Defence Investment Plan

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

The disagreement in recent weeks was never about whether we should fund our forces; it was about how fast we increase the spending for defence and on what capabilities. That is a serious argument to have—I make no apology for pushing hard within the Government to win it, because that is the job. But the job is also a team sport, and that is why the Ministry of Defence, with the new Defence Secretary, is working with the Treasury, other government departments and No. 10 to get this right”.

[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

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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.

King’s Speech

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a predictably good debate, with some excellent points punching through strongly. As my noble friend Lord Callanan indicated, I will focus on defence, but, before I do, I will stray very briefly into foreign affairs.

I listened with humility—I looked around the Chamber and I was not alone—to the lucidity, expertise and wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and to my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. I suggest to the Minister—with no disrespect to his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who introduced the debate so well—that this talented duo be brought into the FCDO to help inform policy and advise on how we disseminate UK influence in relation to Iran. I have not heard two people with more brains and knowledge than that pair to whom I listened today.

Since we last debated a most gracious Speech, the world has become demonstrably less safe. Not only has that been an unmistakable theme emerging in the course of the debate today, but it was acknowledged by His Majesty in the first line of the gracious Speech. To give me a comparison point, I looked back to see what I said in 2024:

“My starting point is the Government’s recognition in their manifesto that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe”.—[Official Report, 25/7/24; col. 633.]


So we have two immediate points of clarity and consensus: the Government must keep the country safe, and our safety is more at risk than two years ago.

The noble Lord the Minister knows that I hold him in high regard, as I do the noble Baroness the Minister, and I know that neither will question these two premises. But our situation is grave, and the Government have completely failed to grasp the gravity of the situation. Indeed, we are less protected, less war-ready, than we were two years ago. Who do I call in aid to support that view? I call the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, frequently referred to during the course of the debate.

If the noble Lord were remarkable only for having been His Majesty’s Keeper of the Swans in the upper reaches of the Thames, I do not suppose anyone would pay much attention to his opinion. But this man is a former Labour Defence Secretary, a former Director-General of NATO and the Prime Minister’s appointed author of the strategic defence review. When he accuses the Government of “corrosive complacency”, do you know what? I would start to tremble.

The Prime Minister’s own National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, is reported to have warned that Britain will struggle to maintain our position on the world stage without a significant increase in defence spending. Just today, there were contributions from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who said that weakness makes war more, not less, likely, and deterrence means capability plus political will. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, expressed his regret that the narrative on defence, in his opinion, was neutered. He was blunter when he said that defence capability is in a mess. The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, in a cogent and, I would say, very plucky contribution, echoed the noble and gallant Lords’ concerns about the lack of a defence readiness Bill. I also noticed that the normally dependably loyal noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, also referred to that omission. So there are serious commentators here who are expressing concern.

The chilling reality is that, despite the Government’s repeated claims—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, earlier this week in this very Chamber—that they have instituted the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, the Government have nothing to show for it. Any Government can give the MoD more money; what matters is what it does with it. What things does that money buy which better protect the country, make us more war-ready, and effectively deter?

The defence investment plan is still nowhere to be seen, despite being promised last autumn. Intentions to spend mean absolutely diddly squat if they do not translate into actual spend of actual extra money, and the Government have not spent any extra because they have not published their investment plan. We are in Alice in Wonderland territory here. Every time Ministers are quizzed, they simply respond by saying that it will be published in due course and that the MoD is working flat out to get it finalised. Well, if a nine-month delay is a result of the Government working flat out, we are in some state.

The reason I keep pressing the Government on the defence investment plan is because the delay and inertia have a real-time effect. Defence is in limbo. Military planners cannot plan. Orders have dried up. Defence companies cannot plan, do not know how to seek investment and do not know what to invest in. Procurement has been frozen. While the Government prevaricate, our adversaries become more brazen, and our allies become more frustrated.

I hate to remind the Minister of this, but when his party came to power, the previous Government left them a fully funded plan immediately to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The Government scrapped that plan—it was their privilege to do that—and it took them seven months to announce that they would reach the same figure, but not until 2027, and they still cannot guarantee that they will reach 3% within this Parliament. The previous Government left Labour a fully funded £10 billion munitions plan to replenish our national munitions stock. What did the Government do? They scrapped it.

Governments have the right to determine their own priorities—nobody disputes that—but what is completely unacceptable is laying waste all before them and putting nothing in place of the devastation. I say to the Minister that I think we are past the point of words—we urgently need action. The country is crying out for political leadership—I am not going to make cheap jokes about the Prime Minister, who is going through a most turbulent time—and we must have somebody who substitutes deeds for talk and a Government who show courage, face up to the hard decisions and have the grit to take them.

I remind the House where starvation of defence funding has got us. Recently, Britain was unable rapidly to move resources to the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East to protect our interests. British sovereign territory in Cyprus was left undefended. Our regional allies were left tearing their hair out at the glacial pace of our response.

On shipbuilding, we have all seen reports that the next Type 26 construction slot on the Clyde may be awarded to the Norwegians. That will further delay our frigate-building programme, which, given that the Royal Navy is now down to just five Type 23s, is not sustainable.

On aircraft build, the details remain sparse around one of the few procurement decisions that the Government have announced, the nuclear-capable F35A. In fact, I hesitate even to call it a procurement decision because, as far as I can tell, no aircraft has actually been procured, but we have a vague announcement that we will purchase 12 F35A fighters. In October, the Public Accounts Committee said:

“In June 2025, the Department announced that it intends to procure 12 F35As to be both training aircraft and capable of carrying nuclear weapons. But only now is the F-35 programme’s Senior Responsible Owner talking to other partner nations about what is required to deliver the new capabilities, and the Department has not produced any estimates of what these might cost”.


Can the Minister clarify what stage this procurement is at and how much these planes will cost?

I will fling in a few more questions for his attention. When will we start construction of the Type 49 destroyers to replace the current Type 45s, and how many of them will the Government commit to? What is the status of Challenger 3? When will the Government set out the procurement timeline for the remaining 90 F35Bs? When we should be moving heaven and earth to support British industry, why have the Government not purchased UAVs, such as Octopus-100 and Herne XLAUV, which are made by British firms?

This dithering and delay are having significant ramifications on our defence industry. Last week, sadly, Aeralis announced that it had been forced into administration. Announcing the news, the company said:

“The appointment follows a sustained period of pressure on the Company’s cashflow as a result of continued delays to the UK Defence Investment Plan”.


Aeralis is a marvellous British company. It has produced a modular, technologically advanced jet that could act as a future fast jet trainer and an aerobatic aircraft for the RAF. It could be a British designed and produced replacement for the Hawk trainers and the Red Arrows, yet Aeralis was forced into administration by the uncertainty created solely by the Government’s inaction.

The Minister will be quick to say that there have been announcements, for example, on the new medium helicopter and the RCH 155. These are welcome but the Minister knows that this is all too little, too late. If the Government are struggling to conjure up a plan to increase defence spending while maintaining fiscal discipline, perhaps I can help. My honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge, has a fully costed plan to establish a sovereign defence fund that would be utilised to increase spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. It would be funded by repurposing £17 billion from the National Wealth Fund, reallocating R&D funds and cutting the welfare and net-zero budgets. Now, that is a clear proposal. People may disagree with it, but that is leadership. There would be tough decisions involved in delivering it, but that is leadership. That plan could be implemented tomorrow.

I just hope that the Government are listening and that some food for thought is being provided to the Minister, as in, perhaps, my noble friend Lord Howard’s suggestion that if every government department were to accept a 1% self-imposed cut, money could be produced. Of course, there would be a huge rammy about who was doing what and what the consequences were, but that is what political leadership is about: you have to determine political priorities.

Funding and equipment are of course one aspect of our defence readiness and resilience. Another, and arguably the most important, is our people—the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who sacrifice so much to keep us secure. I know that everyone in the House joins in paying tribute to them. We would not have a military were it not for their sense of duty to King and country, so it is all the more painful for me to see the way in which they are being treated. Personally, I think it is quite wrong that those who have served, and those who continue to serve, should have to constantly look over their shoulders, awaiting the service of a legal writ. There are veterans from the Troubles who have faced decades of lawfare, dragged before investigations and hauled into courtrooms for the simple act of doing their duty for their country.

We now have the Government’s Troubles Bill, which, after the Supreme Court’s recent judgment, can only be considered as wholly unnecessary. The court has explicitly found that the commission established by the previous Government’s legacy Act can carry out investigations that are compliant with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, so what purpose will the Government’s Bill serve? I fear the only outcome of repealing the legislation that we passed in 2023 is that the fear, the gnawing anxiety and the uncertainty that our brave veterans have had to contend with will be opened once again as their lives are raked over, with them asked to account for split-second decisions they made 50 years ago when serving their country. How do the Government justify going on with the Troubles Bill?

On the Royal Artillery monument at Hyde Park Corner there are inscribed the words:

“They will return never more but their glory will abide forever”.


We all owe it to those who have served King and country so gallantly to ensure that their glory does indeed abide for ever—and if we are to do that, we have to reject the temptation of historical revisionism. We have to support our veterans by having their backs, funding defence properly and robustly defending our nation’s interests wherever they are challenged. I thank the Minister for his unstinting commitment and his passion for defence, but this Government are failing these fundamental tests.

Civil Preparedness for War

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. This is a timely debate. Sadly, the impossibly short speaking time precludes a normal wind-up, so I hope that noble Lords will indulge me.

I want to talk about money, consequences and national conversation. You cannot sensibly discuss civil preparedness for war without also embracing our military readiness for war. If we are militarily on the front foot and prepared with all the necessary technology, assets and personnel, it may be possible to avoid war, shorten any conflict or mitigate the consequences of war, with a beneficial effect on our civil preparedness. Yet, nine months on from the defence review being published, the Chancellor still does not have a funding plan on her desk. There has been a scathing critique by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, which I shall not repeat it because he has, far more eloquently and authoritatively than I could ever have done, brought us up to date on where we are.

Let me make some suggestions to the Minister. I want to see a much more politically muscular approach adopted towards the Treasury. The Chagos deal, which is moribund for the foreseeable future, allows the Government to free up imminent payments that would have gone to Mauritius now to go to defence. As the MoD struggles to balance the books, with the current £3.5 billion black hole, it has to prioritise. Getting warships out of maintenance seems a glaringly obvious priority.

The lack of clarity on funding and the absence of the defence investment plan have real-time consequences for safety and national security. When the Middle East war was triggered, we had no warships or naval assets in the region. It took weeks to get HMS “Dragon” out there. That is shocking. Defence companies are existing on a wing and a prayer, which is not sustainable. They need to be clear about their own financial planning, investment and retention of a skilled workforce. They need an order book. Who or what is blocking the defence investment plan?

The national conversation proposed in the SDR is sensible. The question being asked this afternoon is: where is it? I hope that the Minister and his colleagues are not facing the Whitehall block of every department under the sun wanting to get its oar in and create stasis and stagnation. We do not have time.

I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Defence should lead this, and lead it now. I am prepared to help the Minister. I have ideas about how to structure this and deliver it. Some of it can happen quickly. I make myself available to meet his officials, and I hope that that proposal might appeal to him.

These Benches do not always disagree with the Government, but this debate is another important opportunity to repeat to the Government the anger, frustration and warnings of failing political leadership. We need change. What can the Minister report by way of progress and encouragement?

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

This Labour Government have done more. We have reasserted Britain’s place in the world with a rebooted Lancaster House treaty with France, signed the Lunna House treaty with Norway, and published the defence diplomacy strategy. We have brought back defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, with 2025 being the highest year of defence exports in 40 years, including landmark deals with Norway and Turkey. We have published the defence industrial strategy with nearly £800 million to make defence an engine for growth in every corner of the United Kingdom and we have unveiled the ground-breaking Atlantic Bastion programme to make Britain more secure from Russian undersea threats in the north Atlantic. We have also reversed the Tory privatisation that failed our Armed Forces, with our forces living in appalling accommodation—that is 40,000 forces families—with a £9 billion programme that can upgrade nine in 10 defence houses. This is a Labour Government delivering for Britain and delivering for defence”.

[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

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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.

Middle East: Defence

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

I am proud of the UK’s response. Acting at all times in our national interest, we will defend our allies and support our Armed Forces. We will do everything necessary to protect British lives and British interests, to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the briefing on the current conflict that he made available to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank all our Armed Forces personnel who are currently deployed and protecting this country and all our interests in the region, whether British citizens, bases or military assets. We admire their courage, professionalism and unstinting commitment to serve in an environment that is unpredictable and frightening. We are in their debt, and we never take their contribution for granted. We are particularly mindful of that as we remember the United States service personnel who have lost their lives in the conflict. Sadly, conflict delivers inevitable death and injury, so we think of all those impacted by recent events.

I am not going to engage in hindsight. I want to focus on three things: what the Government knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. Unlike His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government have access to high-quality defence, security and military intelligence, so answering these three questions is important. Candour in answering them may help to inform what to do the next time a threat manifests itself.

To focus the Minister’s mind, I will share what I knew, when I knew it and what I would have done with that limited knowledge. First, we have always known the toxic threat presented by Iran. It is a malign and evil regime, with a hatred of western culture, that is intent on developing nuclear weapons. By the beginning of this year, it was clear that President Trump was heading for decisive action.

Secondly, by February, President Trump had adopted a bellicose approach, making it more, rather than less, likely that the US would trigger a conflict. On 11 February, 16 days before the first American missiles hit Iran, the United States formally requested the use of British bases to facilitate that attack. His Majesty’s Government therefore knew, two weeks in advance, that there was an overwhelming likelihood of an Iranian response that would threaten our citizens, Armed Forces personnel, military bases and sovereign territory.

Thirdly, given that knowledge, I would have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to move heaven and earth to muster whatever assets he could lay his hands on and get them out to the region. Unfortunately, it appears that that was not the Government’s response. We had no warship in the Gulf, we know that no Type 45 destroyer was deployed in those intervening two weeks, HMS “Anson” remained in Australia, and no Type 23 was sent to the region either. Removing our one warship from the region, with no replacement at such a critical time, is extraordinary. A Type 45 destroyer dispatched to the region would have provided invaluable protection against air attack on our Cyprus base.

The public assessment of how the Government responded is unflattering. I shall leave the Minister to counter that negative view but, to do so, he needs to provide specific answers to the three points that I have raised.

The crux of the matter appears to be this: we have been attacked, our bases and sovereign territory are under threat, and UK citizens in the region have faced attack. Whether we were involved in the initial strikes is immaterial; Iran does not discriminate. The United Kingdom is in this war now, whether we like it or not. Given that simple fact, distinctions between offence and defence are semantics; they are simply not relevant. If someone fires a missile at you, you have to do everything within your power to stop it and then stop them firing another.

I shall await the Minister’s response, but if part of the Government’s dilemma was uncertainty about what assets could be mustered then that is extremely serious and, in such dangerous times, unacceptable. I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government immediately audit the availability of naval assets and urgently improve sea readiness? As this conflict underlines the imperative of the defence industry plan being finalised, can it be published immediately? Adhering to the agreed build timescales for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates is now critical. These ships are needed by the UK, so will the Minister confirm that no export order will be permitted to dislocate that delivery schedule? What lessons does the Minister consider that we need to learn from the UK’s pace of response to this conflict? Finally, disquiet has been expressed publicly that the new contract that the Government entered into with Serco ended round-the-clock staffing at the naval base. Can the Minister confirm whether that was one of the reasons for the extraordinary delay in getting HMS “Dragon” ready to leave port?