Atlantic Undersea Cables: Russian Subsurface Operations

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, during the Cold War, I was a member of the “red tie” group, which consisted of intelligence officers, operations teams and the defence industry. Basically, we monitored the Soviet submarine threat. By the end of the Cold War, at any given time, we knew exactly where all its submarines were. We had up to 12 of our own operational SSNs to mark them, plus American ones to mark them. If war had started, we would have killed them all within the first few minutes of that war.

I fear that we are no longer in that position. Part of the reason for that has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Robertson, who refers to it as people’s “corrosive complacency” over a number of years. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has highlighted what is being done now, but I have a feeling that we have a long way to catch up. We are nowhere near that position, and we are in a state where we ought to put our military, and certainly our defence industries, on some sort of war footing to be able to catch up and to do the things that we need to do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I was just thinking about the red tie club, as I stood up. But the serious point that my noble friend makes is clearly an important one about our ability to detect and deter those who would threaten us. The importance of the activity that took place in the north Atlantic was that we were able to use the P-8s. We have nine P-8s based at Lossiemouth. Of course, not all of them are operational, although most of them are and they are enabled to detect and deter. There are other ways of detecting submarine activity, which is really important. As I say, the ability to deter and to take action where necessary is really important.

I say to my noble friend that our noble friend Lord Robertson quite rightly pointed out what he felt, and the need for the strategic defence review to be implemented and funded. That debate and discussion will move forward. I also say to him—he will be particularly interested in this, having mentioned submarines—that I was recently in Plymouth, where we are putting billions of pounds into the docks at Plymouth to ensure that we have docks which are capable of dealing and working with the submarines that we have now to increase and improve the availability of those submarines. That is true in many areas of the country. There is huge and significant investment going in. The issue for us is what we do now, in the interim, to provide the deterrent and capabilities we need to ensure that our forces are able to act in the way that they do while we wait for some of those new ships and new capabilities to become ready to us. We are looking to advance that.

I am sorry to take up noble Lords’ time but the need for this country to move to a position of war readiness is crucial. That is not a government effort but a whole of society effort. From this side of the House, from that side of the House, from all parts of the United Kingdom, to deal with the threats that we face, our population have to understand the threats that they face. We as a Government have to talk to them and all of us have to stand up and say that we will defend our country and the values that we stand for.

Strait of Hormuz: Mine Clearance

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assistance, if any, the UK has agreed to provide with mine clearance operations in the Strait of Hormuz.

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

My Lords, we continue to convene efforts towards restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is of vital importance to the UK. The Prime Minister will deliver an Oral Statement this afternoon following his trip to the region and will update on our latest work to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The Royal Navy has a long history of mine-hunting expertise and has existing capabilities in the region. It is also stepping up its mine-hunting capabilities by adding new, cutting-edge, uncrewed equipment to RFA “Lyme Bay”, allowing it to be used as the mothership for autonomous systems if required. On 7 April, the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters convened a meeting with 30 nations to discuss freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz; and our military planning continues.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend the Minister that we must not let this war end with the Strait of Hormuz, a very important international waterway, being closed. It is in global interests and in our interest that this does not happen. We are very good at mine-hunting. Our—very badly funded at the moment—Navy is actually an expert at mine-hunting, which is very important. The Minister is probably aware that the bulk of the deepwater routes into and out of the Gulf actually go through Omani, not Iranian, waters. We are very close friends and allies with Oman. Can we not go ahead with talking to the Omanis and asking whether they would be happy for us to start making sure that the routes within their waters are clear? This is a step forward in the right direction, in which we can start moving, using the mine-hunting forces that my noble friend the Minister has mentioned.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. He will know that the Government’s approach is to try to ensure that we bring together a co-ordinated, independent and multinational plan to safeguard international shipping when the conflict ends. Of course, considerations will be with all our different allies and friends within the region. This morning it was announced that we will co-host a summit with the French to work on that co-ordinated plan. No doubt, some of the points that my noble friend has made will be considered at that summit, as well as at a further meeting at PJHQ in the next few days.

UK Homeland Defence

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble and gallant Lord that, of course, we await the defence investment plan, but we are not waiting for it before we do things. I have pointed out the investment we have made into some air defence systems already, but he is quite right to point out that we need to make progress at pace, as quickly as we can, to defend against potential missile threats but also against drone threats, which he quite rightly points out. We are assessing what we can do, are trying to work at pace on that, and will do all we can to protect our country—which, as everyone says, is the first duty of any Government.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, we have to realise that it is almost impossible to defend against exoatmospheric ballistic missiles trying to strike one’s country. Indeed, those are the nuclear warheads—if Russia ever goes to war, nuclear-wise—that will be coming towards us. They are hugely expensive and really difficult to take down. Drones are a different issue, and I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we have to start spending some money there. May I ask a slightly different question? We never, ever go to war nowadays; even when I fought in the Falklands, it was not a war. If someone starts lobbing missiles at one’s population, that is war, is it not? Would we go to war? If you go to war, there are a whole raft of things that a nation does, some of them quite horrifying; we have not done those, but, surely, we would if people started trying to kill our public with drones in our major cities.

Iran and the Middle East

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right in that all these conflicts are interconnected in many subtle ways that often are not immediately obvious to those seeking to make political points in this country. It is obviously a matter for His Majesty’s Opposition to answer for their own conduct.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2003 the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, met the chiefs of staff just before the invasion of Iraq and we discussed our plan of action. At that meeting, we asked: what is the plan for phase 4? We were told by the Prime Minister that the Americans had phase 4 all in hand. As regards beating a country such as Iraq or Iran in conventional fighting, we can do that—we jolly well should be able to do that—but the difficult bit is the next bit. I ask my noble friend the Minister: have we actually asked the Americans what their plan is now and where we are actually going? This is the most dangerous part of any of these actions.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think we all remember the experience from 2003 and the decisions made around Iraq. Somebody who fought in Iraq—a Member of Parliament, Calvin Bailey, who was a wing commander in the RAF—said to me last week that there were two things that the British Government need to bear in mind before they take such a decision again: one is the legality and the other is what happens next. I think he is right. As a mother of boys of fighting age, I do not want to have to look into the eyes of anybody else’s mother and say that we had not done our work adequately ahead of making such a decision ever again.

Boarding of Sanctioned Vessels

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, we effectively run global merchant shipping from London. We have the best Merchant Navy-type lawyers in the world in London, and it is quite clear that these ships can be boarded and it is legal to do it. We already have people trained to conduct such operations. Indeed, some of the takedowns of merchant ships have been amazing. It seems extraordinary that it has taken so long for us to grasp this nettle. Two and a half or three years ago, we were saying, “Let’s get on with it”. Why is it that the Government do not move more quickly and get us to start boarding these very dangerous vessels that are giving a lot of money to Russia and going up and down the channel, for example?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend heard the careful Answer that I gave to the noble Baroness; I hope that went some way to answering the question that he has posed. It is not as though we have not been doing anything. Let me set out the facts for my noble friend; I asked for them and mentioned them a couple of days ago. As a consequence of sanctions, Russia’s oil revenues are down 27% compared with October 2024 and 544 vessels have had sanctions imposed on them by us, with 200 of these sidelined through actions taken by ourselves and our partners. So I take the noble Lord’s point about the need to go further and faster, but we are taking action, and that action has had some consequence on the Russian war machine.

Defence Spending

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the military Chiefs of Staff have expressed concern over in-year defence spending.

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

My Lords, Defence is collectively working to deliver the strategic defence review as a deliverable and affordable plan, backed by historic funding increases. Further detail will follow in the defence investment plan. All the Chiefs of Staff are fully engaged in that planning, as they are in the routine budget management exercises that ensure we can respond appropriately in-year to the changing nature of the threats that we face.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our nation is standing into danger. I do not need to articulate the dangerous geopolitical situation that we are in, and which is getting worse. I think people understand that, and they believe that we need to spend more on defence. Unfortunately, there is no urgency in that. For example, the defence investment plan, which was just mentioned, is already six months late. Does my noble friend the Minister—who I think understands these issues but whose hands are rather tied, judging by that Answer, on what he can say—agree that wars do not wait until the nations involved are ready? In an era of might is right, we need to grasp the nettle and seriously increase our defence spending today, not in the weeks and years to come. Then perhaps we can rebuild the Armed Forces and some of the might that is required.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with much of what my noble friend says about the threat that we face and the need for us to respond appropriately. All I would say is that we are increasing defence spending. My noble friend asked about the chiefs, and I will quote directly from the speech the Chief of the Defence Staff gave just a few weeks ago, in December. He said that he was looking at the greatest “sustained” rise

“in defence spending since the … Cold War”.

That is enormously positive. We are trying to respond to the threats that we face today, and there will be debates about how much we spend. My noble friend refers to the defence investment plan. It was due to be published by the end of the year, not six months ago, and we are looking to publish it as soon as we can. We want to make sure that the investment choices that we make within it are the right choices for ensuring that we have the capabilities we need now, as well as in the future.

Armed Services: Sexual Violence

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that of course the chaplaincy service within the Armed Forces is involved in support and dealing with these matters when they arise. That sort of support is essential, because victims should have the confidence and support to come forward. If they do not feel that anyone is there to support them, they will not do so. The chaplaincy service is fully involved in these discussions and obviously at the forefront of giving support to those who find themselves in that situation. As for consistency across all services, I would hope that that is consistent across all three services, because it affects them all, but, again, I will go back and make sure that is the case.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I conducted the study 30 years ago into whether women should serve at sea and came to the conclusion that they should, and it has been a huge success. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, overall, women have added hugely to our Armed Forces and that, with all these debates, there is a real risk it might put women off joining for what is still a fantastic career with huge opportunities for them? It is only a tiny minority, and we need to be very clear to get that message across.

Royal Navy Submarine Force

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they have implemented to resolve problems confronting the Royal Navy’s submarine force.

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

My Lords, the Royal Navy has successfully maintained Operation Relentless, the continuous at-sea deterrent, without interruption for over 56 years. We continue to adapt to new challenges to meet our submarine commitments, deploying globally on operations, protecting national interests and keeping us and our allies safe. Today, the First Sea Lord has announced further measures to protect the undersea environment to counter the new threats we face in that domain.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our submarine force is in a parlous state—the worst in my 60 years of service. Successive delays in ordering, a lack of dry dock investment, the failure to recruit and train the requisite nuclear personnel, training delays for those for those we have got, lack of spares and lack of maintenance have all taken their toll. Does our nation realise that, for the last year, this great maritime nation has had one attack submarine operational for most of the time? Some of the time, it has not had one at all. That is pretty horrifying for a maritime nation of our stature. These submarines are war winners. They frighten Putin and are what we use to give the Soviets a hard time with. That is where we have got to on that.

In terms of a continuous at-sea deterrent, at the moment, the boats are having to do 200-day patrols, with no fallback should something go wrong. We have maintained it—it is an amazing effort to do it—but, my God, we should not be in that position.

I think that the MoD does understand this and is beginning to pull things together and 1SL has a 100-day programme to sort it out. I ask my noble friend the Minister, because the nation needs to know how bad this is, can we go back to the Treasury and ask for extra money in-year, which can start an impetus to the 100-day programme of the First Sea Lord?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his Question. He will know that we have been to the Treasury and have secured more money for the defence programme and industry. Just to pick up on a point that my noble friend made, I think it is incumbent on us all to praise our submariners for the work they do and the time they spend at sea. We are seeking to address some of the challenges that my noble friend pointed out. He will know that there are now programmes of investment in the infrastructure of both Devonport and Faslane. He will know that the Dreadnought programme has a commitment of £31 billion, with a £10 billion contingency. He will know that we are seeking to invest in AUKUS, and we also have the Astute programme.

Alongside that, with respect to the problems that my noble friend pointed out with respect to the engineers and technicians who keep our submarines at sea, he will know that we have started to ensure that we recruit more of those. I am also pleased to announce to the House that the recruitment and retention submariners have improved as well. I accept the challenges that my noble friend lays out but, with the First Sea Lord and others, we seek to address that quickly and urgently, as the 100-day plan pointed out.

Russian Ship “Yantar”

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This is a really important question, but I say to everyone that we have to be really careful about the language that we use when we ask, “If this happened, what would we do? If that happened, what would we do? Would we see such and such as an act of war?” That is not to underplay the seriousness of what is happening, but it is about trying—as any Government would—to be reasonable and sensible in the language that is used.

Let nobody be in any doubt that the seriousness of this is significant. We know what the “Yantar” is doing as part of Operation GUGI, we know that it is surveying the underwater cables in a peacetime way for potential use in other scenarios in the future and we are making sure the Russians are aware of that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

The Minister said he was going to visit the NMIC and the joint cell that was with it down in the south. I do not know whether he has done that yet, but I am glad it is up and operating fully, because we have been bad at tracking the “Yantar” and the other ships of that type. Now, we are doing it properly and we need to have ships that can counter it. I hope that there will be enough money in the Budget for us to get in more ships; we will see.

I have been at sea with the Russians in the Cold War when they tried to ram us, opened weapon systems against us and interrupted flying operations—all highly dangerous things, and similar to what happened in the Iceland cod war. I believe there is more that we can do to make it very uncomfortable for a ship such as the “Yantar”. There are things one can do that make life horrible at sea. They are not all seen and we should start thinking about doing some of those.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. We are trying to do a whole range of different things. He will know that, as well as the measures that I have talked about against the “Yantar”, we have Operation Baltic Sentry—in the Baltic Sea, obviously—which is NATO monitoring, run from Northwood, to track what is going on there. We have Nordic Warden, which is a JEF operation as well, with maritime capabilities, alongside P-8s. There is a whole range of different things that are taking place. The defence investment plan will be published this year; let us see what is in that in terms of the increase in capability to deal with this threat.

President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

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

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

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

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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