National Shipbuilding Strategy

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Beamish]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

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

My Lords, the Government are working hard to deliver for the UK shipbuilding sector. Since 2024, 1,000 jobs have been saved at Harland & Wolff’s yards in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, a £10 billion frigate deal was agreed with Norway—the largest of its kind in UK history—and millions have been invested in critical infrastructure, all delivered through close collaboration between government and industry. The National Shipbuilding Office plans to publish a new shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan this year, going beyond the national shipbuilding strategy to set out our bold vision for the sector and to maximise its high-growth potential.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Sir John Parker produced his report on national shipbuilding policy in 2017. It was adapted by the then Government, reviewed in 2022 and adopted by the incoming Labour Government. The Minister’s own department has made some progress towards ensuring that there is a throughput of work in UK shipyards. What more can be done to ensure that departments such as the Department for Transport, which is currently looking at providing ships for Trinity House to be put abroad, and the Home Office, which is considering putting its Border Force cutters abroad, do not use only shipyards subsidised by the national Governments in those countries that farm out sub- contracted work to the Far East?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As always, the points that my noble friend raises on these matters are incredibly important. He will know, from his vast experience and the work he does, that we must have cultural change to rebuild the British shipbuilding industry and re-establish the sovereign capability. He will know from the region he represented with distinction for many years in Parliament, and now as a Member of this House still living in that area, the importance of the north-east for shipbuilding. We must have a situation in which buying British is first choice and our shipyards are first preference for the building of our ships, including for our Navy. My noble friend also makes the point that we need other departments to consider that as fully as they can.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his engagement with me and my noble friend Lady Goldie on the measures in the Bill. I extend my thanks to the officials for their professional and insightful briefing on the Bill. I reiterate at the outset that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition fully support the Bill. We recognise the legal requirement for the renewal of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for the continuation of our Armed Forces, and so I share with the Minister the desire to see the Bill reach the statute book promptly.

Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I put on record our deep admiration for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Whether deployed on operations overseas, protecting NATO’s eastern flank or supporting the civil authorities at home, they continue to do an exemplary job. They do so at a time when resources, manpower and equipment are all being stretched to the very limit. Recruitment and retention remain a challenge, but time and again our gallant service personnel rise to meet the task they face. Whatever disagreements I may have with the Government about resource, I hope the Minister will accept that these take nothing away from our sincere respect for all those who serve.

However, I cannot ignore the elephant in the room: this Government’s continuing unwillingness to properly fund our Armed Forces. The Government have spoken of making tough choices, but they have not—or at least not yet. Perhaps our NATO allies in Ankara will change minds. The defence investment plan is effectively unfunded. One-third of the extra money is to be allocated in the Autumn Budget, meaning it is not available now, and the rest of it is to be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I concur—and I am on the record as saying—that the defence investment plan needs the money: we need to get to 3% as quickly as possible. But does the noble Earl also agree that the coalition and Conservative Governments between 2010 and 2017 in fact cut the defence budget by 22% and made people compulsorily redundant? At least this action will increase the defence budget over the next seven years by 27%.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we are dealing with a very different situation globally from what we were dealing with then. There was not a country in the western world that was not making savings on defence at that time.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Crimea?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Well, yes.

I was saying that the money is not available now and the rest of it is to be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings. The departments that have apparently been required to reduce their capital spending have not yet identified what they will cut, and the Government have not yet told us what asset sales they will follow through with. It is all rather unconvincing and unsatisfactory.

There are of course ways to increase defence spending without more tax rises and more borrowing. The required funds could be found by a sensible and sustainable reduction in the welfare budget, scrapping the now discredited Chagos deal, appropriately reducing the size of the Civil Service or reprioritising some of the more extreme and costly net-zero projects. The depressing reality appears to be that this Government have not been willing to grasp the nettle and make the genuine hard choices to give our Armed Forces the funding they so desperately need—and are pleading for—to keep us safe.

I now turn to the Bill. This side of the House welcomes the further incorporation of the Armed Forces covenant into law. It was a Conservative Government, through the Armed Forces Act 2021 that my noble friend Lady Goldie took through your Lordships’ House, who first placed the covenant on a statutory footing, requiring specified bodies to have due regard to its principles in the fields of housing, education and healthcare. That was a significant and hard-won step, and I am glad the Government are building on it.

However, support in principle does not exempt the Government from scrutiny in practice, and I must ask the Minister a straightforward question: what assessment has been made of the impact on those bodies newly brought into scope, and what extra costs will this impose on national authorities, local authorities, education bodies and health bodies up and down the country? I have been assured that the cost implications of extending this legal duty are expected to be minimal. Although I am grateful for that reassurance, the House will forgive me for wanting it tested more rigorously as the Bill proceeds through Committee, particularly given the number of new bodies being brought within the statutory duty and the breadth of new subject matter involved. What financial consequences, if any, does the Ministry anticipate falling on the Ministry of Defence itself as a result of this expansion? Has Treasury sign-off been secured for any downstream costs that may arise?

I think—in fact, I know—that we are united across the House in our belief that those who serve our country should never have to live in substandard accommodation, regardless of their familial status. I think we can also all agree that the current state of much service housing ranges from below standard to abysmal and exposes the immediate need for significant structural expenditure and reforms to bring all forces housing up to the expected standard for the 2020s. It was my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, James Cartlidge, who initiated the buyback of the housing estate from Annington Homes, as the noble Lord has referred to. It is welcome that this Government have now completed that purchase, but I believe that there must be an acknowledgement of who started it.

Clause 3 and Schedule l give legislative effect to the second pillar of the Government’s defence housing strategy, published last November, by establishing a new body corporate: the defence housing service. I understand why the Government wish to create a dedicated body with the supply, availability and quality of defence housing at its heart, and a “forces first” approach to its work is one that these Benches can readily and fully endorse. But the creation of a new statutory body inevitably raises questions about what happens to the old arrangements. What precisely is happening to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation? What functions will be transferred to the new defence housing service? Will there be an overlap in responsibility during a transition period? If so, for how long and at what cost to the taxpayer? Clear accountability will be critical to the success of both organisations in the future.

Can the Minister also set out clearly how this new body differs in practice from the alternative that my party has proposed, which is the establishment of an armed forces housing association? This would be a private, independent but, crucially, not-for-profit organisation that would reinvest all revenues back into maintaining properties and building new homes. It would have an oversight board allowing for representation of those living in service family accommodation. It would allow service men and women to benefit from different property ownership models—for example, part-ownership—allowing those of all ranks to realise their dream of owning their own home. It would allow us to reduce the reliance of the MoD on private sector renting, which costs it £80 million a year. Before I leave this point, there is a widely circulated rumour that, to fund the DIP, investment in service housing is to be deferred. This matters. Can the Minister clarify the position?

I turn to a matter that does not appear in the Bill, but that this side believes to be fundamental to the war-fighting capabilities of our Armed Forces. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has expanded the application of the European Convention on Human Rights so that it now applies extraterritorially, as this House will recall from the judgment in Al-Skeini v United Kingdom. There is absolutely no question that British troops must abide by the Geneva conventions and the law of armed conflict; that is not, and never has been, in dispute. We are not arguing for complete prospective immunity from legal accountability. However, we need to ensure that our troops feel confident in taking necessary action and must be clear on the limitations of that action in law. They must be on a level playing field with the enemy they face. To be in doubt, or at a disadvantage, could, in extremis, be fatal at the critical moment.

While the preference of my party is to leave the European Convention on Human Rights entirely, that is not within the bounds of the Bill, so we will be bringing an amendment in Committee to place a duty on the Secretary of State to derogate from the convention during armed conflict—a switch from “may” to “must”. I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with that amendment in the spirit in which it is offered: not as an attack on the rule of law, far from it, but as a recognition that our troops must be able to fight for and defend this country without the fear of endless retrospective litigation on decisions taken in the heat of combat.

I turn now to the provisions on the Reserve Forces, which these Benches broadly welcome. Clause 32 removes the requirement for a service person to formally leave the Regular Forces and re-enlist in the Volunteer Reserve, or vice versa, in order to move between the two. We are pleased about the greater flexibility that this clause allows for movement between the regulars and the reserves, and we hope that it will remove a genuine source of friction for service personnel who wish to serve in different ways at different points during their career.

The strategic defence review, published last year, sets out the aim of increasing the Active Reserve by 20% when funding allows. That is a laudable aim; nobody on this side of the House would quarrel with the ambition to build a larger, more resilient reserve capability at a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty. But an aim is not a plan, and I must press the Minister on the timeline. By when does the Ministry of Defence expect to achieve that 20% increase? What recruitment targets have been set year on year to get there? Crucially, given the funding caveat built into the review’s own language, how do the Government intend to fund it, given everything I have already said about the state of the defence investment plan?

I suggest one way of doing this to the Minister: incentivise more people to join the reserves by introducing a tax-free reserve service, whereby the first 30 days of reserve service in any one year would be completely free of income tax. Such a measure would cost the Exchequer relatively little, it would send a clear signal that this country values the commitment reservists make alongside their civilian careers, and it might do more to improve recruitment. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion back to his department, even if he cannot commit to it from the Dispatch Box today.

I have covered a good deal of ground this afternoon, and there is more in the Bill that we will wish to probe in Committee, not least the reforms to the service justice system. We support the principle of aligning the powers available to service police and service courts with those already available in the civilian criminal justice system, but there are questions to be asked about how these provisions will operate in practice, and my noble friend Lady Goldie will address those in more detail in closing.

I simply say this in conclusion. This is a Bill these Benches support, because the renewal of the Armed Forces Act is a constitutional necessity, and because much of what sits alongside that renewal—the covenant, the housing reforms, the modernisation of the service justice system and the flexibility of our reserves—represents sensible and positive progress. But support for the Bill is not the same as satisfaction with the Government’s record on defence. Our Armed Forces deserve a Government willing to match warm words with hard funding decisions. Until this happens, this House will continue to ask the difficult questions the Government would rather not answer, and I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the scrutiny that lies ahead in Committee.

Lithuania: Balloon Incursions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is an important question, and one that both the previous Government and this Government have sought to deal with. The noble Lord will know that there are 1,000 British troops in Estonia as part of the forward land forces, along with defence attachés and others in support in other JEF nations. The noble Lord will know of Baltic Sentry, the maritime defence in and around underwater cables in the Baltic. So we have forward land forces, Baltic Sentry and, alongside that, the Eastern Sentry, which is the aerial operation. At a land force level, a maritime level and an air level, within the auspices of NATO, this country is contributing to deter Russia and to deal with the threats. We can be proud of what we are trying to do to deter Russia from the activity it is seeking to pursue.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as we approach Christmas, I am sure that my noble friend and all Members of the House would wish to thank the members of our Armed Forces and security services, who will be working over Christmas, at home and abroad, to keep us all safe. The Baltic states are on the front line against Russian aggression, and are doing a sterling job through the efforts of not only their armed forces but their populations. What more can NATO partners do to meet the defence expenditure goals that were set at The Hague earlier this year?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I join my noble friend in his congratulations and recognition of our serving Armed Forces personnel and their families who stand behind them. It is important to recognise that, particularly at this time of the year, as my noble friend has just done. I am sure that the whole House joins him in that.

Discussions are ongoing about how we can meet NATO expenditure targets. While those discussions around expenditure and budgets are ongoing, we can point to the many things that we are already doing. This includes through RAF fighter support within Eastern Sentry, the troops that we are committing, maritime support of Nordic Warden, and responding to the request directly from the Lithuanian Government, through NATO, to provide the counter-hybrid support team. Whatever is needed, we will do it. I say again that, in order to stop Russia and the aggression we face, this has to be deterred. As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, since 10 September and the adoption by NATO of Eastern Sentry, there have been no Russian military incursions into NATO airspace. That shows us all the value of deterrents.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I totally support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Callanan and Lady Goldie. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, both know that I, as someone who was involved with direct negotiations, albeit in 2019, remained unconvinced of one specific element above all else—I remain unconvinced of it today—and that was the security protections that have just been so eloquently narrated by my noble friend Lady Goldie.

In associating myself with those amendments, I will also press ahead on the archipelago and the lay of the land beyond Diego Garcia. I draw attention to paragraph 3(a) of Annex 1, which says that

“vessels and aircraft of the United Kingdom and the United States of America shall have unrestricted rights of overflight, navigation and undersea access”.

That is clear. It continues:

“States operating with the United Kingdom or the United States of America shall also have such unrestricted rights, save in respect of overflight or undersea access, which require notification”.


We need a degree more clarification to unwrap that provision, particularly on passage to and from Diego Garcia and the lay of the other parts of the archipelago. Like my noble friend, I press the Minister to give the specific assurance, which I certainly feel should be within the agreements signed with Mauritius, that notification does not mean before the event but after.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 67. This part of the agreement is being portrayed as though it has some type of special status. It is similar to the agreement we have with the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The UK and our allies use Cyprus as a staging post for a number of operations outside the Republic of Cyprus. The way it operates there is that the Government of Cyprus are not informed prior to the use of that base but, like in this agreement, are informed afterwards. I accept the point about the use of “expeditiously” —what it means is worth debate—but the way I read this is that it is no different from other bases.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said she was nitpicking. To be fair to her, I do not think she is: she is trying to get clarity on this important point. We want to ensure that our forces and allies have free movement and use of the base under this treaty. I do not think that our United States allies would agree with the Bill and treaty if they in any way limited their use of the base, not only for actions against other parts of the world but in the siting of various pieces of equipment on those important islands. We look for some reassurance on that point, but it is important to have clarity. That would certainly allay some of the fears raised, quite legitimately by some people and by others as scaremongering against the Bill.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, surely the fundamental difference with the two bases on Cyprus that he mentioned is that we kept them in perpetuity—they are sovereign bases. Yes, we have an arrangement with the Cypriot Government to inform them of activity after deployment takes place, but what concerns me about this particular lease arrangement is very simple.

At the moment, we have in place a Government in Mauritius headed by His Excellency Navin Ramgoolam, who is a democrat and a friend of his country. I had the privilege of meeting him a number of times when he was premier before. Indeed, he took over from a Government who were also democratic and had all the right intents. We had many arguments about this issue but, fundamentally, we were two democratic Governments discussing a matter.

The concern I have is this: what would happen if there were some sort of coup or a military Government in Mauritius? In these worst-case scenarios, we have to be prepared for the future. Let us hope for the best but prepare for the very worst. Could the Minister comment on what would happen to these arrangements in the treaty in that event? If, indeed, a military coup took place and an alliance was made with a hostile power, the operations of this base could be jeopardised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to deal with Amendments 58, 61 and 62, which are, largely speaking, probing amendments.

My noble friend Lord Morrow raised the question of whether the Government have breached their manifesto; far be it from me to suggest that. There are even some scurrilous rumours that they will raise taxes, but that will clearly not be the case, and such rumours will obviously be disproved in the next few hours.

I and others have been very critical of the deal, the legislation and the approach that has been taken by the Government. We have been critical of the treatment of the Chagossian people on issues such as the right to self-determination and the ceding of sovereignty. It seems to me that the response that the Government will offer as a rationale is essentially that, whatever the position on those issues—and I appreciate the Government will dispute the position that I and others have put forward—the outweighing factor is the securing of our strategic defence within the area and, if that is got right, that will trump everything else.

That is why the amendments in this group are so important, as they try to put that to the test. My amendments and, indeed, a number of the others, try to seek assurances. I am using the word “assurances” as I am reminded of a phrase that a friend of mine would use when talking of “clarification”. He would say that the purpose of clarification is often not to make things clear but to put yourself in the clear. Instead, I will ask the Government for assurances on the issue of defence. Is what is being put forward—what is said on the tin—being met by what is delivered in respect of assurances?

As regards the amendments, I want to deal with three issues that are interrelated. First, I want to probe the position as regards the potential. We know what has been secured directly on Diego Garcia itself, but I want to probe on the potential for the Mauritius Government to enter into arrangements with third countries, to have a movement by those countries towards other islands by way of a leasing or some other arrangement, which may then descend into some form of military activity, with monitoring bases and things of that nature.

Earlier today, in answer to an Oral Question, the Minister rightly indicated that it would be wrong to speculate on potential future events. However, this is not an issue that simply appears in a vacuum. We know that the Mauritius Government have had relatively close relationships with Russia, for example, and have been in discussions with India, and that there are ongoing discussions with China. Indeed, it is reported in relation to one of the islands—Peros Banhos, if I am pronouncing that correctly—that there are discussions around a leasing arrangement. It is clear that Mauritius will look towards the Chagos Islands as an opportunity to work with a range of other Governments to lever in what they have been given.

Specifically, the concern is with regard to China. Where arrangements have been made between other jurisdictions and China, they have led, in a military sense, to a level of mission creep. We have seen that these things are beginning to happen. There are a number of examples, from Sri Lanka to Djibouti to the Solomon Islands. We need a belt and braces approach to how we are going to prevent any level of development around that side of things.

I know that the Minister will respond in part by saying that there is provision within the treaty that, should there be any sort of military arrangement, Mauritius would then have to notify the UK Government and that, effectively, the UK Government could say no to such an arrangement. However, there are a couple of concerns in relation to that. Amendment 58 therefore looks to see what practical measures can be taken. We need to flesh out in very clear-cut terms what we can do. The concern, of course, is that any notification by Mauritius might be post the event. We might see a situation in which something is, for example, leased to the Chinese, who then develop their own mission creep. Mauritius could then turn round and say that, “Actually, this has been leased out to them, and we do not know what they are doing, and they have gone beyond that”. We need to tease out from the Government what they intend to do in practice in a situation where, for example, a listening station was placed on one of the islands or there was a range of other realistic possibilities.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

What the noble Lord is saying is very interesting, but the treaty protects the outer islands from development. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that is not part of the belt and road initiative, so its main interlocuter is not China but India.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

We can pick which Government are looking to lever in additional influence in the area. I am simply saying that China has a particular record of reaching agreements with other countries to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long, but I want to speak briefly to Amendments 20D, 20E and 20F from my noble friend Lord Kempsell and to Amendment 87 from my noble friend Lady Goldie. We have witnessed in recent decades an extraordinary alchemy in the South China Sea. Whole islands are called from the vasty deep, summoned like Brigadoon into existence, not by prayer but by the imperatives of Chinese geopolitics. Reefs are dredged into runways; lagoons are refashioned into naval installations; artificial islands are planted thickly with radar, missile systems and airstrips, and it is all done in the name of installing civilian infrastructure. None of those installations or airstrips is openly avowed as a military unit, so, when we hear that in this treaty there is an effective British veto for any kind of defence installation, I ask noble Lords to consider that no one is going to call it a defence installation. It is going to be done subtly, little by little, and it is going to be a much tougher proposition suddenly to object when we feel that a line has been crossed than at present when we have the unquestioned sovereignty over the entirety of the archipelago.

I did not want to misquote the US Secretary of State, so just after my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I looked up what he said on taking office. In November of last year, he said that the deal

“poses a serious threat to our national security”.

Obviously, he has changed his tune; people are entitled to change their minds. I just invite noble Lords to ask why he might have changed his mind. Is it that he saw a blinding figure on the road to Damascus and heard a voice saying, “Go into Damascus”—I think Marco Rubio has changed his religion at least twice, so I mean no disrespect to our most important ally. Or is it not more likely that he has been worked on by this Government’s officials?

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Could it not also be that when he came into office, he had not received the security briefings from his own intelligence services and possibly then he saw the importance of getting this deal and the permanency which it gives to both us and the United States?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

It is a very good point. I think there is a divergence, exactly as in this country, between the permanent apparat and the rest of the country, which would explain why my noble friend Lord Kempsell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, are speaking to very different sets of people. As the German ambassador to London in 1914 said to his French counterpart, “You have your information, we have ours”. It seems that there is at least a debate in the United States about this, and you can see why. As my noble friend Lord Bellingham said, there is a real prospect down the line that a future Mauritian Government may take a very different attitude towards the presence in the outer atolls of powers that are unfriendly to us. We have no assurance that we will always be on friendly terms with that republic.

The world is imperfect, I understand that. The world is sublunary. We are dealing with lesser evils, as is usually the case in politics. But when the Minister has justified this treaty and the treatment of the Chagossians, she has always done so by saying, “Our priority was the security of the base”. I just ask noble Lords on all sides to consider how this makes us more secure in an imperfect world than we are at present. We have obvious sovereignty over the entire region at the moment. We have the great advantage of its isolation. There is no prospect of anybody taking a leased island and putting any kind of listening infrastructure or anything else nearby. How does moving from where we are now to what is proposed in this treaty make us more secure, even if we set aside all the wrongs being done to the Brits of Chagossian origin?

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was on to something when he asked, “What if the Americans were to change sides?” But I am not sure that quite makes the point he intended. I just invite noble Lords to consider the wholly pecuniary terms in which Mauritius has considered this territory: not as part of its own demos, not as part of its own nation, but as an investment and a way of raising money—of paving its streets with gold, as my noble friend said earlier. Would it not be the ultimate humiliation if Mauritius were to trouser the sum of money that we are now paying it and then to turn around and sell the base to the United States? Where would that leave this Government? I would love to hear the Minister’s reply.

Ministry of Defence Procurement: UK-manufactured Products

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Beamish]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to maximise UK- manufactured products in its procurement decisions.

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

My Lords, the defence industrial strategy set a vision to make the UK defence sector more competitive, innovative and resilient, including measures backing UK businesses, lowering barriers to entry and increasing competitiveness by supporting SMEs through the defence office for small business growth, reforms to social value and exploring an offset policy, regional defence growth deals supported by £250 million and establishing the office of defence exports, helping businesses compete globally.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Under the national shipbuilding policy, the Ministry of Defence is committed to placing UK shipbuilding orders in UK yards to ensure a continual drum beat of work. Therefore, why, under the defence maritime services next generation contract, which has just been awarded to Serco, will 24 tugs and pilot boats be built by Damen in the Netherlands? Why are we exporting UK defence jobs to Holland and to a company that has recently been bailed out by the Dutch Government? I ask my noble friend to follow the German Government’s recent announcement that they will cancel their frigate order with Damen and to place those much-needed orders in UK yards.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will look at the specific example that my noble friend has raised about the awarding of that contract. As well as that example, I could give others of where we have been successful in ensuring that shipbuilding is seeing something of a renaissance in our country, not least the recent winning of the contract from Norway for Type 26 frigates on the Clyde. That was an enormous boost to British shipbuilding and to that part of Scotland. That is the sort of example that we want to build on, but I will look at the example that my noble friend raised.

Caribbean: US Military Action

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a very good question. What we have in Venezuela is an embassy in Caracas; we are the only Five Eyes member who has an embassy there. We make our points to the Government in Venezuela, but we also recognise the responsibility of having that embassy there and the importance of keeping it there so that we have a line of communication to all the parties in Venezuela. That embassy is extremely important.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I do not want to comment on this individual case, but my noble friend also knows that our intelligence sharing is governed by the Fulford principles, which came from a review of the consolidated guidance in 2019, which came out of the report of the ISC in 2018 into rendition and detention.

A principle, implemented by the Conservative Government at the time, is that we do not share intelligence if there is a likelihood that an individual is going to be extrajudicially killed or tortured. That is accepted by our international partners and well known and implemented by the security services. Does that not show that we have the highest regard for international law and that this was something the last Government were right to actually implement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point, and he is right to point out that the last Government implemented the particular review and the principles that he is referring to. All I am saying is that the lawfulness of the strikes that the US has conducted is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, what we are doing is consistent with international law and consistent with the principles of the UN charter, and that is something I am proud of with respect to our own Government.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will take that last point about procurement to my honourable friend Luke Pollard MP, who is the Minister in the other place. On defence spending, the debate continues on how much it should increase, but I am glad to see that the trajectory across Europe is towards increased spending. I will focus on the global strategy. Within the department, we are also working on a refreshed defence diplomacy strategy that we will see in due course.

On India specifically, I have been to India and spoken to officials about the relationship between our two countries and the trade that may take place. The noble Lord will know that the carrier strike group is visiting India on its way back. Again, that is part of the development of relationships between us and other nations. All that is focused. Whenever a Minister goes to another country—I am going to the Philippines next week—we put defence exports and business at the forefront of what we do. The carrier strike group had defence business activity all over it when it was in Tokyo Bay just a few days ago.

We are making progress, and I know that that progress is supported by everyone. Is there more to do? Yes, but there is an awful lot happening, particularly with countries such as India.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this strategy. It is the first proper defence strategy that we have had since the strategy produced in 2005 by the noble Lord, Lord Drayson. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: the pace at which it will be delivered is important. I must say to my noble friend that my heart sank a little bit when he started reeling off the list of committees that are going to oversee this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right: we need a cultural change. A possible idea would be to give each of the Minister’s civil servants a copy of the excellent book, Freedom’s Forge, by Arthur Herman, which talks about the rearmament of America in the last war. Can the Minister give assurance on the pace of delivery, and that regions such as the north-east, which, along with many others, has a proud history of supporting the UK’s Armed Forces, will be able not only to respond to it but to get investment from the MoD and suppliers?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely take my noble friend’s point on the need for pace. Even though I listed some committees, they will be the result of an amalgamation of certain bodies, so I hope that will be of some reassurance.

I thank my noble friend for his comments on the need for defence jobs and defence investment to be not only in the south and south-east but across the regions. He has been a brilliant champion of the north-east for a number of years in the other place. He has spoken to me about other industries, such as shipbuilding, with respect to the north-east and other areas of the country. As for the defence growth deals, we have seen two in England, in South Yorkshire and Plymouth, and then those in the nations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Such growth deals will ensure that the defence investment taking place will be spread across the country and benefit the whole country.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be so brief that they will not have enough time to put my name on the annunciator.

I welcome the agreement that has been reached and I think that this is a good example of the House improving what is an important Bill, which I hope will succeed in every respect. I pay tribute to all noble Lords, because I have been involved in that sense with the Bill since the beginning—I have an interest, which I have declared previously. It has been a very useful, good example of the House in action, and I particularly congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who has behaved in an exemplary way throughout the entire process. I am very pleased to see that the result that we have agreed will pass through and that the whistleblowing defence review will take place.

I have failed: they have put my name on the annunciator.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in welcoming not only the review into whistleblowing but the movement on this Bill, because it is an important one.

I just want to ask a few questions about the whistleblowing review. I do not want to be cynical, but we know that, in good old “Yes Minister” parleys, if you want to kick something into the long grass, you set up a review. So it is going to be important that, once the review is published, the terms of reference are correct and there is an indication of a commitment of the department to implementing the review—I think the Minister suggested the Armed Forces Act coming up, which would be a good way of doing it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, this is going to be a major issue for defence. Rightly, defence needs to be secret at times, and it is also important that the chain of command is in place. But I see this not as a threat to defence but as an opportunity for defence, because some of the best companies and others that have adopted open access and whistleblowing methods have actually added to their capabilities by learning the lessons.

If we are going to do this, the terms of reference will be very important. Trying to get the cultural change to which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred is going to be important. I do not think the problem is necessarily in the Armed Forces. Part of it is going to be within the MoD itself, and I think we have seen that in the fiasco of the last few weeks over the Afghan data leak. From my experience of being a Minister there, I know the stock thing is to protect the organisation. We need to try to turn this on its head a bit and say, “Look, if we do this properly, we can have a situation whereby if someone comes forward with a whistleblowing issue, don’t see it as necessarily an attack straightaway on the department or the institution. It should be seen as an opportunity to learn from that”. The important thing in any whistleblowing change is that there has also to be a commitment to implement what is found, because so often, these things happen and then nothing changes. There will be a huge cultural issue within the MoD. That would not just be welcomed by the general public and the Armed Forces but lead to efficiencies and learning lessons. It should not be seen as a threat or “Somehow, we have to have a knee-jerk reaction, and the important thing is to protect the department at all costs”.

Afghanistan

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, with his legal understanding and background, makes an interesting point. I cannot confirm whether that would be the right process and way forward but it is certainly something that should be thought about and considered. I will ensure that that suggestion is put into the process, but I cannot guarantee that it is the right way forward. I would need to talk to other colleagues about whether it is, but I thank him for his suggestion.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and Min AF for their briefing to me yesterday in my role as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. At that briefing, Min AF said that Defence Intelligence undertook an assessment of those individuals who were at risk. We now know from Paul Rimmer’s report that other assessments were taken forward by Defence Intelligence. The Intelligence and Security Committee is the only committee of Parliament that can actually look at these detailed intelligence reports. Contrary to what the former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, said on Radio 4 this morning, the Intelligence and Security Committee has full oversight of Defence Intelligence and does and can receive current intelligence. I therefore ask my noble friend: will the MoD now release these reports to the committee, or do I, at the meeting of the committee tomorrow, have to formally require the Government to produce these reports to the committee under our powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend, as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, points to its important role. I would think that every report should be made available to the committee, given that it was set up specifically to give parliamentary scrutiny to difficult intelligence decisions, but under the protection of the way in which it operates. I say to my noble friend that I would expect that to happen—I hope that there is not some process of which I am not aware that means I am not supposed to say so. In all openness, and in trying to be transparent about this, I would think that the Intelligence and Security Committee, given the way in which it operates, should have everything made available to it so that it can consider it and, where necessary, question Ministers and others.

F35A and F35B Jets

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but I do not agree with it. We, with our allies, simply have to guarantee the security of regions across the world, whether it be the North Sea, the Mediterranean or the Indo-Pacific. Our carrier went through the Red Sea, through the BAM into the Indian Ocean, which is under threat from the Houthis. The sailors and others on the ship had to write a letter home saying what might happen. We should celebrate the fact that we have people with a sense of duty that allows them to put their lives in danger to ensure that trade, communication and all the things we depend on can get through that narrow bit of sea. If that did not happen, our shops would soon be empty and our data would not work. Many of the things on which our standard of living depends would not function.

That is why it is important that we go to the Indo- Pacific and stand alongside the Americans. Let us be clear: we do not go there because only we want to—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia want us to go there. All those countries ask us to go there because they recognise the importance of ensuring the global trade routes stay open—it is the trade and prosperity on which our nation, and the nations of the world, depend.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches now.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the announcement of the procurement of the F35As. Some 15% of every single F35A will be produced in the UK. Does my noble friend agree that those who are calling for us to limit our involvement in this programme to try to restrict the export of these components would do huge damage to the UK economy and our standing in the world?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As always, my noble friend makes a really important point. He points to UK domestic production of the F35A. Of course, our exports are also really important. With that, and as I know my noble friend would, I welcomed the court’s decision yesterday in the al-Haq judgment, which was really important for our country.