturbance, damage or entry into enclosed parts of a wreck without Ministry of Defence authorisation. I believe that the intention is to prevent poor behaviour by the minority who treat these sites as a source of souvenirs, which is not the ordinary conduct of responsible divers. We have a duty to prevent the desecration of the final resting places of all our war dead. They gave their lives and service to our nation. That is the least they deserve. If these measures can prevent such desecration by unlicensed diving, I suggest that they deserve our support.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I will start with Amendment 55A from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I thank him for bringing that forward in relation to salvage claims against military and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels via the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is the principal piece of primary legislation in the UK that governs maritime law, ship registration and safety standards. We will investigate the noble Lord’s concerns and comments about Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 before Report and come back with appropriate comments with respect to that. I hope that that is a reassurance to him about all the various comments he helpfully made for your Lordships’ House.

Moving to Clause 48 and the debate on that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his views on the Bill and acknowledge his concerns about Clause 48 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Clause 48 of the Bill addresses the existing disparity between the protection of military aircraft and vessels under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. The 1986 Act secures the protection from unauthorised interference of the remains of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded, and of associated human remains, making it an offence to enter or interfere with a military wreck site without an authorised licence.

The Act provides for two types of protection: protected places and controlled sites, as designated through a statutory instrument in tranches. To date, a total of 129 wrecked vessels have been designated in eight tranches, the last coming into force on 30 March 2026. However, the Act does not currently allow designation of a vessel that was sunk or stranded on or before 4 August 1914 as a protected place, or designation of a site as a controlled site if over 200 years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding of the vessel or aircraft. As a result of these time limits, older military shipwrecks lack protection. For example, the “Gloucester”, which sank in 1682, carrying the future James II and with a loss of around 200 lives, which I know from our discussions and correspondence is of particular interest to the noble Lord, is currently unprotected.

Clause 48 amends Section 1 of the 1986 Act so that all military shipwrecks which are the last resting places of serving personnel are automatically designated as protected places. This ensures alignment with the protection already afforded to military aircraft. The clause also removes the restrictive time constraints that apply to both protected places and controlled sites, ensuring that the nation’s historic military shipwrecks, which are currently excluded from inclusion by virtue of the time limits specified, can be protected. By providing automatic protection to all military shipwrecks, the MoD will enable a significant improvement in the way our maritime military graves and underwater cultural heritage are protected.

Significant advances in underwater technology and technical diving are leading to more of our military wrecks being discovered. That is good news, of course, but it also requires us to do all we can to protect them. The noble Baroness alluded to the reasons why we are doing this; those advances in technology are one of them. We need to do all we can to protect them once they have been discovered and identified in order to prevent them being disturbed or damaged and to prevent interference with military remains.

The recent discovery of HMS “Tiger” off the Isle of Wight is a prime example of why the amendments are being sought—again, this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. HMS “Tiger” was discovered 118 years after she collided with HMS “Berwick” during a training exercise and was cut clean in two. Currently, she can be designated only as a controlled site simply due to the fact that she sank in 1908, effectively restricting access to divers. Through the changes in the Bill, HMS “Tiger” will become a protected place, permitting non-intrusive activities such as diving without a licence. It is important that we protect UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial waters and international waters. I hope that there is no doubt that our intention is to do all we can to offer better protection in order to prevent the unauthorised desecration of these historically important sites, which are often the last resting places of our serving personnel.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that many of the provisions already contained in the current Act will remain. Clause 48 simply seeks to strengthen it. Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted—again, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—on a “look but don’t touch” basis, while a licence will still be required to dive on a controlled site. Giving all military wrecks “protected place” status will help deter unauthorised salvage and the desecration of the wrecks of military remains of service personnel; where appropriate, it will enable the MoD to prosecute those who flout the law in this respect.

I assure the Committee that there are already provisions in the Act to permit diving on UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial and international waters. However, to assist divers in navigating their way around the changes proposed, the MoD will be updating and publishing its policies on underwater cultural heritage, should the Bill be passed. I also assure the Committee—it may have been the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked about this—that the MoD, in consultation with the British Sub-Aqua Club, which is the UK governing body for sub-aqua diving, has produced a set of questions and answers designed to inform its members and the diving community of the proposed changes, which were published on 2 September 2026.

With those necessary reassurances, I hope that the Committee will see the need for Clause 48 and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government can make the laws and derogate should they wish to do so. I have pointed out the inconsistency of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gouldie, which would require us to derogate from the Human Rights Act but would not achieve her objective because it still leaves us liable to the ECHR, which would allow people to pursue it in that way.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the Minister understands fully what it is like to be grilled at the Dispatch Box in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his elucidation of the legal aspects of this. It is complex. There are interwoven components. I was following his interrogation of the Minister with a rather selfish interest as the Minister nobly endeavoured to respond. I am intrigued by what is emerging. I gleaned from the contributions that there is a subject here that merits debate. The conundrum is that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has articulated what the problem is, particularly for our troops in conflict. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that there is a problem; there is. The Minister himself conceded that this whole issue needs a more extensive debate.

Herein lies the conundrum. We all, I think, now recognise it as a problem and acknowledge that, however we have arrived this situation, the combined effect of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act is creating a challenge for our troops in conflict, which, in 2026, is a much more foreseeable prospect than perhaps it was even five years ago. I am encouraged that there seems to be a willingness to engage in this debate. This is a serious matter; I suggest to the Minister that it is not one about which either his department or his colleagues can remain passive or inert.

I am very grateful to all who have contributed, and I appreciate the Minister’s response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has offered us a very thoughtful exposition of why further action is required to strengthen the service justice system, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made an important contribution in support of that. I wholeheartedly concur with the rationale behind the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Last year, I brought this issue to the attention of the House during our debates on the then Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, as I am sure noble Lords will recall. During the progress of that Bill, I was particularly keen to give the new commissioner the power to investigate whistleblowing concerns, particularly relating to sexual misconduct. Although my specific proposal did not materialise, we did get a government commitment to a whistleblowing and defence review, for which I am very grateful to both the department and the Minister personally. That really important piece of work has now been concluded—I must thank the Minister for sharing it with me prior to the finalisation of the draft report, which greatly encouraged me. I certainly look forward to its publication in due course. The Minister might be able to share with the Chamber whether we have a date for publication of that report. I say at the outset that the noble Baroness and I are on the same page in ensuring that cases such as that of Jaysley Beck never happen again.

The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey found that 13% of women in our forces had been subject to sexual harassment in the previous 12 months alone. That is profoundly disappointing and deeply discouraging and worrying. The MoD’s own sexualised behaviours survey published only recently found that a third of servicewomen reported unwanted physical touching and one in 10 reported sexual assault. That is not the environment in which we want our servicewomen to be serving. Against that backdrop, I understand entirely why the noble Baroness has brought forward this framework, and I have considerable sympathy with what she is trying to achieve. A service stalking protection notice, mirroring the existing domestic abuse framework, has a certain logic to it, and the training and continuity amendments address real and identifiable gaps.

That said, I pose the question of whether a new tier of civil order is in itself the most effective mechanism available to us. My concern is that protection notices and protection orders, however carefully drafted, are only as good as the mechanisms available to monitor and enforce. There is a risk that we spend time creating new civil orders while the more fundamental question of whether service police have the resources, the trained investigators and the forensic support to catch these individuals, secure convictions and, where appropriate, see them imprisoned goes unanswered. Let me make clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I do not say this to dismiss the amendment; she raises a very important issue. I say it because the Minister owes the House a clear account of where the Government’s priorities lie. In conclusion, can the Minister outline what the Government are doing against that backdrop of evidence from surveys to better protect women in the Armed Forces from stalking and similar abuse? I look forward to his substantive response to very important amendments.

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

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward these crucial and really important amendments, and my noble friend Lady Royall for what she said in support of them.

On the point about the whistleblower review raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and her noble friend Lady Kramer have also been involved in looking at that—we hope to publish it, and the expectation is that we will do that in the next two weeks. I hope that is of some reassurance. The idea is to have that published with a Written Ministerial Statement. As soon as I have absolute certainty about that, I will let both noble Baronesses know. In answer to what specifically the Government are doing to try to tackle some of the culture with respect to women and girls and protection in those circumstances, the whistleblower review is one part of that. The contributions that both noble Baronesses made have substantially improved what the Government were proposing, so I am grateful for that.

I will just make a couple of general remarks before coming to the specifics of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. The Government are clear that stalking is a serious and often escalating crime that can have a devastating impact on victims and their families, and we are committed to ensuring that victims are protected, perpetrators are held to account and agencies have the powers that they need to intervene at the earliest opportunity. As has been said, stalking behaviour can cause significant physical and psychological harm and must never be dismissed as trivial or harmless. The Government’s approach is therefore focused on prevention, protection and prosecution, supported by robust safeguarding arrangements and effective multi-agency working.

Stalking protection orders provide an important tool to protect victims before harm escalates, enabling restrictions and positive requirements to be imposed where necessary to manage risk and prevent further offending. The reason I said in my letter to the noble Baroness that Amendment 21 was not necessary is not that interim stalking orders are not important. I draw the attention of the Committee to new Section 236Q, where there are interim service stalking protection orders on the face of the Bill. Without being pedantic, I know they are not interim stalking protection notices, and I suspect that may be the point that she wants to raise, but the Government recognise the need for interim measures to have the protection that is needed while a full application is still pending. I am informed by people who understand these processes better than I do that being an order rather than a notice means that there are more significant protection measures available to deal with any possible breach of an interim order. I just raise that point with the noble Baroness, and no doubt we can discuss that either further in Committee or another time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in a similar vein to the previous group, I think I am pretty well on a similar page to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, particularly on Amendment 25, which seeks to ensure that the service victims’ code cannot be restricted to exclude victims of sexual offences or domestic abuse.

The amendment seems to me to close what looks like an unintentional gap. A servicewoman whose case is prosecuted in the civilian courts should not receive a lesser standard of service-provided support than one whose case proceeds through the service justice system. That seems to me a matter of basic fairness. I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment or at least explain clearly why, and in what circumstances, the Government believe that such an exclusion could ever be justified.

Amendment 24, I suggest, requires greater caution. I infer from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that she recognises that this has to be approached with care. The amendment would remove a commanding officer’s power to hear summarily any charge of assault or actual bodily harm where the conduct amounts to domestic abuse, requiring referral instead to the service police or the Director of Service Prosecutions.

I do not dismiss the intention behind the amendment. There is a real and understandable concern that summary hearings may not be the right forum for allegations of this seriousness and that commanding officers, however well-intentioned, may not always be best placed to handle matters with the particular dynamics that domestic abuse involves. The reason why we must proceed with great care here is that the amendment touches upon the authority of the chain of command—something that is and must remain absolutely central to service discipline.

It is that authority which underpins the cohesion and ultimately the ability of our Armed Forces to fight and prevail when called upon. Any change that narrows a commanding officer’s jurisdiction, even for good reason, has consequences that ripple outwards into how units are led and how discipline is maintained. Those consequences deserve to be understood before any legislation is enacted.

I am not saying I oppose this outright. It may well be that this is precisely the direction that service personnel themselves want to see. I would not be surprised if many, particularly among victims, support exactly this change. But we do not yet know that with confidence and I am uncomfortable about pursuing so significant a shift in the chain of command’s jurisdiction on the basis of good intentions alone. What is needed is careful, structured consideration by the Ministry of Defence, drawing on the views of senior officers who carry responsibility for discipline across the force and, just as importantly, of the commanding officers at unit level who would actually exercise or lose this power. I ask the Minister to commit to precisely that engagement and to report back to this House on its findings before a change of this magnitude is made.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward these amendments, which are of significance to us all as we seek to improve the current situation. I also thank my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his contribution, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie. I will address some of the points they made in my remarks.

On Amendment 24, as set out by the Government in the other place, we are already committed to reviewing Schedule 1 criminal conduct offences for summary hearings and Schedule 2 serious service offences in the Armed Forces Act 2006 as part of implementing this Bill following Royal Assent. However—and I hope this speaks to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—for offences related to domestic abuse such as assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the necessary changes will be made by secondary legislation following the review. That would obviously involve consultation with a wide range of people. Schedule 1 offences are summary offences and therefore the commanding officer has a role. Obviously, Schedule 2 offences are more serious. We are looking at what we do with respect to that and what changes may or may not be made.

The proposed changes would be consistent with current defence policy, which is that such cases should always be referred to the relevant police authority so that they can consider investigating them. Where offences are removed from Schedule 1 and added to the more serious Schedule 2, the practical effect would be that they are investigated by the Defence Serious Crime Command and, if a charge is directed, tried at the court martial rather than at a summary hearing. As I say, that will be subject to a review. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised quite considerable concern that if we did move forward, we needed to move forward constructively, carefully and with wide consultation. That review will take place to do that, but it is part of the implementation of the Bill and therefore the amendment is not acceptable to us. We do not want it in the Bill because that would prejudge any review which is to take place.

On Amendment 25, protecting victims is a clear priority. There is no question that we would ever restrict the application of the code for victims in the CJS in respect of victims of sexual offences or domestic abuse. The code for victims in the CJS is aligned with Section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which sets out the statutory rights of victims in England and Wales. The code for victims in the CJS and the code for victims in England and Wales will contain the same principles and the same 12 rights. This ensures that victims of service offences and civilian victims receive equivalent standards, protections and entitlements, which goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness was asking for.

If a serving person is engaged with the civilian justice system, they will still be entitled to the single service welfare support mechanisms, which are designed and tailored to support individual needs. A range of comprehensive support from both welfare professionals and the chain of command can be employed to support personnel, tailored to those individual circumstances, and can be provided by unit welfare officers, medical staff and pastoral support. Where needs are complex or relate to serious, enduring and/or multi-agency cases, a referral to specialist welfare support may be required. This is delivered by specialist trained staff, and each of the single services offers that option in addition to first-line welfare support. Although we are not where we should be, there has been some improvement.

I thank the noble Baroness for Amendment 26, relating to production orders, and for highlighting this important issue. This new clause is not required as any change to the procedures around production orders could be enacted through the relevant secondary legislation—if a change is needed, we can do that through secondary legislation—so long as a review of the current procedures has been completed so that we know what we are doing if we seek to make any change.

On a point that the noble Baroness was asking about, we will consider further whether our procedures around production orders, specifically with regard to giving notice to the individual to whom the information relates and the provision that representations can be made, should fully reflect the relevant procedures in the civilian courts and whether it is appropriate and necessary that they do so. I reassure the noble Baroness that, while the requirement for further review around production orders is considered, victims of crime are informed about information requests from third parties. That is an important addition.

When a victim information request is submitted to a third party, service police must, under Section 44B of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, give notice to the person whose information is being sought. However, that requirement does not apply in certain circumstances; for example, where it is not reasonably practical in the circumstances or, importantly, where doing so might risk causing serious harm to the victim or another person. Again, that is an important qualification. The code of practice relating to these requests also states that when the victim is informed, their views should be sought and they are able to make representations—again, unless specific exemptions apply.

I hope that with those explanations and reassurances, particularly with respect to one or two of the reviews, the noble Baroness may find it appropriate to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to make it clear that I tabled the Clause 16 stand part notice not because I oppose the changes the Government are making but because I seek some clarifications on the intended effects and operation of the changes being made. I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for his engagement with my noble friend Lord Minto on this matter. He offered an insightful explanation of the effects of Clause 16 and the intention behind his amendments, which I will comment on in due course. I also recognise the pressure that has built since the Etherton review for greater independence in the handling of service justice matters, but Clause 16 makes a significant change to how pre-charge detention operates.

As I understand it, Clause 16 amends Sections 98 and 99 of the 2006 Act so that the authorisation and review of custody without charge—currently a function of the commanding officer—is transferred to a newly defined “appropriate authority”. The commanding officer will no longer be the person to whom an arrest and its grounds must be reported, nor the person who orders release once the grounds for detention fall away. In cases involving serious offences, the Bill goes further, requiring matters to be reported beyond the commanding officer altogether. I press the Minister on what this means in practice.

Custody decisions sit close to the heart of a commanding officer’s responsibility for the people under his or her command. A commanding officer who no longer authorises, or is even routinely informed of, the custody of a member of the unit loses a degree of visibility over discipline and welfare that has traditionally gone hand in hand with command. I am not arguing that visibility must always trump independence. There may be good reasons, particularly in sensitive cases, for distancing these decisions from the chain of command. But what happens in operations, for example, where a commanding officer’s swift decision-making may be necessary? What assessment has been made of the effect on unit cohesion and discipline where a commanding officer is no longer the first port of call?

Service justice depends on decisions being made promptly by somebody with the standing and the proximity to make them properly. If the appropriate authority is going to be some distance removed from the unit, either in rank or in geography, the Government need to explain how that gap will be bridged without compromising either the rights of the individual in custody or the operational chain of command’s ability to function. I hope the Minister can set out clearly what triggered these changes and why they are necessary. Very importantly, what alternatives were considered? Equally importantly, what consultation took place with commanding officers themselves before this approach was settled upon?

Having said that, I understand that there are instances where commanding officers have been too close to the matters in hand and have therefore not appropriately dealt with the accusations. The right reverend Prelate has argued that the provost marshal should have the ability to be an appropriate authority in all service offences, not only in cases where a serious offence has been committed. I have considerable sympathy with that view. If we are to make the change the Government propose—although I have some reservations, I do not oppose it outright—it is certainly sensible to extend the involvement of the provost marshal. I shall await with interest the Minister’s comments on the arguments advanced by the right reverend Prelate, and on the potentially enhanced role of the provost marshal.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for tabling his important amendments and for the debate and discussion that will take place in Committee as a consequence. I also thank him for his time over the weekend. We had a very interesting conversation about these and some further amendments he has tabled in later groups. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others who have contributed.

Rather than addressing the specific amendments, and I apologise that I may have to speak for a few minutes to put some important points on the record, I will start by speaking to Clause 16. Under the current legal framework of the Armed Forces Act, only the commanding officer of a suspect can authorise their pre-charge custody after arrest. In routine cases, that remains appropriate—which goes back to the points that the noble Baroness made about the role of commanding officers—but in serious and fast-moving investigations, the need to obtain that authorisation can create avoidable delay, risk the loss or contamination of evidence, and increase the risk of further harm to victims, witnesses or the suspect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate and for the thoughtful comments they have made. To deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the information I have is that there is no shortage of court martial board members. I can give the figures that the ministry has provided to me: in 2025, 447 service personnel were sworn in for 283 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. The court martial already draws from a sufficiently wide pool of eligible personnel, so, as such, the amendment is not required. If she has more detail that she would like to share, obviously that would be useful, but that is the information that I have been provided with.

It is vital that board members are up-to-date and possess the necessary practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, standards and values. For that reason, individuals who have left service even recently may no longer be as acquainted with changes across the services since their departure. The Government acknowledge the valuable, meaningful contribution that veterans continue to make across our society. However, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to seek to draw on their past experience and knowledge for service on a court martial board, particularly when there is no shortage of board members.

Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to remove military lay board members from the court martial sentencing process, so that sentence would be decided by the Judge Advocate alone. One argument often used is that this would mirror the Crown Court in England and Wales. However, I do not agree that the Crown Court model should simply be replicated in all cases within the UK service justice system. The current position is the same as that during the passage of the previous Armed Forces Bill in 2021, that the Judge Advocate and the service members of the board discuss and decide the sentence together. That is not an anomaly or a weakness; it is one of the strengths of the court martial to have service members and the Judge Advocate deciding on sentences together.

In answer to one of the specific points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that does not mean that the UK court martial has remained unchanged since the 2021 Act was implemented. In 2022, a new court martial rule was introduced that ensured that each court martial board includes at least one servicewoman. This is not sufficient, but it is a step forward. That is the only point I would make—which I am not sure my noble friends to the left of me totally agreed with—but all I am saying is that while it is not sufficient, it is a step forward.

In 2025, 28% of the service personnel who were sworn in as board members for court martial proceedings were women. Again, that is not what it should be, but it is a significant improvement. Since December 2024, court martial boards have been almost exclusively tri-service.

The judge advocate is of course the expert on sentencing. It is true that any sentence passed by the court martial must be determined by a majority vote, meaning that the judge advocate’s voice could, theoretically, be outweighed. However, the judge advocate will give the board the legal framework, identify the relevant sentencing guidelines and set the proper parameters within which the sentence must be considered. Failure to have regard to those guidelines and parameters opens the way to an appeal in the Court Martial Appeal Court.

The board members do not replace the judicial role. Their role is different and complementary. They bring current service experience to the assessment of what sentence is appropriate within the lawful framework. Service personnel are subject to rules, standards and operational expectations that go beyond ordinary civilian employment. Conduct that might appear straightforward in a civilian setting can have a markedly different impact in the military context, particularly where it affects discipline, cohesion, readiness, safety or operational effectiveness.

Board members bring up-to-date knowledge and real-time experience of single service policies, procedures, values and standards. The amendment would reduce the board’s role from one of equal participation to one of consultation only. There is a real difference between being consulted and being part of the decision. Consultation would mean that the judge advocate could hear the service perspective but reject it. The current system ensures that the service perspective is taken into account in the sentencing decision, while remaining subject to the judge advocate’s firm legal direction.

Nor is there any legal issue that this amendment needs to address. Sentencing in the court martial is already subject to stringent legal controls. The court martial must have regard to the relevant sentencing guidelines, which for criminal offences incorporate the same guidelines used in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts. The Judge Advocate-General also issues detailed sentencing guidance for the service courts. Aggravation and mitigation are fully addressed in open court by the prosecution and defence, and pre-sentence reports from experienced probation officers are available where required. Sentences are reasoned in open court and may be reviewed subsequently by the Court Martial Appeal Court.

It is also important to remember that, while military experience informs sentencing, it does not displace the legal principles governing it. Any mitigation advanced on behalf of an offender—whether arising from previous operational service, commendations, awards or personal circumstances—must be assessed within the sentencing framework directed by the judge advocate and in accordance with applicable sentencing guidelines. To be clear, board members are not free to substitute personal views of military merit for the lawful sentencing exercise, and any sentence that failed properly to reflect the relevant legal principles would be liable to appeal.

As court martial sentencing includes service-specific sentences such as dismissal, reduction in rank and service detention, military board members are particularly well placed to assess the practical effect of those sanctions on both the individual to be sentenced and the wider service community. Board members are lay decision-makers directed to exercise their own independent judgment: importantly, they are not representatives of the chain of command. Their current military experience assists the court; it does not compromise the court’s independence.

The Government argue that the amendment would therefore reduce the service character of the court martial without adding any significant additional safeguard. We believe that the current balance is the right one: the judge advocate provides the legal expertise and safeguards; the lay board members provide current military experience and independent judgment. Together, they produce a sentence that is lawful, reasoned and properly informed by the service context. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baronesses not to press the amendments.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendment. My concern focused on the specific issue of where a senior officer faces a court martial. The pool of eligible serving officers able to sit without any prior connection to the defendant is small. My question was not one of overall capacity, which was, I suggest, the issue that the Minister chose to address.

I do not want to make a meal of this—can the Minister go back to his officials and seek an assurance that they are not aware of any specific case of it proving difficult to man a court martial where a senior officer is charged with an offence and it is important and necessary to secure a pool of comparably qualified officers?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

In that case, I am grateful to the Minister and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It was all going so well. I do not think there is a unanimity of view on this one. I start, however, by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for moving the amendment. I think we will probably end up debating this issue again; we may all be a little bit more excitable in the way that we deal with it.

In answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of course a breach of an order means someone can be recalled. That is like any court order; if it is breached, the court has the power, capability and capacity to bring people back and deal with it appropriately then.

Amendment 37 would remove the presumption of suspended sentence orders from the service justice system. In doing so, it would reverse a reform that was introduced to align the service justice system’s sentencing practices with wider government sentencing policy while preserving the unique requirements of service discipline. The presumption forms part of the Government’s response to former Lord Chancellor David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review 2025, which recommended reducing the use of short custodial sentences and increasing the availability of suspended sentence orders. The policy was based on evidence that short custodial sentences are often less effective at reducing reoffending than community-based interventions. It therefore sought to encourage rehabilitative disposals that better support longer-term public protection.

The reform—this is the crucial point—does not remove the ability of service courts to impose immediate custody. Courts retain the discretion to do so where there are exceptional circumstances or where immediate custody is necessary to maintain service discipline. I think that is the fundamental point: in the end, the court makes the judgment as to whether it should apply immediate custody or allow a suspended sentence. Suspended sentence orders remain an effective sanction, carrying punitive and rehabilitative requirements and the prospect that the custodial sentence will be activated, which is the point I have just made to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, if the offender fails to comply.

It is the Government’s long-standing policy that the service justice system should emulate the civilian criminal justice system unless there are compelling service-specific reasons to deviate from it. The Government are not persuaded, and neither am I personally, that such a case has been made here. Furthermore, removing the presumption in the service justice system alone could lead to different sentencing outcomes for similar offenders across the civilian and service jurisdictions. It could also complicate decisions about the appropriate jurisdiction where there is no service interest justifying divergence.

For these reasons, the Government consider that the current approach strikes the right balance between rehabilitation, judicial discretion, service discipline and consistency across the justice system. I therefore invite the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to withdraw this amendment, although my suspicion is that we may return to this particular debate and discussion. As I say, we might do it at a more excitable time when we can all explore what is a fundamental point within our society that needs to be aired.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and indeed to the Minister for his response. We are not going to conclude with consensus between us, but we shall bear our disagreement with a smile upon each other.

The Minister argued that the alignment with the civilian system is what justifies this change, but service justice depends on proportionate case-by-case judgment and the maintenance of discipline. I have heard nothing today to persuade me that a presumption of suspended sentence orders is desirable, sensible or right. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but the Minister is correct in his prediction: I reserve the right to return to this on Report.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I too am pleased to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Harlech, both of which, I believe, attempt to strengthen the Armed Forces covenant, much as my amendments in the previous group were intended to do.

Amendment 6 addresses what could become a gap in the application of the covenant. It is all very well and good placing this new legal duty on select public bodies, but that duty means little if those bodies cannot identify who among their community belongs to the Armed Forces. This amendment attempts to correct that by requiring the relevant bodies to ask, sensitively and consistently, whether an individual falls within that community and to distinguish reserve service from veteran status, since the two carry quite different implications for practical support. I understand that this is something a number of hospital trusts have started to do when patients attend their A&E departments. Identifying early on whether a patient is a serving member of the Armed Forces or a veteran allows clinicians to develop tailored care.

Amendment 7 addresses the operational readiness of our Reserve Forces, which I know is of particular importance to many of my noble friends, as eloquently attested by my noble friend Lord Harlech. This Bill extends liability for callout and recall, which we will discuss later, but that rests on an assumption—a very important assumption—that reservists are medically fit to serve when summoned.

There is nothing in the current drafting that asks health bodies to have any regard whatever to that reality. My noble friend’s amendment remedies this. The provision has effect only where patients are already of equivalent clinical priority, at which point a reservist’s mobilisation requirements may be properly weighed.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising these two important issues about the potential operation of the covenant once a legal duty is established. I very much hope that the Minister will give these amendments the due consideration that they merit.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I recognise the service that he gives as an active member of the reservists—captain, I think, so congratulations to him. I am not sure whether that is a promotion that has just happened or whether I just missed it, but congratulations on that. I too declare an interest as my son-in-law is also an active reservist, so I am well aware of many of the issues quite forcefully put at times. That may recur at various points throughout the Bill, so I ask people to take note of that.

I was just looking for the relevant point in the extension of the covenant in Clause 2. Before I make my formal remarks, I will go to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Clause 2(2) inserts a duty to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant and lists, in a way that we are all supporting, the specified persons and the specified matters, so there is a huge extension to cover many of the points that noble Lords are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My assumption would be that it includes all NHS services. The serious point that I am making is that page 2, on the extension to the national bodies and covering matters, starts to try to deal with some of the various points that the noble Lord has quite rightly made, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for his views.

Amendment 6 would require bodies subject to the covenant duty to ask and record whether an individual belongs to an Armed Forces community. I recognise the intent behind the amendment and that the recording of someone’s Armed Forces status does not always happen as it could or should. We are continuing to encourage improvements in that area, because it is important that we do that as far as possible. We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to place statutory requirements on these bodies to ask them to record an individual’s Armed Forces status. It may not always be necessary for the delivery of services or the removal of disadvantage, so it risks imposing an additional administrative burden, for limited benefit.

In many cases, bodies subject to the duty, such as Government Ministers, make decisions about the Armed Forces community in general rather than about specific individuals. It would therefore be impractical and unnecessary to require these bodies to establish whether every individual who is or may be using their public services is a member of the Armed Forces community, which is what the amendment would require. It is important to say to the noble Lord that the covenant duty’s updated statutory guidance already highlights the importance of bodies identifying who is in the Armed Forces community, giving them the flexibility to determine the best way forward, rather than imposing a rigid statutory requirement. I hope that answers to an extent some of the questions asked the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. We have statutory guidance that we have updated to try to improve the situation as well.

On Amendment 7, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that our Reserve Forces are medically ready when called upon. Fitness to serve is already a fundamental consideration for the services when reservists are being considered for mobilisation. Active reservists, as the noble Lord will know better than most, are subject to pre-mobilisation health checks delivered through defence primary healthcare arrangements, and individuals will not be mobilised unless they meet the relevant service medical standards.

I share the objective of maintaining reserve readiness, but the amendment is not the appropriate means of achieving that objective. It would place a new statutory duty on health bodies across the UK to take account of reservist mobilisation status in the exercise of public health and social care functions. The proposed new clause would require health bodies to take defence readiness into account when allocating access to examination or treatment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am confused as to the Government’s position on my noble friend’s amendments. Is it that there is an obligation on the reservist to self-declare and it is up to the reservist to sort that out? Or do they contend that there is an obligation under Clause 2 on the bodies mentioned to make some kind of inquiry to work out who is in the community that they serve? It is important that that confusion be clarified.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not think we are saying it is the reservist’s responsibility to ensure that people are aware, but we are encouraging bodies—and I have encouraged them—to determine the status of the individuals who come before them. As I say, rather than having a statutory requirement, we often see it as good practice and we are encouraging, through guidance and other ways, a means of trying to improve the situation.

As I say—I think this is part of what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was getting at—this risks blurring the clear and long-established principle that NHS care is determined by clinical priority, not necessarily by employment status or potential availability for service. It opens up all sorts of other possibilities as well. That is why, to answer the noble Baroness’s point, we understand the need to have due regard and to try to understand the particular circumstances of the individuals who may come before them from a reservist perspective.

The Government have been clear about our priority of supporting our health services in reducing waiting lists and improving access to care, but we should be cautious about creating new statutory factors for health bodies to weigh in their decision-making. Through the Bill, the Government have already taken steps to deal with the issue of disadvantage for the reserves compared to the general population. We are imposing a duty on specified national authorities, local authorities, health bodies and education bodies to have due regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant, which is the point I was making at the beginning. That is how we seek to address some of the disadvantages that the noble Lord has raised, as I say, on page 2 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We agree with that. Our intention all the way is to ensure that the family’s voice is heard and acted on. The defence housing strategy from 2025, on which much of this is based, was developed—I have examples of this—after having consulted with and listened to forces family representatives. They have informed the very structure that this new DHS body has been set up to achieve.

I absolutely accept the point that the right reverend Prelate has put to us. We would argue that the defence housing strategy was developed with the support of services families and that the legislation before your Lordships has been developed on the basis of that strategy, which has at its very heart the needs and views of forces families. That is essential. It is important to put on the record that we want to see that continue and we believe that these structures will help to do that.

As I said, strong governance and family representation are already built into the DHS structure. Two of these forums are new to the DHS, while two are well established and will continue to operate under the DHS governance framework. These forums are the accommodation delivery forum and the families insight forum, and the newly established defence housing service customer committee and the regional customer experience committees. To go to the point that has just been made, embedding the family voice is fundamental to the DHS. Representatives from the Armed Forces Families Federation, which engages with service families daily and brings invaluable insight into their lived experience, are embedded across each of the four forums to help shape improvements and hold us to our commitments.

The new DHS customer committee places service families at the heart of decision-making, championing lived experience and ensuring that the “family first” principle drives continuous improvement in customer experience and satisfaction, further strengthened by new regional customer experience committees which provide a structured forum for families to share feedback, influence policy and service delivery and shape regional priorities.

With those remarks, I hope the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendments, but I thank her again for the opportunity to put the Government’s view on the record.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and to the Minister for their contributions. I set out at the start that my purpose with these three amendments was not to obstruct the defence housing service but to improve it. I have accepted the political reality that the new body is coming into being, whether I welcome that or not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of single living accommodation, and I was just checking over the text of my amendments and looking at the section of the Bill that we are trying to amend. There was no desire to exclude single living accommodation, and indeed, if she considers that there is merit in what I am trying to achieve, I am sure that drafting can be deployed to provide for that.

Disappointingly, nothing I have heard this afternoon has shifted my view that these three amendments remain necessary. Amendment 16 simply asks that “satisfaction” be written into the defence housing service’s functions as explicitly as “supply”, “quality” and “regeneration” already are, so that success or failure can be measured against something service families would recognise.

I listened to the Minister’s response and his reference to the specific provisions contained on page 7 of the Bill, but I observe that these are actually subjective tests for the DHS to satisfy. They are not in any way reassuring, objective interventions that can be made by the service personnel being accommodated in this housing, because they have no direct control over the governance of the organisation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich rightly encapsulated that concern, which I think is a legitimate one.

The Minister referred to excellent groups such as the Army, Naval and RAF Families Federations and other groups that make a tremendous contribution to promoting the interests of our service personnel, but they can only ever be commentators, and to me that is not good enough for the purpose of this new body.

Amendment 19 still awaits the straightforward answer that my right honourable friend Mark Francois sought in the other place. Why does the chief executive report to the National Armaments Director? I would like him to report to the Minister, to the Lords Minister—to any Minister—or to the Armed Forces Commissioner. I just do not get the connection with the National Armaments Director, and I have not received the clarity from the Minister that I sought.

Amendment 20 remains the surest guard against the sort of bureaucratic self-interest that I am afraid so often overtakes bodies of this kind, by putting those who actually live in service housing on the board that oversees it. That is direct governance, direct control and having a voice in the actual provision.

I hope the Minister will reflect further before Report, in the collaborative spirit he has himself invited, which I welcome. He has already offered a meeting, and this is an issue we could fruitfully discuss then. However, on the basis of hoping to discuss this further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled these stand-part notices for Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to probe why the Government have decided to pursue the creation of a new public body to deliver and manage service family accommodation. I indicated to the Chamber that I would pursue this under this group. These provisions would establish the defence housing service as a new free-standing non-departmental public body, taking over responsibility for the provision, maintenance and modernisation of service family accommodation. Nobody on my Benches disputes the scale of the problem that confronts the Ministry of Defence; what I do intend to question is whether the Government are pursuing the best solution.

The defence housing strategy, published last year, offers a familiar formula: it talks of a clearer statutory footing, better focus and an accounting officer with defined responsibility for the housing estate. None of this tells us why the defence housing service, as an arm’s-length body, will succeed where the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has so conspicuously failed. The DIO, too, was created as a discrete organisation with a clear remit, and it has become a byword for bureaucratic unresponsiveness, even, sadly, being nicknamed—not affectionately, I may add—“DI-no”.

The lesson of the failures of the DIO—and, as we must not forget, Annington Homes—is that defence housing needs a different operating model altogether, one genuinely run by people whose entire professional life is housing, and one that is accountable to the families it serves, rather than upward to the department in Whitehall. That is precisely why my party’s alternative is a forces housing association. That would be an organisation modelled on an ordinary housing association, not run for profit, with every pound of revenue reinvested in the housing stock. Its executive leadership would be drawn from the social housing sector rather than the Civil Service, and representatives of each of the three forces families federations would be given a formal seat on its board. That model would give service families something the Bill does not: an institution whose culture, incentives and governance are drawn from the industry that already knows how to run good-quality rental housing well, rather than a new public body. By contrast, a national NDPB brings with it precisely the accountability weaknesses we are all too aware of. I really would appreciate if the Minister could give the House a straight answer to a very simple question: what specific mechanism in the Bill will make service families’ complaints be taken seriously and improve the satisfaction with, and quality of, service family accommodation?

My second point concerns money. I put this to the Committee because a new structure is worthless without the funding to back it up. In their defence housing strategy, the Government promised a 10-year £9 billion programme to upgrade around 43,000 defence homes—roughly nine in 10 of the whole family estate. That was, and remains, a welcome goal. Ministers understandably wanted credit for it; indeed, the Minister for the Armed Forces in the other place repeated these figures with confidence when the Bill was scrutinised in Committee in the other place in the spring. But when the defence investment plan was finally published this summer—nine months late, let us not forget—we learned that refurbishment work on some of the worst properties, the very homes surveyed and found to require substantial work or complete rebuilding, has been pushed back to fund other priorities within that plan. Antony Cotton, the campaigner who had fronted the Government’s own publicity for this programme, said plainly that families would feel let down. He had told them, in his words, that their homes were “on the horizon”. Now, sadly, that horizon has swiftly receded.

My right honourable friend Mark Francois pressed the Minister for the Armed Forces repeatedly in Committee in the other place on exactly this point: the gap between the confident figure given by the Ministers in the spring and the reality that emerged a few months later once the defence investment plan was published. We have seen this pattern all too often with this Government, not least on the path to 3%. They make an announcement with headline-grabbing numbers and reassure us that everything is in hand, but, with depressing predictability, they end up pushing everything back because they cannot get a grip on the welfare budget. In a Written Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, the Minister stated that:

“The Ministry of Defence will publish its delivery timeline for the £9.2 billion Defence Housing Strategy over the next 12 months”.


Respectfully, this is simply more delay with the money. The housing strategy was published in November last year. Why have the Government not established a delivery timeline already, and why will it take yet another 12 months just to publish the delivery timeline, yet alone begin with the investment?

That matters directly, because we are being asked to approve the creation of an entirely new statutory body to deliver a programme whose funding has already been rewritten within months of being announced, before the body designed to deliver it has even been established. If the Government cannot hold to their own funding timetable under the current arrangements, no amount of institutional reorganisation will fix that. Without funds that the Government promised, this is a chimera—a verbal soufflé. I ask the Minister this again, directly: can the Government confirm today, on the record, that the £9 billion and the 43,000 homes remain their firm commitment on the original 10-year timetable? Can the Minister explain why service families should have confidence that the new body created for the Bill will succeed in fixing the standard of their housing?

I do not oppose the reform of defence housing delivery; I oppose the assumption that the creation of yet another arm’s-length body will solve anything. I did warn of my scepticism on this proposal, but I feel a lot better having shared it with the Committee.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness—and I congratulate her on finding a different way of having a therapy session. She made some very interesting and important points, and I will deal with them as I go through the remarks that I make. I will come to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about single living accommodation a little bit further down.

I begin with Clause 3 and Schedule 1, which create the defence housing service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our defence housing strategy sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes: 90% of military homes will be upgraded—that work has already started—or renewed or rebuilt, through a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade. The defence housing service is the vehicle to drive this transformation. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me to confirm again the Government’s commitment to a figure and the time for that. Let me say it again, in direct answer to her question: it will be a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade.

The defence housing strategy recommended establishing the DHS as a professional arm’s-length body focused on the specific needs of service personnel and their families. The direct partnership with the military to support this can be achieved only within a public body. That was the recommendation of the housing strategy. I say to noble Lords that many of the people who drew the strategy up have had years and years of experience in housing. Without reading them all out, noble Lords can see for themselves if they look at the review work and the team that put this together. The Government supported the recommendations that they made.

Given the control required by the Ministry of Defence to meet operational needs, the purpose of the housing, the close relationship with welfare outcomes, and the exercise of housing discretion, transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate in the Government’s view or, indeed, the view of the strategy. It would, in our view, set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery, hamper the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces and undermine Crown tenancy arrangements.

The purpose of defence housing is to meet the operational needs of the Armed Forces. Central to that is the ability to move service personnel wherever needed and without delay. To support that mobility, accommodation is provided as part of their terms and conditions, at a rate heavily subsidised by the Ministry of Defence through a Crown licence arrangement which manages occupation in accordance with military operational requirements. This requires the Ministry of Defence as a whole to have operational control over its housing stock and who is in occupation of particular homes. That would be hampered by a transfer of the estate to a third-party organisation that is not part of the Ministry of Defence family.

Palantir: Public Service Contracts

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite wise to raise that point; it is a question I asked too. Officials told me that it was the only company—the only available platform—that could provide what the MoD needed and give us the operational capability that was required. Under the single tender regime—I cannot remember the exact title—where there is no other option available, it is okay and legal for the Government to operate in that way. That is why the Government did that. Of course we are looking at whether other people can provide the sort of expertise that the noble Baroness refers to, but there was no point going out to procurement when the only provider was Palantir.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, by common assent, Palantir’s technology has rapidly and dramatically improved the Ministry of Defence’s logistics and operational planning systems without either human rights or reputational risks. Given that the current challenge confronting the MoD is recognised in the SDR, which recommended achieving a 10% efficiency saving by greater use of AI systems, what progress has been made on that objective to date?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will see in due course some of the ways in which we are taking forward AI, but she is quite right to ask about this. AI is crucial to the future provision for our Armed Forces and to enabling them to have the capability and capacity they need for the conflicts of the future. Palantir is one example of the way in which we seek to take that forward. Other options will be brought forward as part of the defence investment plan. Clearly, AI is the future of much of the technological co-operation that will be needed both within government and with our allies.

Defence Investment Plan

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Chief of the Defence Staff has today given the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House stark evidence of what funding is needed and why we need it to maintain our defence capability. Does the Minister agree that, whatever ends up being in the defence investment plan, there must be an emphasis on funding ongoing operational activity such as boarding sanctioned tankers, paying for drones, equipping our serving Armed Forces personnel with everything they need to maintain operational readiness, and ensuring that our reserves are trained and equipped to optimise military and national resilience support? Does he accept that these are priorities?

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

The priorities, and the moneys for the future, will be laid out in the defence investment plan. The noble Baroness is right to point out some of the important capabilities we have to protect our country and to work with our allies. She was right, for example, to point to the importance of the reserves—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, here—and to the ability to maintain our operational requirements. This goes back to a question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place. As the DIP goes on, an important thing that will have to be wrestled with is the relationship between RDEL and CDEL, which is crucial to the way we will operate in the future.

UK Defence Capability

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It would be wrong of me not to say that I appreciate my noble friend’s remarks on Normandy. A number of us were there on Saturday; the relative of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was the day after. My uncle, who I am named after, was killed on D-Day, soon after landing on Sword Beach. I really appreciate my noble friend’s comments.

On the current situation, he will know that the defence investment plan is due to be published and the Prime Minister has made clear that it will be before the Ankara summit on 7 July. We are in discussions about the money. He will have seen that well reported. I cannot tell him exactly what the outcome of all of that will be, but there will be additional investment. My noble friend is right to point out the need for us to increase our capability, and we are doing that. In terms of countering the Russian threat as it stands at the moment, we are not standing still, we are taking action with RAF Typhoons and are with working with our NATO allies in the North Atlantic and the High North. With his naval experience, he will know that the carrier HMS “Prince of Wales”, following a bit of maintenance in Norway, is now out ready for Operation Firecrest and that a number of operations such as Nordic Warden and Arctic Sentry are taking place to protect our interests, take action to counter the Russian threat and protect things such as underwater cables. Of course, there is a need for more investment, more readiness and more capability, but we are taking action with the resources we have now to defend our country as well and as much as we can.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, wounds imposed by one’s friends are always more painful to bear than those imposed by one’s adversaries, so I shall try not to compound the Minister’s agony. The Chief of the Defence Staff has laid bare profound concerns about our capability. The noble Lord, Lord West, has encapsulated the problem succinctly, and I shall not repeat that, but at the heart of the chaos we find ourselves in is a fundamental difference of opinion between defence experts who get it and, arguably, a political leadership who do not. Can the Minister clarify precisely how and when this impasse will be resolved? We do not need talk about the defence investment plan; we need it now. We need to see the detail. It may or may not resolve the problem, but dither, delay and inertia are now completely unacceptable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I welcome challenge on these issues from His Majesty’s Opposition, my noble friend Lord West and my noble friends because it is important the Government are challenged on all these issues. They relate to the defence and security of our country and the defence and security of our continent and beyond so it is quite right to hold the Government and the Ministers who speak for the Government to account on this. The noble Baroness quite rightly asked me about the defence investment plan. I cannot do any more than say to her that the Prime Minister has said that the defence investment plan will be published before 7 July, which is the Ankara summit, the next NATO summit. That is all I can say to her. We hope to be able to publish it well before that, but all I can say to her is that work is ongoing. It will lay out the investments for the future as well as the type of capability that we need. All I was saying to my noble friend Lord West and I say to others is that we have already increased the amount of defence spending and are already increasing available capabilities and taking action where a threat is made against us to defend our country, our people and the alliances to which we belong.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have been under sustained attack over many months for inadequacy of defence spend, opacity as to what they are going to do about it and lethargy engulfing their defence investment plan. When the most acerbic criticism comes from a political friend and the Government’s defence adviser, that is painful, but it is also a piercing alarm klaxon; help is needed now.

I ask the Minister, whom I hold in respect and affection, two questions. Even if the Government do not accept that the Chagos deal is dead, although everyone else does, why not redirect the identified and assigned Chagos payments to the MoD? That money is not going to Mauritius any time soon. As the MoD struggles to fill a current £3.5 billion black hole, it must ruthlessly prioritise, so how about, above all else, urgently getting warships out of maintenance?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On the Chagos deal, the direct answer, fairly obviously, is that priorities across government are always being assessed and reassessed as policy develops or changes, but predicting that is very difficult. I cannot give a direct answer to what the noble Baroness has asked—as I expect she thought I would not be able to. On warship maintenance, the First Sea Lord is working extremely hard to improve the maintenance of warships to see how we can get them all ready and operational more quickly. It is not just warships but the whole of the Navy. He is working hard, as the noble Baroness knows, with respect to a hybrid Navy. He is also working extremely hard to improve submarine availability.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Boarding of Sanctioned Vessels

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with their counterparts in the United States about possible future support by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force for US boarding of sanctioned vessels.

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

My Lords, any future requests from the US for Royal Navy and Royal Air Force support for operations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes appropriate consideration of the legal basis for any proposed activity. The MoD will continue to step up action against shadow fleet activity to protect our national security, our economy and global stability, but we cannot comment on hypothetical future operations.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, these Benches applauded the successful boarding by the United States of the illegally flagged MV “Marinera” and the detention of that vessel, because that direct interception hits the Putin war machine and the brutalistic regime of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. I understand that there are currently 107 sanctioned vessels flying false flags and, in my opinion, the sooner they are boarded, the better. Can the Minister confirm that the UK has the capability to continue to support the United States in such operations and to commence such operations on our own account, and that the Special Boat Service will be given the necessary resource to train and equip our elite soldiers to do that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The unity of purpose between His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government and all Members of this House sends a hugely important and significant signal to Russia and our adversaries, so I very much welcome the first part of the noble Baroness’s question. I anticipated her question. I do not normally do this, but I want to read something because if I am not careful, I will stray into areas that would not be appropriate. I apologise to the House, but I think it is important to read something, so please forgive me if I take a little bit longer than I would normally, because the noble Baroness has made an important point.

“As we have made clear in our recent statements regarding the US military operation to interdict the MV ‘Bella 1’, the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so. We are fully committed to tackling the threat posed by the shadow fleet and are working with partners to maximise efforts. We will use the range of tools at our disposal to crack down on sanctions evasion and illegal maritime activity”.

I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Baroness’s question.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in seeking to address legacy issues arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles, I suspect that what we are all agreed on is that there is no absolutely right way in which to proceed. A judgment about what is the least harmful approach has to be made. May I ask the Minister two questions? Why have the Government created equivalence between our Armed Forces serving their country and terrorists who committed murder and torture? How can such an abandonment of our Armed Forces be the least harmful way to proceed?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.

We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.

Defence Spending

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly will. I will not have our country categorised as a middle-ranking power or a diminishing power. I just do not believe that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness does either. She is quite right to challenge us on investment; we need the investment that I have outlined in the answers that I have given. I know she supports that investment, and I look forward to working with her, and collectively across this House, to ensure that we have the capacity and the capabilities we need to play the full and proper role in NATO that she and I support.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have stated, encouragingly and repeatedly, that defence is a number one priority, but there is a current budget black hole in the MoD of £2.6 billion, defence industry partners are being starved of essential orders, the Autumn Budget was deafeningly silent on how we reach the spend of 3% in the next Parliament, and the defence investment plan is taking longer than an elephant’s pregnancy. That is a bizarre reflection of priority. Can the Minister, with his legendary bonhomie, shine any light on this gloom?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will first have to tell me how long an elephant’s pregnancy is— I have absolutely no idea whether that is good news or bad news, and I do not know whether anybody else does.

The noble Baroness makes a serious point, challenging the Government on the defence investment plan. I say to this House and to the noble Baroness, who I know takes a keen interest and is very supportive of defence overall, that the defence investment plan will be published when we are in a position to have made the necessary choices to deliver the war-fighting readiness that we want and the capability to fight if we need to, now, in the middle term and in the long term. There are in-year choices that we are dealing with, and the chiefs are fully involved in the discussion and debate on how we take that forward.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I extend my personal sorrow to the family of Lance Corporal George Hooley. His tragic death is a humbling reminder of the risk that we ask all those who serve with such honour to confront on a daily basis.

In relation to the Urgent Question, we have here a story of starkly, indeed darkly, contrasting facts. In the summer, troops were taken ill after using Ajax vehicles. In late November, 31 soldiers fell ill after using the vehicles, forcing a two-week suspension of Ajax’s use while a safety investigation was carried out. Personnel have been limited to spending only one and a half hours inside the vehicles due to health concerns. Their speed has been restricted because of instability, and they cannot fire while moving. Meanwhile, in early November Mr Luke Pollard, the Minister, visited General Dynamics in Wales to mark the initial operating capability of Ajax. The November edition of Desider, an internal MoD publication, lavished praise on Ajax as a “world-class armoured fighting vehicle” and a “transformational capability”.

Given what we now know, I ask the Minister how on earth the MoD could accept initial operating capability. Who signed that off? If this nightmare cannot be fixed, as looks increasingly likely, can the contract be terminated?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about our British serviceman who was so tragically lost. The whole House will join in her remarks.

With respect to the position regarding Ajax, the previous Minister will be well aware of the various reports and representations that have been made to various Ministers over a number of years. All Ministers, past and present, will want answers to the very questions that the noble Baroness has quite rightly put to us. Like all of us, she will be waiting for the results of the various investigations that have been set up. I assure her that—as she will have heard from my colleague in the other place—when we get the results of those investigations, we will consider all available options on how we move forward.

Armed Services: Sexual Violence

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in response to my amendment to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which would have enabled an independent direct route to the commissioner for whistleblowing complainers, the Government announced that they would undertake a whistleblowing in defence review. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of that review?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank again the noble Baroness for the whistleblower review amendment that she brought to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in liaison with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. That is being taken forward. The whistleblowing review is under way. We expect an interim report to be available in the very near future, with a full report available sometime in the spring next year. I assure the noble Baroness that it has not been forgotten; it has not been put on the shelf; it is something that we are actively pursuing.

Royal Navy Submarine Force

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to the second part of the question, so I shall have to write to the noble Earl about it. To answer the first part of his question, I know that the Ministry of Defence is looking carefully at the concept of floating dry docks. It is a much quicker way of ensuring that we have the capability that would otherwise be provided by the more traditional dry dock. It is certainly an important question that we need to look at it urgently.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Senior representatives from BAE Systems and Babcock recently warned the Defence Select Committee in the other place of the risk to the AUKUS programme of delays in decision-making and alignment. What steps have the Government taken in the light of that evidence to avert these risks?

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I totally agree with the comments that my noble friend has made. I read the strategic defence review again over the weekend in preparing for the Question, so I know that it is chapter 6. The important part was the challenge that it makes—not only to the public but to us as politicians and to Parliament—to reflect on how we engage. Too often, when we talk about national conversations, we talk about having a village hall meeting here or a village hall meeting there. That is not sufficient. This requires a whole-government approach, involving all government departments, the devolved Governments, local authorities, civil society, financial society and industry. All those together need to wake up to the very real threat. As my noble friend says, we are facing a threat now, not in a year’s time or five years’ time. That threat is upon us, and we need to wake up to it.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I echo what the Minister has been saying: the threat that we are facing is immediate. Other countries, recognising that urgency, have taken steps to engage their public through a range of measures, from conscription at one end to seeking volunteers aged 18 and over for military training—as in France and Germany—at the other end. I think what this Chamber wants to know is what imminent steps will the Government take to educate the British public now about the gravity of the situation and to put the UK on to a comparable readiness footing to these other countries.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In saying that we need to do more and to act more urgently, there are already steps that have started to be taken across government. We are already looking at how we extend and develop the reserve and cadet forces, which are important. We are already looking at how we celebrate the involvement of young people at remembrance events, as I just said. We are also having seminars and conferences with industry and with finance—I am going to an event on Thursday night with veterans and the City of London. All sorts of different events are taking place that seek to address the very real and important issues that the noble Baroness has raised. The real challenge for the Government is how we do that more quickly and more urgently, but it is certainly one that they have addressed and have taken on board. It is a whole-government response; it is not just the government response now—although the Government have to lead it, of course—but how we all come together to address that very real challenge that we face.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 88 in this group is very much in a similar vein to my earlier amendments, although I see I do not have the presence of my newly acquired fan—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—to encourage me. I seek reassurance that the

“unrestricted access, basing and overflight”

provisions in Annex 1(1)(a) of the agreement includes the right of the UK to allow nuclear-propelled vessels and nuclear-armed vessels and aircraft to enter the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia.

Although not in the amendment, the annexe of the treaty referred to also specifically covers the United States of America, and, for the avoidance of doubt, I include it in the confirmation I seek from the Secretary of State in this amendment. Again, I am asking that this be confirmed by the Secretary of State before the Bill can come into force. In this respect, I am perhaps baring my teeth more than my noble friend Lord Lilley, which is a rather unusual situation.

As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, Mauritius is a party to the Pelindaba treaty, which establishes the African continent as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This prohibits the research, development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, testing, possession, control or stationing of nuclear weapons in any signatory state. Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty states that both Mauritius and the United Kingdom confirm that no

“existing international obligations or arrangements … conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.

Annex 1 of the treaty states that the United Kingdom retains

“unrestricted ability to … control the … deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”.

Nuclear weapons are lethal capabilities. So Britain and the United States must, as per the terms of the treaty, have an unrestricted ability, surely, to house nuclear weapons or to dock nuclear submarines at the base on Diego Garcia should we choose to do so. Yet that would appear to require an express provision in this treaty, and I cannot find it.

Article 7(3) appears to seek to allay those concerns, but I would welcome an absolute clarification from the Minister. Will Mauritius’s membership of the Pelindaba treaty prevent us basing Vanguard-class submarines or, in the future, nuclear-armed aircraft, or the United States stationing any nuclear weapons at the base on Diego Garcia? That is a question that I require answered. This cannot be left in doubt—hence my requirement that the Secretary of State publish a statement to confirm the matters I have raised before this Bill comes into force, so that everyone is clear about what the UK and the US can or, perhaps more alarmingly, cannot do. As my noble friend Lord Lilley commented, although they are not directly covered by the Pelindaba treaty, my amendment also makes reference to nuclear-propelled vessels and, for the avoidance of doubt, I seek reassurance that Mauritius would not take exception to that. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their amendments. I appreciate that they have questions about how the treaty protects the full operation of the base, and I want to reassure them that the treaty enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability. The treaty and the Bill we are debating today will have zero impact on the day-to-day business on Diego Garcia. Importantly, it will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia. I am putting some of this on the record, and the noble Baroness, as a former Defence Minister, will know the careful calibration of the language that I am using: I am putting it on the record so that we are all clear.

As I say, noble Lords will understand that I pick my words with care in this particular context. I cannot and will not discuss operational matters on the Floor of this place, but I am confident that the Chamber would not necessarily want me to. The long-standing UK position of neither confirming nor denying the location or presence of nuclear weapons must stand. But let us talk about the hypothetical. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the application of the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness said, to the treaty. The UK is not a signatory to the treaty but is a signatory to Protocols 1 and 2. I can confirm to the Chamber that the Governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with these existing obligations.

I also remind colleagues, because this is important—again, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, if I remember rightly from his remarks, and, indeed, the noble Baroness raised this—that we are not alone in the matter. The Government of the United States have also tested all aspects of the Diego Garcia treaty in depth and at the highest levels of the security establishment. They, too, are satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. Indeed, when I was talking about the earlier amendments in answer to that, I quoted the remarks of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his comments about being satisfied with the treaty in every aspect.

Amendments 63 and 88 therefore are not necessary. We do not need a review of the impacts of nuclear treaties on the future operation of the base, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has proposed, because the future operation of the base has been protected. I say to the noble Baroness that we do not need to reopen paragraph 1.a of Annex 1 to the treaty, as has been suggested, because this already provides for unrestricted —that is the key word—access for UK and US vessels to enter the sea of Diego Garcia. Paragraph 1.b.i provides for unrestricted ability to control the conduct and deployment of lethal capabilities.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do of course understand the sensitivity of not discussing operational activity in a public domain. However, if I revert to the Minister’s understandable reliance on what I described at Second Reading as that “huge protection” in Article 1, that is explicitly in contradiction with Article 7(1). Article 7(1) says expressly with reference to international obligations or arrangements that, if they are not to be obtempered or agreed to, that must be provided for in this agreement. That is the dilemma that is perplexing my noble friend Lord Lilley and myself. We seem to have on the face of this treaty a self-evident contradiction.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. What I am saying to her is that the Government of Mauritius, the Government of the UK and the Government of the US see no contradiction in what the treaty says, and explicitly lays out, in respect of the ability of Diego Garcia to operate in the way that it has always done, with the lethal capabilities as outlined elsewhere in the Bill.

I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness as reassurance that the situation will stay the same as it is now. As I have said, all those three parties to that treaty are confident that that remains the case.

I will say, however, that, although resisting the amendments, I am grateful that they were tabled. They are really important amendments to have made in order for the Government to have put on the record important elements of the treaty and the Bill. We have been able to clarify for the Chamber, and for those who read our proceedings, that the position that we would all want to see will continue with respect to Diego Garcia and that the full capabilities will be maintained.

Let me be absolutely clear: the full operational use of the base is protected to ensure that the base is able to continue in every way that it always has done. I hope that is helpful. On the basis of the reassurances that I have made and the comments that I have put on the record, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Russian Ship “Yantar”

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the “Yantar” spy ship has form when it comes to pushing boundaries, but directing laser beams at a UK Poseidon surveillance plane is an unwelcome development. It is provocative and irresponsible. In the air domain during the Cold War, there was a regular pattern of incursion into United Kingdom airspace by Russian planes, and the stratagem of reaction and close-flying escort by UK planes was developed, which was effective. How do we replicate that in the marine domain? For example, can a frigate close-shadow the “Yantar” so that the Russian crew feels under constant observation and any attempt to interfere with subsea infrastructure is immediately visible—and, importantly, whatever protective action is then necessary can be taken?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for such an important question. The Royal Navy constantly monitors activity in and around UK waters. This includes the “Yantar”, which is continuously and closely monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS “Somerset” and the RAF’s P-8s. As the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, Russia has been developing military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. For that reason, we have directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture so we can more closely track and robustly respond to the threats from that vessel and many others. Such actions have previously included surfacing a Royal Navy submarine, strictly as a deterrent measure, close to the “Yantar”, to make it clear that we have been covertly monitoring its every move. We will not shy away from the robust action needed to protect the UK.

President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We encourage all states to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has been a huge vehicle by which we have worked together to keep the world safe. This Government accept, as previous Governments have done and as do many Governments across the world, that the nuclear deterrent is part of the security architecture of the world. Part of having a nuclear deterrent is to deter from war, deter from aggression. The restatement of the deterrent policy is consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, under which the noble Lord will know that the UK is allowed to have weapons.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, following on from what the Minister has just very helpfully said, in relation to our own United Kingdom nuclear defence capability, we have seen just this week that between 400 and 500 jobs will be put at risk at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Government claim that the workforce needs to be reshaped so that it is fit for the future. However, in a time of growing international insecurity, can the Minister confirm that there will be no reduction in staffing for our nuclear weapons capability?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

What I can confirm is that there will be no reduction in our capability of ensuring that the nuclear deterrent is effective and that it remains so seven days a week, 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. That is the commitment that the Government make. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the AWE. That is about looking at reshaping how that important body works. The Government have committed £31 billion to the Dreadnought programme, with a £10 billion contingency. We have committed £15 billion in this Parliament to the development of a new warhead. That is a Government who are committed, as the last Government were, to spending billions of pounds on maintaining the credibility of our nuclear deterrent, which, as I said in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is essential to the global security of the world.

Ministry of Defence Procurement: UK-manufactured Products

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are doing everything we can to support UK manufacturing. Let me set out one of the reasons why we are doing that. As I have said many times, Ukraine has been a wake-up call for us. The manufacturing industry in this country has been allowed to decline over decades, in a way that puts our homeland defence at risk. It is in our own national interest to grow our defence industries, which is why it will be at the heart of what we do. It is not only about what we do here. The noble Baroness will have seen that the carrier strike group was out in the Indo-Pacific and is now back in the Mediterranean. There have been numerous round tables, conferences and industry events on the carrier, and on the ships with it, to promote growth. One of the ways to do that is by expanding our growth to the rest of the world.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I revert to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. When it comes to MoD procurement within the United Kingdom, there are two certainties: there is a £2.6 billion black hole in the defence budget and domestic procurement has virtually dried up. In addition to that, the defence investment plan appears to have evaporated. Can the Minister tell this House what is happening to put this country on to the Government’s much-vaunted phrase, “war readiness”?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the specific question of the defence investment plan, that will be published this year, so the noble Baroness and the House will not have to wait too long. It will lay out the investment decisions we are going to make. On the basis of a growing defence budget, that defence investment plan will lay out the sorts of capabilities we need and the decisions that will need to be made to ensure that we have war readiness. We need to learn from what has happened in Ukraine and look at the wars of the future. The defence investment plan will look to fight that war to ensure that we are war ready.

Undersea Cables: National Security Threat

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There are certainly plans to do exactly as my noble friend asks. There certainly needs to be work on those plans, and they need some more detail to them, but there certainly are plans to do that. I have said a number of times from this Dispatch Box that the threats we face from others are now different in many respects from the threats we faced in the past. The disruption to data, the disruption to energy supplies and the disruption to communication are all part of the threat that we now face. Clearly, we are going to have to do more as a homeland to stand up against that. Part of it will require a conversation with industry, the public and the defence sector in order to protect ourselves.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, following the line just observed by the Minister, in recent months the principal threat to United Kingdom infrastructure has been from cyberattacks, notably against Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer, Co-operative Group and Heathrow Airport. Can the Minister confirm that the National Cyber Security Centre, currently located within GCHQ, is adequately resourced to deal with what it recognises is an escalating challenge? How does the National Cyber Security Centre liaise with the CyberEM Command, now sitting within the Strategic Command in the MoD?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is a co-ordinating committee, whose name escapes me, that brings together all those various parts of government to which the noble Baroness has just referred to ensure that we have that co-ordinated defence and co-ordinated work that, as she rightly points out, we need. I would say, without going too far, that we see it as a major priority for the Government, which is why we have established that new command to defend ourselves against cyberattack, but we also need to work closely with private industry and private business to achieve that. Suffice it to say that it is a really important point and something we are working on very hard to ensure that we protect our country.

UK Defence and Aerospace Facilities: Protests

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. Let us use this opportunity to state that it is totally unacceptable for people to act as they have. There is legitimate protest, which this country is proud to facilitate, but we will not allow our bases to be broken into, people to be intimidated and protests to stray into the realms of illegality and violence. None of us in this Chamber would accept that. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action and why we see people before the courts. We work strongly with the Home Office, the police and others to ensure that those who think that they can do that will face the full force of the law.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the activity to which the noble Lord, Lord Austin, rightly refers is de facto sabotage of our critical defence capability. In Napoleonic times, setting fire to a naval dockyard was construed as such and punishable by death, which was abolished only by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Does the Minister agree that any sabotage activity of the type described is profoundly serious, and is he satisfied that the criminal law is adequate to deal with the appropriate charge and penalty in such grave circumstances?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know that the British media are always concerned with accuracy, so let me start my remarks by saying that, whatever I say now, we have no intention of restoring the death penalty—let us get that out of the way first; whatever review may or may not take place, that is not on the table. The noble Baroness who speaks for the Opposition makes an important point. This is a very serious matter. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action. That is why we will take the action necessary to protect our defence industry and to stop intimidation and do all we can to support our world-leading industry. We will always continue to discuss with our Home Office colleagues and with others across government whether more needs to be done. Let us be clear: there is legitimate protest, which is perfectly acceptable, but some of the things that have gone on are totally unacceptable.

Republic of Ireland: Defence Co-operation

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I start by saying as a Defence Minister how proud we all have been of the contribution of the British Armed Forces to what took place in Northern Ireland. That is the starting point for any discussion. The noble Baroness will have seen the comments by the Northern Ireland Secretary at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this morning, where he talked about being close to an agreement with the Irish Government on dealing with the legacy of the past. As far as the broader points on defence co-operation that the noble Baroness makes, she will be pleased to know that we are seeking to establish a new memorandum of understanding between the UK and the Irish Government by next year.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, to echo the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, it is the case that our defence capability exists primarily for the protection of this country and to enable our contribution to global security, particularly through NATO. Indirectly, the Republic of Ireland has benefited greatly from that strategic stance over many years. If, as the Minister has indicated, there is now an intention to enter into discussions with the Republic of Ireland, perhaps to refresh and renew the memorandum of understanding, does he agree that that would require to be underpinned by an appropriate financial arrangement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her impeccable judgment on timing, which worked very neatly. As she said, it seems that, every year, this comes round sooner than the year before; it is a bit like how policemen are getting younger. Anyway, here we are to approve the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for another year.

Apart from the necessary attention to legal process, this is a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to and thank our Armed Forces personnel for the incredible work that they do on our behalf. Some of those to whom we perhaps do not pay sufficient tribute are the ranks of talented civil servants over there—they were of enormous support to me when I was a Minister—so we should extend our thanks for the support that the MoD gives to both the political process and our Armed Forces personnel. I thank the Minister for opening the debate on the order and echo his praise for our men and women in uniform.

This debate provides an important opportunity to reflect on the previous year in defence. Over the past year, we have seen the international security environment deteriorate further. Russia is continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Iran has become emboldened to lash out. Iranian-backed Houthis from Yemen sank two ships in the Red Sea just this month, and the conflict in Israel and Gaza is showing few signs of abating.

Currently, the carrier strike group, led by the fleet flagship HMS “Prince of Wales”, is in the South China Sea, reinforcing our global reach and maintaining freedom of navigation. As a country, we can take pride in the professionalism of our Royal Navy sailors doing so much to stand up for our country globally.

We have seen ever more harrowing attacks on Ukraine by Russia. Increased use of drones has meant that, as of 31 May 2025, 13,341 Ukrainians have been killed and 32,744 have been injured in Putin’s illegal war. The Government are to be commended for their continued, resolute commitment to aid Ukraine in repelling Russian aggression. With the recent announcements of the coalition of the willing, which has the best wishes of these Benches, we hope that further progress can be made on ending the war.

As my noble friend Lord Minto and I have said, we welcome the broad direction of the strategic defence review. I know that we will have a fuller debate on that matter on Friday, so I shall not delay the Grand Committee by dwelling on it. Suffice to say that, while I genuinely welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that much more must be done to bolster our defence capabilities, I shall have a number of questions arising out of the SDR, but the Minister will have to contain his excitement as to what those questions are until Friday.

I was very struck by what my noble friend Lord Lancaster said about the reserves, given his profound knowledge of them and his own military experience. He raised a number of interesting points, which I confess had not previously occurred to me, but I think are substantive. As we live in a new threat environment, with increasing need for resilience and swiftness of response, they are very well-made points, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on them.

What I would like to stress at the moment applies to the Northern Ireland veterans. The Minister was helpful last week when he said that there would be a Statement soon on this matter, which is a welcome development; we might finally know what the Government are planning with regard to the legacy Act. I might point out that I did not get an answer to the question that I asked last Monday: does the Minister think that recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces will be aided by constantly relitigating cases where veterans were simply doing their jobs? The recent case of Soldier C—who has already faced multiple investigations and been cleared each time but has now been told as a very elderly man that he may face another investigation and possible prosecution—is more than egregious. I do not expect the Minister to comment on media commentary that the Minister for Veterans and People, the honourable Mr Al Carns, is allegedly deeply unhappy about possible changes to the legacy Act, but it underlines the need for urgent clarity by the Government as to their position.

On the issue of retention and recruitment, we all know how much service accommodation requires improvement. My right honourable friend in the other place, James Cartlidge, when a Minister in the MoD, began the process of buying back the estate from Addington Homes, to which the Minister referred. This was the first step in resuming control by the MoD over living conditions. But that work is not yet complete, and the next step requires further structural innovation and change and further investment. That is why my right honourable friend has launched his policy of instituting an Armed Forces housing association, where our service personnel would be part of the association governance, to better meet the needs and listen to the voices of our service men and women. I hope that the Government consider that a constructive proposal.

Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not continue to push the Minister on the money. We know that the Government have decided to shift spending on intelligence to the definition of defence spending but, so far, it is not quite clear exactly how much of that intelligence spending will be redefined as defence expenditure. Could the Minister enlighten the Grand Committee on that point? Does the Minister have full confidence that the Government will be able to reach the new NATO defence spending targets?

I look forward to the Minister’s response but, of course, confirm that these Benches support the statutory instrument to keep the Armed Forces Act current in law.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie. They expressed their support—I know it is true for every single Member of the Committee and across the whole Chamber—for our Armed Forces and the recognition of their work, both seen and unseen. It is quite right for all of us to remember that. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in recognition of the work that he does, we know that many Members are either still active or have been active as former military, and we continue to pay tribute to them. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he does, and I want to make sure that when we thank the Armed Forces we also include the reserves. I know that we would all wish that he conveys that message to them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, paid tribute to the civil servants as well. I like to think that, by and large, we are served well by the Civil Service in this country. They get some stick sometimes but in my experience, they are they are pretty good. I have one word, that I will not use—sometimes, I think that perhaps they could do a little better at understanding, but I shall leave that to my private secretary who is here and knows exactly what word I mean. But overall, they are a tremendous and great credit to our country. They deserve more support and recognition than they often get. I thank the noble Baroness to pointing that out; it was well made.

I shall go through a few of the points in no particular order. The noble Baroness talks about spending. She will know that the way in which this is now going to be included goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about homeland resilience and Article 3. That is what has taken us down—the fact that for too long we have talked about Article 5 but not Article 3 in terms of civil defence, homeland resilience and homeland defence. That is why 1.5% is being talked about. What is included in the 1.5% will obviously be a matter for discussion and debate, but it will not include some of the silly suggestions that we have heard. There will be a debate about what it should include, because it will be part of building up to a significant homeland defence, civil resilience and all those sorts of things. So you will get whatever is spent on defence, plus that 1.5%. The noble Baroness, as well as other members of the Committee, will have seen the Government laying out that target of 2.6% by 2027. You can add 1.5% on it then, if you want, depending on how you get to 4.1%, the 3% in terms of defence spending in the next Parliament, and 3.5% by 2035.

In same way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said that I will have to wait for her questions on Friday and contain my excitement, she will have to contain her own excitement about when the Government lay out exactly how we will reach those figures. But that is the aim and policy of the Government—to reach that target in terms of defence spending. I know that this sentiment is shared across the House in the last Government, this Government, and all of us: I thank her for the general support for Ukraine and what we are doing with respect to that country. It is an important statement of this country regarding standing up for our principles and providing leadership not only in Europe but beyond. I thank her for that and for her reminder. It is an important statement. Our debates and discussions are read by others, so it is important that we continually reiterate those points.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her comments about the carrier strike group, which is currently just off the coast in Australia for Operation Talisman Sabre. She will know, because I have mentioned it in the Chamber, that I was with the carrier in Singapore recently and with the other support ships, including the Spanish frigate. The air power that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned and will be pleased about is all over the carrier, with the F-35Bs on the deck projecting that hard power. There is also the soft power, the defence diplomacy and receptions that have taken place. It is easy to mock that, but the diplomats, friends and the military from other countries came on board the carrier as well as the other ship.

I will digress slightly if the Committee allows me. I visited HMS “Richmond” and the Spanish frigate in Jakarta, which as everyone will know is in Indonesia, to show the fact that the Indonesian Government were welcoming British warships into Jakarta, which I think is very significant, as well as allowing exercises to take place, which some of their senior military would go on, off the coast of Indonesia. It shows the importance of that carrier strike group and the importance of the fact that our military, with our friends, allies and partners from the region, are out there in that part of the world, emphasising the importance of what we do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising that and giving me the opportunity to talk about that and about Ukraine.

Armed Forces: Recruitment and Retention

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, given the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Verma, does he think that creating uncertainty by reopening the possibility of vexatious prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans who were simply doing their job will assist the goal of improving recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. If she waits a couple of weeks, my understanding is that a statement will be made by both the MoD and the Northern Ireland Office about how we might take this forward.

UK–EU Defence and Security Co-operation

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We need to look at the new frameworks, which will deliver many of the things that are in the defence and security partnership. The noble and gallant Lord asked specifically about Bosnia. The EU mission there is Operation Althea, as he knows, and the Government are currently considering what to do with respect to that. Let me make it clear to all Members of this House that this Government, like the previous Government, support the integrity of Bosnia and support the Dayton accords. All of us over the decades have tried to support that agreement. It is under threat at the moment, as he knows, from Dodik in the Serbian part of Bosnia. We need to do all that we can to support the Bosnian Government to continue under the Dayton accords framework.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, there continues to uncertainty, and indeed anxiety, about whether UK defence firms will be able to access the EU Security Action for Europe fund. Is the Minister able to give this House any update, or has he any estimate to make, of the progress of discussions and when we might get a decision?

UK Weapons Systems

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We need to unpick that. It is a very good question the noble Lord asks, but no Government will comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. The strategic nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent. It cannot be used without the agreement of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. As for the F35A, which I presume he referenced with respect to the Government’s announcement, that forms part of the nuclear mission of NATO. For that capability to be used for a nuclear mission, it will require the agreement through the nuclear planning group of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. So both the strategic deterrent and the fighter deterrent of the 12 F35As will require the authorisation of the United Kingdom Prime Minister.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Given the answer that the Minister has just given, can he clarify that, while it may very well be the case that at NATO level the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be required to give consent, is it conceivable that the United States in that scenario might refuse consent?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let us deal with this, and I apologise to the House if this takes some time. The strategic deterrent, CASD, remains, as we have always had it, operationally independent and a UK weapon. As for the 12 F35As that the Government have announced, that forms part of NATO’s nuclear mission. The F35As are UK jets and they are dual-capable aircraft, so they can be used normally or, in a particular crisis or a particular sense in which we felt and NATO felt that they should be used, they would become part of the nuclear mission. At that time, they would be armed with American nuclear missiles.

Of course, that means that the authorisation of the use of those missiles remains US-controlled, because, in the same way that we control our UK nuclear weapons, US nuclear weapons remain subject to US approval. The point I was making to the noble Lord is important. Of course, the authorisation for the use of those weapons within the context of a NATO mission has to be agreed by the NATO planning group and the UK is part of that. In that sense, the Prime Minister would have to authorise those UK planes being used to deliver that nuclear capability. I hope that is clear to the House and to the noble Baroness, because it is an important point for us to make with respect to the nuclear shield and the nuclear capability that this country has, and how it will work in practice.

F35A and F35B Jets

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the procurement schedule for the F35As, but delivery of the F35Bs has not been free of problems. Does he have confidence in the delivery schedule for the F35As being achieved?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do. To reiterate and clarify, the procurement phase for the 48 F35Bs should, and will, end by March 2026. For the second procurement phase for the additional 12 F35As and the 15 F35Bs, which will give us 75 in total, our expectation is that they will be procured by 2033. It is important we meet the schedule and I have every confidence that we will be able to do so.

Defence Industrial Base

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord asks a good question. We have reinvigorated and put more money into the defence innovation fund. With respect to defence, you cannot move forward without innovation, challenge, new technology and new ideas. One of the lessons from Ukraine is that sometimes, for not an awful lot of money, innovators—those who think for themselves—provide the defence equipment and security that we need. Of course, we must be sensible and not throw money away and waste it, but innovation is an important part of any defence industrial strategy, which is why it was mentioned in the defence review and why the Government are putting more money into it.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the strategic defence review is an admirable blueprint for what our defence capability should be. But, as it stands, it is devoid of any specific information about implementation. The Government have accepted the 62 recommendations from the reviewers, but they have given no detail about how or when they will deliver them. We know the review was predicated upon a defence budget of 3% of GDP. I ask the Minister: when is that 3% is happening and is it sufficient to implement the recommendations fully?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

3rd reading
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his very kind remarks, and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank him for the constructive manner in which he has approached the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition have welcomed the Bill from the beginning, and it has been a privilege to participate in its passage through this House.

Not only will the creation of the commissioner strengthen the service complaints system by facilitating the investigation of wider welfare issues but I hope it will bolster the confidence of our Armed Forces personnel that this is a real voice of independence for them. Any steps we can take to improve the offering to our service men and women we should vigorously pursue.

In that regard, I endeavoured to bolster the Bill by introducing a new duty on the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints. I thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment on Report. I particularly appreciated the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, my noble friend Lord Wrottesley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and thank them for their words of support and encouragement and for delivering that support in a meaningful form in the Division Lobby. The resounding message your Lordships’ House sent to our Armed Forces personnel, especially service women who feel that their voices have not been heard, is that we are on your side. As this Bill now goes back to the other place, I entreat the Government to reflect carefully on how they address my amendment. This is not a time for ambivalence and uncertainty; it is a time for an unambiguous and positive message to our Armed Forces, and I hope the Government will accept, as this House overwhelmingly did, that the amendment enhances the Bill.

Finally, I thank Minister and all his officials for taking time to meet me and my noble friend Lord Minto. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been exemplary throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that whoever the Government appoint as the new commissioner will live up to the task that has been set. It is a high bar, and much work has still to be done, but I look forward to continuing to scrutinise the Government’s efforts to improve the welfare and the lives of our Armed Forces personnel and I wish the Government well in the creation of this new office.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their short contributions. I have made one catastrophic error: I forgot to thank the Whips’ Office. I hastily put that on the record.

On a more serious note, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith in her tribute to Lord Etherton. I am sure that there will be another time for us all to reflect more broadly, but she is perfectly right to point out the sad loss of Lord Etherton to this House and the contribution that he made to LGBT as well as more generally on a whole range of things.

I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, once again, on the forthcoming wedding that is happening—not his, I hasten to add. I look forward to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is right to point out that the whole point of the commissioner, and the success of the role, will be on how much we can generate trust and confidence in people to come forward should they be subject to inappropriate behaviour. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will, of course, consider carefully how we respond to the amendment that was passed in your Lordships’ House. With those few brief comments, I thank everyone again.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a most useful debate, and I hope it has been helpful. I thank all who contributed, whatever their point of view, not least those who felt able to support my amendments. I thank the Minister for his continued engagement, and I know his sincere desire to explore the possibility of a point of mutual agreement.

It was clear that some contributors considered my amendments to have merit, and that there were questions from other contributors. I will deal with the questioners first. I express my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, for their kind remarks. I very much appreciated the vein in which they made their observations and asked their questions.

In essence, a theme ran through the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, not to mention the Minister. The theme I picked up on was: the powers are already there. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said that this is not a game-changer. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, asked whether I could help the House to understand better what the amendments achieve on top of the existing routes. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that the commissioner has the powers, so nothing additional has been created by the amendments—that was very much the tone of the Minister’s response.

My response to that is twofold. It really depends on the lens through which we look at all this. We can look at it through the lens of parliamentarians and technical legal draftspersons and we can say, “No, you don’t need these amendments because everything that we need is already in there”. I would tend to advocate looking at this through the lens of service personnel—not least servicewomen—which is why I am emphatic that it is not a question of not being able to have any more routes because we already have some. It is a question of reassurance to our Armed Forces, particularly our servicewomen, that we are providing routes the best way we can, because we want to give notice that we care about them and do the best we can for them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that what really matters is that there is confidence about the investigation part—I will come to her useful distinction between a complaint and whistleblowing in a moment. But, looking at it through the lens of what service personnel may feel, I go back to the original argument I adduced in my opening speech: we have to give something simple that is easy to understand. There may be a number of routes that people can currently follow, but, if you say that one route is that the commissioner can investigate whistleblowing complaints, that certainly sends out a signal to an awful lot of people in our Armed Forces. They get that and they understand it. They want a simple point of access; they know they can do that in confidence, the process is trustworthy and the investigation will be robust.

The Minister said that more needs to be done, which is why we have the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—I entirely agree with that. My response would be: I want more to be done too. I want to improve the Bill in law—not by way of policy but in law, hence my amendments. The Minister kindly indicated that the Government will, at Third Reading, introduce their own amendment to deal with the question of anonymity. I welcome that and, depending on the text of it, I am sure that this side of the House will be able to support it. But is that a sufficient substitute for what I want to achieve? No, I regret that it is not.

I will deal with the other contributions, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She is an acknowledged expert: her reputation goes before her, and I think we all know that she is a woman you would not readily tangle with. I will not tangle with her; I will listen to her. I am grateful for her support. I noted her distinction: a complaint seeks redress, whereas whistle- blowing is not necessarily looking for personal redress but is rather looking for investigation and action—whistleblowing is an empowering function. Her contribution was powerful, particularly when she explained how she perceived these amendments as improving morale for our service personnel in a simple manner.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made a very helpful contribution, when he referred to a safety valve. From his experiences as a chaplain, he referred to the fear that people have of reporting, which he feels is assuaged by a whistleblowing function, which is something that I have always intrinsically felt. He also pointed out that the comparable model of the German armed forces commissioner has that function.

The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said very simply that there needs to be a way of challenging when something has gone wrong in the system, which is exactly what I am trying to achieve with these amendments.

My noble friend Lord Wrottesley, whose support I welcome, talked about strengthening protections, and I think that that is at the heart of all this. We have a variety of routes. I said earlier that, if we felt that there was only one way in which to do something, we would not be having an Armed Forces commissioner. We would be saying that our vastly improved service complaints system was brilliant, so let us leave it at that—we can tweak it and do bits and pieces as and when we require. I think that we all accept that that is absolutely not an argument for not having an Armed Forces commissioner. However, if you accept that, I think that you should also accept that there is more than one way in which to provide conduits and access for our service personnel.

I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her contribution and the support of her Benches in associating herself with the powerful comments from her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

I have done my best to address the main points that arose in the debate. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and his personal endeavours to keep—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want to mislead anyone. On the Third Reading point and the Government bringing an amendment back, obviously the noble Baroness is going to divide the House—and then it will have to be brought back another way. I could not bring those amendments back at Third Reading, if we were defeated. It would need to be changed elsewhere. I just wanted to make that clear so that I did not mislead anyone.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I understand the technical point that the Minister is making, and I appreciate his desire to clarify that to the House. I understand the position, but it does not detract from my desire to try to do something substantive here. I thank him for his courtesy and his personal endeavours, as he has kept me fully informed of the Government’s thinking, which I appreciate.

I am not going to prolong the discussion, as I think that we have now reached a crystallisation point, which is that the Government believe in their way and I believe in my way and, encouraged by the support that I have received, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for reading out the letter that I sent. I have placed a copy in the Library, and I will just check that this has happened, to make sure that is available to everyone. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his remarks. The letter covers the points that he has raised as well.

It would be helpful for further clarification just to read a couple of remarks into the record, which will help the deliberations of all of us on Report. I thank the noble Baroness and other noble Lords for the conversations we have had about the no-notice power of the commissioner and the authority of the commanding officer of a site. We will make sure that commanding officers and others are aware of what they are able to do under the letter and under the Bill.

As highlighted in the letter I sent on 15 April, to fulfil their investigatory function, the commissioner will have wide-ranging powers including access to certain defence sites. The commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of intent to visit those sites, unless—and for sites in the UK only—it is considered that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power. This matters, as it will help to ensure that malpractice cannot be covered up, for example—

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, on a purely technical matter, the Minister referred to a letter of 15 April; I think it is the letter of 23 April.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her brilliant observation. It says “15 April” on here, but I have just been reliably informed by pigeon post that it was 23 April—so thank you very much.

I cannot remember where I got to now—I will start again on that paragraph. As highlighted in the letter I sent on 23 April, to fulfil their investigatory function the commissioner will have wide-ranging powers, including access to certain defence sites. The commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of intent to visit those sites, unless—and for sites in the UK only—it is considered that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising that power. This matters, as it will help to ensure that malpractice cannot be covered up, for example by painting over mouldy accommodation or ensuring certain personnel are off the premises.

The Secretary of State’s power to restrict access is available in a particular case or more generally. We therefore anticipate that, in practice, the Secretary of State could provide the commissioner and heads of establishment with information in advance regarding specific sites, or even parts of sites, activities or broader criteria to which they will be preventing or restricting access. In addition to the military, the Secretary of State will consult with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to ensure all matters which infringe upon national security interests are assessed.

This mechanism will be broad enough to cover instances where, for example, a specific classified event is happening at a site that did not have any restricted areas. In these instances, should the commissioner wish to visit without notice, the head of establishment will still be able to prevent the commissioner from entering either all or part of the site. Although the Bill provides that this power resides with the Secretary of State, the application of broader criteria provided by the Secretary of State in relation to these matters will also function to allow heads of establishment to assess concerns relating to national security or personal safety and restrict access on those grounds.

In practice, heads of establishment and relevant security staff will therefore have the authority to conduct their own due diligence in line with these concerns, including delaying access while inquiries are made. Should disagreements arise, either party would be able to escalate this to the office of the Secretary of State.

With those comments, I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and on those grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister and am satisfied that there are not too many letters flying around—there is only one. I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, and I beg leave of the House to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, noting that this is a consequential amendment, I simply have one question relating to what the Minister has just said. He said that there was an issue about duplicate or repeat complaints. If there were duplicate complaints—an equivalent complaint from two different people—would that not be admissible, or have I misunderstood what he said?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s consequential Amendment 15. In Committee, the Government brought forward this amendment, claiming that it was minor and technical. At the time, I argued that it was neither minor nor technical. It sought to introduce a substantive change to the service complaints process, and I asked the Minister for clarification, which he and his officials have helpfully provided.

The effect of these changes would mean that the current process—whereby the decision as to whether a service complaint is admissible is made by an officer—could now be made by a civilian, and the Armed Forces commissioner would be able to refer a complaint to a relevant person, as opposed to a relevant officer. Permitting a civilian to undertake these roles, even if an officer could undertake them as well, means that the decisions will, to some extent, now be taken out of the chain of command. The Explanatory Notes explicitly mention that these roles would be undertaken by a civilian, and the Minister confirmed such in Committee. The Government intend for these two roles in the complaints process to be undertaken by civilians as well as by officers, if that is necessary.

In Committee, I expressed concern about this approach, but, after meetings with the Minister—for which I thank him—I am now reassured that the decisions regarding admissibility of service complaints and the referral of complaints is much more of an administrative task than I had understood, as enlarged upon by the Minister earlier in his remarks. I accept that that is not necessarily an efficient use of an officer’s time. Given this clarification, my concerns have been assuaged, my opposition has dissipated and I am content with the position.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Very briefly, given the time, I thank the noble Baroness for that. I am pleased that the conversations and discussions that we have had have clarified this.

I am not sure of the answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—I am not even totally sure I fully understood what she was asking about what I had said. If she will allow me, I will write to her, and put a copy of that letter in the Library, if that is convenient and satisfactory to her. With that, I commend my amendment to the House.

LGBT Veterans: Financial Recognition Scheme

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will take away that question about female veterans. However, let me read out—although I do not normally do this—one important thing that may help. My briefing tells me that the financial recognition scheme is a sophisticated scheme that ensures that all eligible applicants—including, obviously, females—will receive appropriate financial recognition despite potential limitations in documentation. The scheme operates under a reverse burden-of-proof basis, meaning that, unless the MoD has any contradicting evidence, the testimony of the veteran will be accepted. I think that is a crucial point to make to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a vital condition attaching to payments under this scheme that they are exempt from income tax and, for DWP purposes, are to be disregarded in the calculation of means-tested benefits. According to Fighting With Pride, some veterans who, happily, have started receiving the payments, have reported that their benefits have been stopped on receipt of the funds. Will the Minister undertake as a matter of urgency to engage with his ministerial colleagues in DWP to ensure that that improper action ceases immediately?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I certainly will take that up. As the noble Baroness has said, these payments are exempt from income tax and from benefits. I am disturbed to hear from her that that does not appear to have happened in certain cases. My officials will read this, but I shall certainly take that back to the MoD and follow it up. If I write to the noble Baroness with a reassurance about what has or has not happened and put a copy in the Library, I think that will be helpful.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will see those documents in due course. Of course shipbuilding is going to be a part of future defence growth strategies. These are really important points, and I say again—because we are going to have to reiterate this—that this Government, the next Government and the Government after that are going to have to rebuild the ability of this country to build ships in shipyards in different parts of the country. That cannot be changed overnight: those shipyards will have to be rebuilt, and the apprentices trained. That is fundamental, and fundamental too to our national security going forward is sovereign capability; that is everything.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in pursuit of the Minister’s laudable objectives, when will our successor shipbuilding tsar be appointed and what shipbuilding orders has the National Shipbuilding Office been involved in since July last year?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The shipbuilding tsar will be appointed as soon as possible—I cannot give the noble Baroness a date. The National Shipbuilding Office has been involved in a number of projects, not least, as I mentioned yesterday, the five Type 31s being built in Rosyth and the eight Type 26s being built on the Clyde. The National Shipbuilding Office has also been ensuring that the various departments across government recognise that they also have a responsibility to ensure that the ships they want are built as far as possible in British yards.

Defence Spending: Scotland

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right and makes a very good point. There are some 25,000 to 26,000 defence-related jobs across Scotland and that will increase, I would suggest, with the increased expenditure that we will see. There are RAF, Army and naval bases across Scotland as well, but the important point to make is that the defence of the UK requires the integrated union that we have. That is what people in Scotland and the rest of the country support. The defence of those values is important; it is as important to the people of Scotland, whatever their political persuasion, as it is to the rest of the UK. The noble Lord is right to remind us that the defence of the UK, whether it is Scotland or elsewhere, is of importance to us all.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am always happy to talk about the SNP. Because of the SNP, Scotland is now the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, with many recruiters having to offer compensatory packages to attract high-calibre personnel to Scotland. Have the Government consulted with our Scottish industry partners on what effect these higher levels of taxation are having on them?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will check to see whether we have specifically consulted about the levels of taxation, but we will consult with Scottish industry and the broader UK industry about how we ensure that we get the defence industry we need. One of the present challenges is that we need to rebuild our defence industry—to rebuild our steel industry, for example, to ensure that we have the domestic sovereign capability to do the things we will need to do in the event of conflict.

I would say to the noble Baroness, who knows Scotland far better than I do, that shipbuilding efforts on the Clyde as well as Rosyth are seeing huge numbers of ships, with eight Type 26 frigates and five Type 31 frigates being built there. Scotland and Scottish industry should be proud of the way they are contributing to the defence of our country. The Scottish defence industry, as well as the wider UK defence industry, plays a huge role in that.

Future Defence Capability

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an extremely important point about Iran and its proxies. We will continue to work with our international partners to hold Iran to account for its destabilising activity, the things that it has done in the Middle East and, indeed, the threats it poses on UK soil. To do that, the increased defence spending that we have announced today will help us to deal with this very real threat. Let Iran make no mistake: we will both deter and respond to any threat that it or its proxies pose to us. I thank my noble friend again for his question.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s focus on defence and the further clarification of intended funding, as evident from the Chancellor’s Statement this morning, are welcome. While further detail about the additional funding and the phasing of the route to 2.5% by 2027 is needed, it is equally important to understand what liabilities may fall on defence; otherwise, we cannot make sense of the overall picture. Can the Minister say whether the cost of the Chagos deal is going to paid for by defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Chagos deal is extremely important for our own security and that of the US. When the deal is finalised, it will be put before Parliament with the costings and then Parliament can debate it. The future of the base at Diego Garcia, which is crucial to us and our allies, is secured, and that is the important point of any deal that is finalised.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand that, and I will come to the “no notice” point in a moment. I was simply pointing out to the Committee that, as the Bill stands, new Section 340IB(3) states:

“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice”.


The expectation is that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer; however, sites can be excluded on national security grounds because a list will have been drawn up. But new Section 340IB(4) states:

“Subsection (3) does not apply, so far as relating to service premises in the United Kingdom”—


this goes to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made—

“if the Commissioner considers that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power”.

As I say, in all this there is a balance to be struck between notifying the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State notifying the commissioner; the ability, however, to have “no notice” visits; and alongside that protecting national security and indeed personal safety. The noble and gallant Lord made the important point that you might want to protect an entire base or facility, and perhaps everyone would be more open to understanding why that base is excluded. But he also pointed out that it may be a question of protecting just part of the base, and even a commanding officer might not know some of the things going on there. So he raises an issue which we will need to come back to between Committee and Report, because it is important and we need to consider it.

I hope that, in addressing the issues and pointing out the various pathways to a visit by the commissioner—or not—I have shown that we are trying to balance the various demands in order to make the commissioner’s visits effective, to maintain national security, and to give no notice where appropriate, while being fair to the bases being visited. I have tried to answer noble Lords’ specific questions, and I hope that those remarks are helpful.

I will just read the formal points into the record, because I think that is helpful. On Amendments 13, 14 and 15 and the commissioner’s power of access to service premises, I thank again the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful consideration of this issue, and indeed I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

As we have just seen, one of the challenges when drafting the Bill was ensuring that the correct balance was struck between the independence and power of the Armed Forces commissioner on one hand, and the power of the Secretary of State, notably to protect the interests of national security and the safety of individuals, on the other.

Although the commissioner has the power to enter service premises and prepare independent reports and recommendations, this is balanced with the Secretary of State’s ability to prevent the exercise of these powers in the interests of national security and personal safety, thus ensuring proper and responsible regard to delicate security issues surrounding defence premises. We believe that the Bill achieves this balance, and that to provide more prescriptive restrictions, such as the ones contained in the proposed amendments, may risk offsetting it.

We must also remember that much of the commissioner’s remit as set out in Clause 4 is solely focused on the general welfare of service persons and their families. The exercise of these powers can only be in pursuit of this issue. It is important that we keep that in mind when considering the role of the Secretary of State in restricting their powers.

In its current form, the Bill grants the commissioner discretion as to how much notice to give service premises ahead of the commissioner’s proposed visit. This could be within seven days, as the noble Baroness suggests, or indeed longer, and we anticipate that that will be the case for the vast majority of the time.

Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to notify the commanding officer of each service premises that the commissioner has given notice of a proposed visit could risk creating a substantial administrative burden on the Secretary of State. It could also prove to be complex, given the multitude of service premises and personnel involved. This additional requirement could frustrate and delay the commissioner, making it harder for them to fulfil one of the most crucial elements of their role: to meet with our Armed Forces and their families in a timely way and to understand the realities of service life. However, we would expect the Secretary of State’s office to inform the relevant commanding officer when they are informed of an impending visit, as I mentioned to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

Further, in its current form, the Bill deliberately provides that it is up to the judgment of the commissioner as to when giving notice would defeat the object of exercising their power of entry to service premises. Removing this and replacing it with two prescriptive circumstances when the commissioner would be able to conduct no-notice visits risks inadvertently precluding circumstances when no-notice visits would be appropriate. Furthermore, to place a legal obligation on the commissioner to inform the Secretary of State of all instances where and reasons for which they have exercised their discretion not to give notice of planned entry to a service premise would, again, add an administrative burden and could significantly infringe upon their independence.

However, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern that it would appear difficult for the Secretary of State to prevent the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of new Section 340IB, proposed by Clause 4(2) of the Bill, on national security grounds should the commissioner decide that a no-notice visit was appropriate. I assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with partners in defence and across government to understand areas where the Secretary of State—and, where appropriate, the Foreign or Home Secretary—may wish pre-emptively to exercise the restriction power. For example, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, access to certain parts of sites or the ability to take documents from certain terminals may be restricted. Given its sensitive nature, any such list will be a classified document; however, the sites in question and the commissioner would be aware of this in advance.

We will continue to engage with the relevant agencies during implementation. This will be accompanied by a communication and engagement campaign across defence to ensure that sites and personnel are aware of the commissioner and their remit. However, should the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, find it useful, I would welcome meetings with them to discuss this and other matters of national security in relation to the commissioner; that is an open invite to other noble Lords, should they also wish to attend.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time, a debate of brevity has actually been one of substance. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their contributions; I am also grateful to the Minister for his customary willingness to engage.

What has emerged is a concern—I detect that there is some sympathy with it—that the Bill has not quite got the balance right. However, I think that it is possible to find a workable solution. As I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it occurred to me that, if we are all trying to be too clever—I simply tried to follow and work with the grain of how the Bill’s draftsmen approached these provisions—he may have a more elegant solution. The simplest thing may be to ask whether the Secretary of State really must be brought into this, because what matters is that national security is not compromised.

I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation to meet before Report and would like to avail myself of that opportunity. I would be very surprised if we cannot find some pragmatic way to improve the Bill. It may be that, despite the noble and gallant Lord’s reservations about it, the list could well be a starting point in terms of reassurance that there are certain places that the commissioner will not be getting into.

If we go back to the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we dislocate at our peril the commanding officer of a base who has overall responsibility in law for the security and safety of that base, that might be a worthwhile starting point, from which you then turn the process around. If the commissioner says, “I’m coming”, the commander of the base says, “Not tomorrow, but you can come on Thursday”, and the commissioner says, “No, I want to come tomorrow”, at that point perhaps the Secretary of State can be brought in. But it seems to me that the critical practical issues are: what is going on in a location at a particular time, and could national security be compromised?

I am absolutely satisfied that there is an intelligent solution to be found. I would welcome the opportunity of a further discussion with the Minister, which I think colleagues who have contributed to the debate would find extremely helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what an important amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has brought forward. It has enabled the noble Baroness, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to make the comments they have.

Let us start with the whole point of the commissioner. Obviously, we intend that the commissioner will have the power to investigate all the various issues and matters that noble Lords have brought forward in this Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, “I am not going to give up”. I say to her that she should not give up; nobody should give up. She was forthright on this matter when she was a Minister, as was the noble Earl, Lord Minto—indeed, as is every noble Lord in this Committee. When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had the very senior responsibilities he had in the military, he, like all of us, was trying to tackle this behaviour whereby some are tarnishing the reputation of the whole of our Armed Forces, which utterly unacceptable.

I say to the noble Baroness that, as she will see as I make my remarks, some progress has been made as a result of the policies the previous Government pursued. As noble Lords know, I am a proud Labour politician, but I also admit where progress has previously been made. Is it good enough? Is it satisfactory? Of course not, as we have seen from Gunner Beck’s awful circumstances.

The demands made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, and the noble and gallant Lord—indeed, by every single person in this Committee and beyond—have started to change the culture, which is ultimately what this is about. Will these things stop? I wish I could wave a magic wand and stop every case of bullying, sexism and misogyny, but what I do know is that, if the role of the commissioner is passed as it is now, it will, along with the other reforms that have taken place, help us deliver what we want to do.

I absolutely take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about training new recruits and how we protect and develop them. I know there has been controversy about Harrogate, but it has taken really powerful action to try to deal with that. There have been other instances that we can all refer to. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: this is about trying to generate confidence in people so that they feel they can come forward.

There is also the countercultural point that people sometimes do not come forward not only because they are frightened but because that would somehow break the code—the unwritten rules. It is a nonsense. I used to teach, and you get this in schools, where people will not grass up others, even though they think what they did was wrong, because it somehow breaks a social norm. It is ridiculous and unacceptable, but each and every one of us knows that it is there. The real challenge for institutions, whether schools, offices or the Armed Forces, is how to generate that desire and will to come forward in what are sometimes difficult circumstances, because there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour.

Let me turn to the amendment on whistleblowing. I assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence already has a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required. What is required is asking, “How do you get people to use it? How do you get people to come forward? How do you get people to have that confidence?” The noble Baroness, the noble Lord and others who went before them introduced lots of different hotlines, confidential arrangements and changes, but the things that we do not want to happen are still happening. It is about driving things through to bring about that change.

As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, as a consequence of what has happened—noble Lords will know this if they have read the Defence Select Committee’s evidence from last week, and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, spoke about it in public, so it is out there—21 people have been discharged from Royal Navy service after a whistleblower flagged misconduct and inappropriate behaviour on board submarines. I repeat: the First Sea Lord said that, as a result of whistleblower policies currently in place, 21 people were dismissed from the Submarine Service.

Is that a solution? Is that the end of the problem? Does that mean that nothing terrible is happening or will happen? Of course not, but it shows that we must drive people to have the confidence to use the various procedures and systems that are in place. Otherwise, you can change anything, but, if people do not have the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about, they will not use it and will not come forward. So, as I say, this shows that demonstrable action is being, and will be, taken against those who have transgressed when people are willing to come forward.

The term “whistleblowing” can cover a range of issues much wider than general service welfare matters. The Government’s intention is to focus the commissioner’s remit on service welfare matters. However, I can further reassure your Lordships that nothing in the Bill precludes anyone from raising a general service welfare issue with the commissioner anonymously; nor does it prevent the commissioner acting on that information.

On maintaining anonymity, for all general service welfare matters raised with the commissioner, there is no obligation imposed by the Bill to disclose the identity of any individuals. Indeed, all defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under the Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy. I hope that what I have said about anonymity, whistleblowing and some of the things that are starting to change means that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment, but, again, I would be happy to discuss any of this with her—indeed, with any noble Lord—because it is so important.

It seems to me that the real challenge for us is around how we can give people, whether they are recruits or people who have been serving for a considerable period of time, the confidence and willingness to come forward and use the measures that are there. Knowing that they can do that both anonymously and in a way in which they will be treated with respect, seems to me the crucial part because, if that does not change, we can change the system but it will not actually deliver the result that we would all want. We are united in our desire to do something about that.

I look forward to the noble Baroness—along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—continuing to demand better of the system because that is what we all want to achieve and what we all want to happen. What is still happening is unacceptable; we want, and are determined, to do something about that. We think that the commissioner will help in this regard.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, again, this has been a short but very substantial debate. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their contributions—and, indeed, the Minister for his response. What is really encouraging is the unanimity of view that we can keep doing better. I am grateful to the Minister for his observations about the previous Government. From my engagement with him when he was the opposition spokesman on defence, I know how encouraging and supportive he was as we tried to bring forward much-needed change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I will try to be as brief as possible. I had thanked the Minister for his kind remarks about the previous Government. It is the case that incredible progress has been made.

As I listened to the contributions, I was struck by two things. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, gave a realistic assessment of what we are dealing with on the ground at the moment. I said in my introductory remarks that we have to change culture, attitudes and behaviour, and that we will need more training—all of that—but, as we speak, there is probably a terrified young woman somewhere on an Armed Forces base who has been treated inappropriately and does not know what to do. I do not think that we can provide too many ventilation shafts, conduits or means for that young person, whoever they may be, to know that they can speak to someone and that they will be listened to in confidence. If that person is the Armed Forces commissioner and one of his or her responsibilities in the Bill is whistleblowing, that is fine. It seems to me that we cannot do too much to reassure our Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I just want to reinforce the noble Baroness’s point about speaking in confidence. We need to get this point about anonymity across to people. Something that, I hope, comes across from the noble Baroness’s amendment, my response and the comments of others in the Committee is that people can do this in confidence or anonymously if they wish to come forward. That is a really important point.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. All I shall say in conclusion is that there is an opportunity here to provide another vent, shaft or conduit, which could provide immediate help to someone—we know not where—who, at this moment, is feeling insecure and uncertain as to what to do. If we pass a Bill creating an Armed Forces commissioner and enabling them to deal with whistleblowing, it is a public, tangible representation by the MoD of its willingness and desire to do its level best.

In the circumstances, I would very much appreciate discussing this further with the Minister, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. This amendment concerns an area of technical expertise that is way beyond my ken—although, when I was a Minister, Gibraltar was raised on numerous occasions in relation to legislation. I am not an expert, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to what seemed to be very significant comments from the noble Lord.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish for his outstanding realisation that he was moving the amendment and for swiftly jumping to his feet to put forward some very important points.

Given that this matter is legal and technical, I shall read out the legal points, because some very important points are contained within them. The relevant piece that we are looking at is the extent points in Clause 6; that is what we are referring to. Although it is very technical and legal, is quite an important part of the Bill.

Amendment 24 relates to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling it and my noble friend Lord Beamish for introducing it. It seeks to include Gibraltar alongside the other British Overseas Territories in the permissive extent clause of the Bill. While I understand that the noble Lord may be concerned about the exclusion of Gibraltar, I shall give him some reassurance.

My colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar towards the end of last year. He was very welcoming of the Bill and confirmed that he is content to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on Armed Forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters.

I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who has responsibility for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for his recent letter to the MoD on these matters, in which he praised the approach of the department and expressed a desire to promote this across government.

I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Beamish that although the Bill will not extend to Gibraltar, it will still apply to UK service persons subject to service law, and their families, wherever they are in the world. Members of a British Overseas Territories force, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, are subject to service law when undertaking any duty or training with UK Armed Forces. That also applies to other overseas territories, as my noble friend mentioned, provided they are subject to service law. It will also apply to UK Armed Forces premises worldwide, provided they fall within the required parameters set out in the Bill. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my noble friend, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

UK Defence: Hypersonic Missiles

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes an important point on the importance of space and satellites. That case has been made with vigour to the defence review and we await the outcome of that. On the second part of the noble and gallant Lord’s question and his point about Scotland, of course it is important. Part of what we are saying with the growth in defence spending is that we need to ensure that there is an emphasis on UK manufacturing and on the regions and every nation of the UK, so that they too can benefit from that. It informs and helps develop the Government’s growth agenda.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, there is already in place a framework to develop a sovereign UK hypersonic missile, with £1 billion identified over a period of seven years. Given recent events, can the Minister say whether he agrees that the enhanced global security obligation now falling on the UK requires us to consider accelerating that programme? It will require more money. In that case, can the Minister reassure this House that, if the Chagos deal goes ahead, not one penny of the defence budget will be required to pay for that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will await the outcome of what happens on the Chagos deal. No deal has been made at the present time. On the £1 billion the noble Baroness referred to, this is in respect of the Missile Defence Centre which, as she knows, was established some 20 years ago and has been supported consistently by different Governments. The Missile Defence Centre looks at the capabilities that we have and will need. It was initially set up to deal with ballistic threats but has since had its remit extended to look at the threat we will have from hypersonic missiles as well. As such, I think it is important. And let me just say that, in terms of accelerating, I think we are going to have to accelerate a lot of our defence capability.

Armed Forces Personnel: School Fees

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what engagement they have had with armed forces personnel whose children are currently educated at fee-paying schools to ascertain the impact on such families of imposing value added tax on school fees.

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

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is continuing to monitor the impact of the Government’s change to VAT rules for private schools on service personnel who claim the continuity of education allowance. The Ministry of Defence recalculated CEA rates based on the new fees published by schools for January 2025, and this increased the income tax-free amounts available to claimants.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I am aware that the continuity of education allowance has been uprated, but that still leaves a parental contribution. What we do not know is by how much the parental contribution will increase as a consequence of VAT on school fees. Indeed, even the combined talents of Sherlock Holmes and Einstein would fail to penetrate MoD methodology on this issue. We know that Armed Forces personnel will have to pay more in school fees. Can the Minister answer a simple question? How much more will they be paying?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will always check the figures and, indeed, check hers, as she will know. She will also know that the allowance contributes towards the cost of boarding school education, with the MoD paying a fixed rate of up to 92% of fees for children attending state-maintained schools and up to 90% of fees for those attending independent schools. I would say to her that, in essence, this is exactly the same policy as the previous Government had.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, last week I raised my profound concerns about the funding fog surrounding defence. Specifically on the Government’s fiscal policy, I want to ask the Minister the following questions. First, given the recent gloomy projection by the CBI on job losses, what discussions have the Government had with major defence suppliers to assess the impact of the NIC increase on their workforce? Secondly, if the Government really value our Armed Forces personnel, why are they landing families with the full impact of VAT on private school fees, when the continuity of education allowance will meet only part of that increase—and yet they are prepared to exempt United States armed forces personnel in this country from paying VAT on private school fees?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for her important questions. We are working closely with NATO in developing industrial capability. In particular, we are looking at how we develop interoperability between NATO partners—which, as the noble Baroness will know from her work, is an important consideration—to give us the capabilities we need.

The noble Baroness will know that the Government have increased the continuity of education allowance to meet 90% of the cost of school fees, which is line with the consistent use of that policy to meet school fees. On the US military exemption, the VAT rule applies to all businesses supplying services to US forces, so there has been no change in that regard.

Major Defence Contracts

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are supporting the SME sector by spending billions of pounds on defence. The noble Baroness makes an important point about the importance of small and medium-sized industries. We often talk about the primes—the really big companies— but they are often supported by small and medium-sized businesses, which are extremely important, along with ensuring we get investment across the country.

I will tell noble Lords the other thing that needs to be done. For decades in this country we have had a shortage of skilled workers and skilled apprenticeships, and certainly small and medium-sized businesses need help to recruit the skilled labour they need to deliver the products that they have on offer.

The final point I will make is that, clearly, we are now in a period of transition from pre Ukraine to post Ukraine. That obviously results in looking at who we are buying from and the sorts of things we are purchasing, and the defence review will deal with some of that as well.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it is the case that our defence industry sector has never been in greater need of the skills and talents of our brightest students, and the Minister failed to address the point specifically raised by the noble and gallant Lord. This House wants to know what are the Government doing to address the unacceptable intolerance whereby companies are hounded off campuses and barred entry to careers fairs? In particular, what are the Government doing to ensure that this obstruction to the supply of talent to the defence industry sector is removed?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry if I did not answer the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord. The point the noble Baroness makes is extremely important, and she asks what the Government have done about it. The Secretary of State for Defence, and I think the Business Secretary, wrote to the universities concerned and asked them to ensure that obstructive factions within the student unions in their universities did not prevent the legitimate recruitment, with respect to the RAF, and the legitimate activities of defence companies as well to try to recruit. It is extremely important for all universities to understand that of course we accept the right of students to protest, and all the rights and freedoms that come under a democracy—that is what we are standing for in many of the conflicts in which we are involved across the world. But with that comes the universities’ responsibility to do what they can to ensure that people pursuing legitimate activities—which will help the defence and security of our nation and our allies—are protected, and this Government will do all they can to ensure that they are.

Undersea Internet Cables

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the principal response to this threat in the Baltic is coming from NATO. May I press the Minister a little further on the contribution that United Kingdom naval assets are making to that endeavour? In particular, the planned multi-role support ship was always intended to be an important contributor to that. May I ask for a report on progress on that important new addition to the fleet?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If I understand the noble Baroness rightly and she is talking about the provision of a second additional ship to support and augment the ship “Proteus”, that will be part of the defence review. On the other assets that she talks about with respect to the Baltic, she will know that in December 2023, under the previous Government, a huge maritime collection of ships across NATO and JEF was sent to the Baltic, including UK maritime assets and UK surveillance aircraft. There was a further initiative in June 2024, again under the previous Government, and just recently we have had the announcement of Operation Nordic Warden, as I have said. All the way along, there have been significant UK contributions.

Another thing that is important, since we are often questioned about this, is that it is not only the contribution that we make in terms of our assets but the thought leadership, co-ordinating power and other leadership potential that the UK provides. Let us remember that it was in 2014, under the previous Government, that JEF was set up under UK leadership. It has worked particularly well. We should sometimes recognise what this country contributes to the defence of the world as well as some the challenges that face us.

Air Defence Capabilities

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in the technological advancement and modernisation of the United Kingdom’s air defence capabilities.

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

My Lords, the UK continuously reviews our integrated air and missile defence requirements to ensure that we are adequately defended against the evolving threats that we face. We are investing in new technologies, including the DragonFire directed energy weapon, to defeat threats such as drones, and enhancing our capabilities through the T45’s ability to defend against anti-ship ballistic missiles. Further development in IAMD capability is being considered in conjunction with the strategic defence review to ensure a coherent approach across defence and wider government.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. Recent very public concerns about our air defence capabilities have been amplified by our European and NATO partners. The urgency of the situation is highlighted by the experience of Ukraine. Government entreaties to await the SDR report simply do not cut it. Reassurance is needed now, but I accept that the picture is complicated so will the Minister write to me with a stocktake of the current situation and details of the modernisation proposals, whatever they are, and then we can place that letter in the Library?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising the incredibly important subject of air defence. She is quite right to point out the impact on Ukraine; 12,000 missiles have been fired at Ukraine by Russia, showing the importance of air defence now. It has been raised in report after report. I will of course write to her and put a copy in the Library, as a current stocktake of where we are, but we are already taking action. We are seeing the development of ORCUS and anti-drone technology to protect airfields; the enhancement of Sea Viper, which is the T45 missile that allows us to defend against ballistic missiles; and developments such as the DIAMOND initiative, which is bringing European countries together to get a ground-based air missile defence system. A number of initiatives are already being taken, but I agree with the noble Baroness. I will write to her so that we have a stocktake of that and so that the information is available to all Members of this House.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Lord Coaker on 14 November (HL Deb col 1927), whether they are planning the fiscal event next spring which is to set the pathway to spending 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence to take place before they publish the Strategic Defence Review.

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

My Lords, we remain committed to setting out a road map for defence spending to reach 2.5% of GDP. The strategic defence review is expected to complete next spring. We will set out the pathway to spending 2.5% at a future fiscal event.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, and certainly, we have previously been told that the SDR will spell out what defence needs and that a spring fiscal event will confirm how and when we are going to pay for it. In a Written Statement yesterday, the Chancellor implied that there will not now be a spring fiscal event. Apparently, the OBR will publish in March an economic and fiscal forecast, to which the Chancellor will respond with a parliamentary Statement. This does not seem to be the same as a spending review. We need to cut through this fog of confusion. May I ask the Minister—I am very happy if he wants to double-check the position with the Treasury—will the forecast and parliamentary Statement to which I referred clarify when the 2.5% of GDP spend on defence will apply? If not, what will clarify it, and when?

Drones: RAF Bases

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. We are working with our international partners, including the United States. Of course, we are trying to ensure that we have all the equipment that is needed to tackle any of these attacks that we face. Similarly, with respect to the aircraft carrier, I can say that a civilian drone was observed in the vicinity of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” on 22 November, but it got no closer than 250 metres. I can reassure my noble friend that we take all of this seriously, and we will work closely to ensure the safety of all our sites.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am aware that there is a series of very effective assets which can be deployed to air defence. I do not expect the Minister to comment further on those, but I will ask him, specifically, how the ground-based air defence system is progressing.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is obviously a matter of real importance, and the defence review is looking at what we should do with respect to air defence in the round, including defence of the homeland, as the noble Baroness asks.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s continuing dithering on when the Government will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence has caused stasis in the MoD, which does not know what it can spend and when, a stagnation of the order book and disgruntled industry partners. What orders are currently being withheld, what is their value and to what extent are other customers overtaking the United Kingdom in the queue for supplies?

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

I do not agree with that caricature of what is happening. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said at the weekend, and it has been repeated since, that we will reach 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. The defence review is looking at what capabilities we need and we will then set that in the context of the 2.5% as we move forward. That sequencing is the proper way for us to go ahead. As it stands, no major projects are being disrupted as a result of the review.

Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I may need to write to the noble Lord. I usually like to be able to respond directly to questions, but I do not want to get the planning process wrong or give the wrong answer on whether primary or secondary legislation is needed. I will respond to him with a letter to make sure that I am accurate and will place a copy in the Library so that it is available to all noble Lords.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, on 20 May 2021, the Conservative Government published an update on the submarine dismantling project, stating that 90% of the decommissioned submarine materials could be recycled. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that his Government are committed to retaining that target? On the experience of decommissioning HMS “Swiftsure”, which is very well advanced, can he also indicate whether there is any proposal to secure an engineering impact assessment to understand how the process for future submarines might be expedited?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness did to try to speed up some of these processes. She asked two very pertinent questions. For “Swiftsure”, we retained the 90% recycling target. She will know that once a decommissioned submarine such as “Swiftsure” is defueled, there is an initial phase that takes the nuclear material out. Then there is an intermediate phase, which is followed by dry-docking—which is where “Swiftsure” is—for the rest of the submarine to be recycled. We expect 90% of that to be recycled. The whole point of “Swiftsure” is that it acts as a demonstrator project so that we can learn from how that was done—what worked and what perhaps could have been improved—and then apply that to all the other submarines that have been decommissioned.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in force for another year the legislation that governs the Armed Forces Act 2006. That body of legislation provides the legal framework for our brave service personnel to continue to operate throughout the world wherever they are needed. The act of yearly renewal reflects the constitutional requirement, which stretches back to the Bill of Rights 1689, that His Majesty’s Armed Forces may not be maintained without Parliament’s consent. Further, there is a five-yearly renewal by Act of Parliament, which is the primary purpose of the Armed Forces Acts. The latest Armed Forces Act was in 2021 and the next is required by the end of 2026. 

However, between these Acts there must be an annual renewal by Order in Council. This is the purpose of today’s draft order, which is necessary for the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2021, to remain in force until the end of 2025. If the Order in Council is not made before the close of 14 December 2024, the 2006 Act will automatically expire, effectively ending the powers and provisions to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies.

As a reminder to noble Lords—and as many noble and gallant Members of your Lordships’ House will already know—those serving in His Majesty’s Armed Forces do not have contracts of employment and, therefore, have no duties as employees. Instead, service- persons have an obligation as members of the Armed Forces to obey lawful orders as set out in the 2006 Act, which provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the Armed Forces of command, discipline and justice.

If the Act were not renewed, commanding officers and the court martial would no longer have the power to punish or discipline servicepersons for infractions of the rules, irrespective of how minor or serious the matter might be. Discipline is fundamental to the operational effectiveness and efficiency of any professional military force. It ensures team cohesiveness and effectiveness, efficiency in executing orders and confidence in the chain of command, while encouraging and reinforcing self-discipline. Such qualities have proved vital in underpinning the professionalism and capabilities of our Armed Forces.

I acknowledge that, as of today, we inhabit a world that is more dangerous than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, witnessing as it has the return of great power politics. However, that is not to say that we are less safe. After all, we have seen the growth and strengthening of the Euro-Atlantic alliance, with new and powerful NATO members welcomed into its ranks, while we continue to support, equip and train Ukraine in its fight against Russia, which has witnessed Putin fail in every one of his strategic aims in that country.

In the Middle East, we continue to work closely with allies and partners on aid deliveries to Gaza, supporting the Lebanese army, training the Iraqi security forces and ensuring freedom of navigation. In the Indo-Pacific, we have AUKUS and GCAP working alongside our allies to ensure stability in that region and provide a strong deterrence to would-be aggressors.

No Government can do this without the men and women of our Armed Forces and the civilian staff who support them. We also cannot do it without Armed Forces’ families, who sacrifice so much and move so often to support our national security. We should also remember our veterans. As a Government, we have committed to strengthen the nation’s contract with those who serve, their families and, as I said, veterans, including by putting the Armed Forces covenant fully into law and by appointing an Armed Forces commissioner to be a strong, independent champion for serving personnel and their families.

Therefore, we ask that His Majesty’s Armed Forces receive the full support of this Committee with approval of this draft continuation order. This will provide a sound legal basis for our Armed Forces to continue to afford us their indispensable protection. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords—oh, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith; I am so eager.

Combat Air Capability

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s future combat air capability.

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

My Lords, our assessment of the future combat air capability we require is informed by consideration of the future threat environment and strategic context. Consequently, the Global Combat Air Programme has been designed to utilise advanced capabilities, including next-generation sensors, weapons and data systems. Networked interoperability with allies and partners will be key. In the meantime, we continue to invest in our current fleet, which remains highly capable.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that part-reassurance. The previous Government’s commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme—GCAP—was clear and we were doing it in partnership with Italy and Japan. However, with the best of intentions, the current Government’s position is opaque. Can the noble Lord at least reassure the House that the Government understand the need to plan now for a successor to Typhoon and the extent to which UK industry is supporting thousands of jobs across the UK—not least, for example, at Leonardo in Edinburgh—that depend on this programme proceeding?

Ministry of Defence: Expenditure

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Goldie

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have made any decisions to pause expenditure on Ministry of Defence programmes; and, if so, on which programmes.

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

Work continues on our programmes within existing allocated funding as the strategic review progresses. This review will consider the threats Britain faces, the capabilities needed to meet them, the state of the UK Armed Forces and the resources available. It will set out a deliverable and affordable plan for defence.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment, and welcome him to the Front Bench. My Question was predicated on an already stretched defence budget and government opaqueness about the future. The commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP is very welcome, but we do not know when—it is jam for an uncertain tomorrow. The Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said to this Chamber on Tuesday evening, referring to the strategic defence review, expected to report early next year, that it

“will inform how the amount is reached”.—[Official Report, 23/7/24; col. 424.]

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is deserving of much admiration, but his expertise is defence, not macroeconomics and certainly not Treasury fiscal wizardry. This is the Government’s most important responsibility; we have to stop pussyfooting around. How can there be any informed strategic defence review when the chief reviewer has not been told what the budget he is working on is?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome to the post; it is an honour to follow her, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Minto. We have made a clear commitment to 2.5%, and the timetable for that will be announced at a future fiscal event. Alongside that, as the noble Baroness will know, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is conducting the review. As we think is important, the noble Lord will come forward with the capabilities needed to meet the threats of the future, and then we will know what we should be spending the money on, rather than just flying blind, without any idea as to the threats we will face and the capabilities needed to meet them.