Ukraine

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That this House takes note of the situation in Ukraine.

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

My Lords, almost exactly 12 months ago, we debated Ukraine here in this Chamber. Let us once again proudly say that, in that time, there has been no weakening of our resolve or that of the British people to support Ukraine; no stepping back from our determination to stand up with our NATO allies and beyond for democracy and freedom; and, so importantly, no division among us—virtually unanimously, this party, all parties and none, as I look across this Chamber, and both this Government and the last Government stood up against Russian aggression. And we will see it through, as will the British people. NATO has been strengthened, not weakened, and Europe stands ready to do what it takes. Let that message resound from this Chamber today.

Twelve months ago, Ukrainians were approaching their third winter of courageous resistance, defending their homes and homelands against Putin’s full-scale invasion, including many women on the front line. Let me start by paying tribute to the Ukrainian people, their resolve, their determination and their bravery. They humble us all, bringing tears to our eyes, including mine, when you see this at first hand. Whatever our words today, let that always be at the forefront of our thoughts, and we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, the former Ukrainian ambassador, making his maiden speech today.

Today, as they approach their fourth winter, on a macro level, depressingly, the picture remains broadly unchanged. While, thanks to Ukrainian courage, determination and ingenuity, and support from allies, Putin has still not achieved any of his overall strategic war aims, Russian forces continue to ruthlessly wage his illegal war, continuing to inch forward in a full-frontal assault on Ukrainian sovereignty and international laws and norms.

Let us remember, as we debate this here in the beauty of this Chamber, proud of our democracy, that Putin is increasingly hitting and killing Ukrainian civilians, with, according to the UN, a 40% increase in the number of civilians harmed this year compared with last. He continues to send Russians to their death in horrifying numbers, coupled with the targeting of Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure. These are sickening and cynical tactics that expose Putin’s comparative failures on the battlefield, where a long and increasingly blurred line of contact, and Ukrainian courage and ingenuity, have turned an invasion that Russian planners thought would be measured in days and kilometres into a quagmire, measured in years and metres. A special military operation to remove President Zelensky, take Ukraine and weaken Europe in days was the original intention—a puppet Government in Kyiv. A protracted war for four regions that Russia has proved itself incapable of taking has galvanised President Zelensky and, indeed, galvanised Europe.

Yet, behind this familiar big picture, much has changed over the last 12 months. The Government, with the overwhelming support of Parliament and the British public, have massively increased the scale of UK support for Ukraine as, together with partners, we have ramped up our sanctions to constrain Putin’s war machine, and after three and a half years of brutal and deadly war, the strength of Ukraine’s resistance and European resolve, coupled with the election of President Trump, have finally put peace talks on the agenda.

Earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary outlined the latest tranche of UK sanctions designed to weaken Putin’s war machine and ensure that his thirst for war comes with a clear cost. She set out measures that outlawed 19 new Russia-related individuals and entities, including Russia’s two largest producers of oil—Rosneft and Lukoil. We warmly welcome President Trump’s decision to mirror those sanctions.

The latest UK sanctions package also targeted refineries around the world that import Russian oil, suppliers of drones and missile components, and 44 additional shadow fleet vessels, taking the total number of Russia-related individuals and entities sanctioned by the UK to over 2,900, including more than 500 shadow fleet vessels—more than any other country. That uptick in our Russia sanctions mirrors the uptick in our support for Ukraine.

To help get bomb-damaged power supplies back up and running, and help Ukraine through the winter, the Foreign Secretary announced £142 million in UK aid during her visit to Kyiv last month. To help protect Ukrainian civilians from Russia’s urban bombing campaign, ensure Ukraine can stay in the fight and secure a just and lasting peace from a position of strength on the battlefield, we have used interest from immobilised Russian sovereign assets to step up UK military support, with this year’s military package hitting £4.5 billion—the largest ever level 4 UK support for Ukraine.

We have invested £600 million this year to arm Ukraine’s forces with a variety of drones, which is on track to boost the number delivered by the UK from 10,000 in 2024 to 100,000 drones this year. The Defence Secretary’s 50-day delivery drive over the summer provided nearly 5 million rounds of small-arms ammunition and around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, along with drones, counterdrones and air defence equipment. Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we would continue to provide Ukraine with long-range capabilities and confirmed that the expansion of a UK missile-building programme will enable us to deliver 140 air defence missiles ahead of schedule—part of the £1.6 billion deal for more than 5,000 lightweight, multirole missiles that are being made by workers at Thales in Northern Ireland.

Over the last 12 months, we have also extended Operation Interflex, the multinational training operation that has now trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian personnel here in the UK, until at least the end of 2026. As a demonstration that the whole of Europe has stepped up military support for Ukraine, in the eight months since the Defence Secretary took on the role as co-chair of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, we have raised pledges of military aid totalling over £50 billion. Of course, we also continue to work with the United States.

Because Ukrainian resistance has turned a war that Russia thought it would win on the battlefield into a war of production, let us never again read of Ukraine retreating because of a lack of equipment. We are greatly intensifying our support for and collaboration with Ukraine’s defence industries, which are at the cutting edge of drone development and are building increasingly effective long-range strike capability. We have entered a new technology sharing agreement with the Ukrainian Government, an industrial partnership, to develop and advance a new air defence interceptor drone—co-operation that will boost our respective capabilities and also boost British jobs. That builds on the recent £200 million investment in the UK by Ukrspecsystems—one of Ukraine’s biggest drone-manufacturing companies—which will see the latest drone technologies being developed and manufactured in and around East Anglia, creating 500 jobs.

The intensification of our military support and co-operation should not be necessary, because, this month, President Trump again opened a door and invited President Putin to stop the fighting and pursue peace. President Zelensky is ready to order a ceasefire and step through that door. The UK and Ukraine’s other allies are ready to support negotiations and have advanced plans to support peace. But Putin stubbornly refuses, choosing instead to instruct Lavrov to shun President Trump’s call for meaningful negotiations towards a lasting peace and, just a day later, fire another barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles and drones into Ukrainian cities, killing at least seven people, including a mother and her 12 year-old and six month-old daughters in Kyiv, and hitting a kindergarten full of children in Kharkiv, where one person was killed. Putin, again, chose war and civilian deaths over negotiations and peace.

Our Prime Minister, together with President Zelensky and 11 other prominent European leaders, issued an unequivocal joint statement in response to Putin’s latest rejection of President Trump’s diplomacy, insisting that Ukraine must be in the strongest possible position before, during and after any ceasefire, and that we must ramp up the pressure on Russia’s economy and defence industry until Putin is ready to make peace. That is why we so warmly welcome the new US and EU sanctions and why the UK and France continue to lead more than 30 nations in a coalition of the willing that will, in the event of a ceasefire, strengthen Ukraine’s path to peace and stability by deploying a multinational force for Ukraine, to secure Ukraine’s skies, secure safer seas and regenerate Ukraine’s forces.

Multinational force planning was discussed by the Prime Minister at the recent coalition meeting in London attended by President Zelensky. Command structures have long been agreed. Reconnaissance missions to Ukraine have been completed and the Defence Secretary has accelerated funding to ensure the UK force contingent is ready to go when called upon. UK and European partners are also working up options to use the full value of the immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine.

Today, we will debate battlefield tactics and strategies for peace. We will debate our support for Ukraine’s defence and how to ratchet up pressure on Putin’s war machine. We will debate how we stop Russia bombing civilians and—let us remember—how to reunite the thousands of abducted Ukrainian children with their parents, for which the First Lady of Ukraine deserves huge credit, as indeed does the First Lady of the United States. In 2025, children are being used as a weapon of war—what a disgrace, and what a shocking indictment of Putin and Russia.

It is beyond debate that Putin’s war remains illegal, immoral, unjust and unjustifiable. He could stop it today. In fact, he should stop it today, because rather than weakening Ukrainian statehood, Putin is galvanising it. Instead of turning a peaceful neighbour into a vassal state as he planned, he has turned Ukraine into one of Europe’s most capable military forces, which, after three and a half years of a brutal invasion, will never accept Russian rule or a Russian puppet Government. Each day that this war continues, Putin not only strengthens Ukrainian resolve but he also strengthens our resolve and the resolve of our allies and of our people. The last Government, this Government, all parties across this Chamber, and our European allies, remain in no doubt that democracy and the rules based international order matter, and that is what is at stake in Ukraine today.

Ukraine’s security is our security and Ukraine’s fight is our fight. The front line of European security runs through Ukraine. I am proud, as a UK Defence Minister, to say at the beginning of this debate that, as we approach Remembrance Sunday, this country has always stood up for freedom, democracy and human rights. We will never forget that, or the sacrifice of so many; a sacrifice that continues to inspire us today as those values are once again threatened by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Let it ring out from this Chamber today—however hard, however challenging, we can, we will, and we must prevail. Democracy, human rights and freedom demand it.

Undersea Cables: National Security Threat

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest: I was a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy earlier this year when we agreed to hold an inquiry into this subject.

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

My Lords, the Government keep the threat to undersea cables connected to the UK under close review, working to deter and mitigate identified risks. My noble friend will appreciate the limits to what can be said publicly, but the MoD constantly monitors activity within UK waters. This includes patrols conducted by Royal Navy assets, maritime patrol aircraft and the multi-role ocean surveillance programme. Following the strategic defence review, the Royal Navy will play a new leading and co-ordinating role, alongside the private sector, in securing undersea pipelines, cables and maritime traffic.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The House knows better than it did that undersea cables—not to mention the land cables under the City of London—are part of our critical national infrastructure because of the vital importance of the data they carry. The Joint Committee’s report said that “security vulnerabilities abound”. It recommended that we develop a UK-flagged sovereign repair ship, which the Royal Navy should practise escorting. Should we develop a seabed warfare strategy and, if so, what are the Government doing about it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly should develop one, and we are developing one. My noble friend is right to highlight that. We are undertaking a number of actions including surveillance aircraft from Lossiemouth, the ship “Proteus” looking at how it protects underwater assets, and the Royal Navy ship “Stirling Castle” looking at how it might operate drones from its deck to secure underwater pipelines, data cables and so on. We are doing a lot, but my noble friend is right to point out the importance of this.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, Ireland is a crucial hub for undersea infrastructure crossing the Atlantic, but it lacks the capabilities to defend against and be resilient to the destruction of that infrastructure. Moreover, its individual tailored partnership programme with NATO is coming increasingly under threat with recent political shifts in Irish leadership. What assessment have the Government made of the UK’s vulnerabilities to Ireland’s position, and what plans do they have for developing a resilience strategy in that regard in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. I wish to limit my answer, for obvious reasons, but suffice it to say that we talk with our Irish colleagues about some of these threats. Wherever a threat may come from, we take measures to defend our homeland from it. That includes surveillance aircraft, developing underwater technology and working with private industry to see what we can do. We are taking a range of measures. The noble and gallant Lord can rest assured that we take all threats seriously, wherever they come from.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

While most of the undersea cables are privately owned, much of the servicing and upkeep need to be carried out by Governments. What co-operation do we have with Norway, which is seriously involved in protection—not only regarding wear and tear but against sabotage?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have huge co-operation with Norway, as we have with many other countries, to protect underwater cables. The noble Baroness will know of Baltic Sentry and Nordic Warden, specific things dealing with the Baltic and the North Sea and particular operations that we have undertaken to protect them. She is right to point out that Norway is a key ally for us in so many ways, not least in underwater provision. We work very closely with Norway.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that our vital undersea infrastructure—including gas pipelines, internet connectivity and electricity interconnectors—faces an ever-increasing hostile landscape. I kindly ask the Minister to comment on the agreement signed last week with Germany that will see eight German P-8 Poseidon submarine hunters based in the UK, specifically for the purpose not just of hunting submarines but of adding greater protection for our industry infrastructure.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing that out. In answer to all these questions, the Government are doing a lot to tackle the threat that we face. He specifically references the meeting that took place between the Defence Secretary and Defence Minister Pistorius from Germany at Lossiemouth. He will know the crucial part that Lossiemouth plays in the support for our various aircraft and other surveillance that takes place. He will know that Germany offered to bring some of its aircraft to visit Lossiemouth to work with our aircraft with respect to underwater surveillance and other surveillance tasks. That is an important step forward for us all.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given that the Minister has confirmed that he has had conversations with the Irish Government in relation to the undersea cables, can he confirm that, given all the threats that are out there, Northern Ireland is a strategic place for the United Kingdom, particularly the Port of Londonderry?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I confirm that the MoD has had discussions with Ireland, rather than me personally. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK while the people of Northern Ireland want that. The noble Baroness’s point with respect to the importance of protecting that, and the important part that it plays for the whole UK, is really important, and we will certainly take that on board and keep it on board.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Disruption to cables would have potentially huge effects on communications, data and so on—so too, incidentally, would disruption to the satellite systems on which we all depend. The strategic defence review called for a national conversation about raising the country’s awareness of the threats we face. Is there any plan to have a national exercise, involving large businesses as well as government departments, local authorities and local voluntary organisations, to prepare for a major communications or data disruption?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, following up on the question in relation to Ireland from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the Taoiseach set up a Ministerial Council on National Security earlier this year. What government-to-government conversations are going on to ensure either increased information sharing or that extra infrastructure investment for the security of those cables is more co-ordinated?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really important point. Clearly, we are in conversations with countries such as Ireland to ensure that we work as closely as we can with our friends to try to ensure that we have the protection we need. Suffice it to say that we need 360-degree protection.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure what the dozen or so cables that are under the Atlantic between the UK and the US carry, but if you are a UK business, what should you be preparing for in case these are cut? How long will these cables take to repair if there is an incident of that kind?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The repair record for this country is one of the best in the world. This sits with DESNZ and DSIT, as well as with the MoD, but I think the average repair is eight days. There is also a co-ordinated plan to ensure that were a cable, for whatever reason, not to continue to work in the way that it should, the companies responsible for that can reroute whatever is flowing through those cables. In that sense, we have a pretty good story to tell.

As far as the MoD is concerned, we work to ensure that people know that should they threaten us, we have deterrents. In answer to my noble friend who sits on the Joint Committee, it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that we also operate a policy of deterrence, and we certainly try to do that.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, of course, it is important to remember that Israel has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN charter. Yesterday saw further strikes by Israel, this time on Houthi targets in Yemen. We know that the Prime Minister met Israel’s leader, President Herzog, yesterday. Could the Minister tell us what was discussed in that meeting and what practical steps the Government are taking to contain the growing instability in the Middle East?

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

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, Israel has a right to self-defence, but the Government are concerned by Israel’s strike in Doha, we condemn the flagrant violation of sovereignty and stand in solidarity with Qatar. I extend my personal recognition and respect to the Emir for his continued commitment to supporting peace negotiations. In discussions that the Prime Minister rightly had with President Herzog yesterday, he reiterated that condemnation of Israel’s strikes on Doha, which violated Qatar’s sovereignty and risked further escalation in the region. He pressed him to stop the famine from worsening by allowing aid in and halting IDF operations in Gaza City. He also shared his condolences for the horrific terror attacks in Jerusalem on Monday. They both agreed on the need for Hamas to immediately release the hostages, and the UK will continue its work to seek an enduring peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Could the Minister confirm whether there were British nationals within the vicinity of the strikes? What advice is being provided to British nationals in that part of Doha and indeed in Qatar overall?

The Minister must be aware that this has been a deliberate attempt to both undermine and end any negotiations. That must be heartbreaking for the hostage families. With this and the deliberate use of starvation of the civilian population in Gaza, the Netanyahu Government are now consistently breaking international law. So what practical, deliverable and meaningful decisions will the British Government make on our relationship with the State of Israel and the Netanyahu Government to ensure that the message is not just diplomatic but: “an end to business as usual in our relationship”? The breaking of international law is now consistent and is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not aware of any British nationals being in the vicinity of the strike. If that is wrong, I will write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library.

On the question of international law, we expect all countries to respect international law. With respect to what we have done specifically, we have supported, as the noble Lord will know, the calling of an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, which will take place, I believe, later today. We have said, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in meetings and discussions with President Herzog that we deplore the strike that took place. We have reiterated the need for an immediate ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid to enter into Gaza, and all the various other things that in the end will lead to talks that will lead to a two-state solution.

It is important to that we repeat our thanks to Qatar and the Emir of Qatar, who has shown great dignity and statesmanship in saying that he will not allow himself to be deflected from the course of peace.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I declare the interest of being involved in a consultancy which provides advice to the Government of Qatar. Is the Minister aware that, as is my certain knowledge, for many years now Qatar has provided a safe space for Hamas and Israel to negotiate safely within Doha, and that money paid to Gaza has been channelled in some part through the Israeli Government? What happened yesterday, after Qatar’s part in resolving a large number of issues, including the freeing of hostages, was a heinous betrayal of trust.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes the point for himself in his question. We have close and strong relationships with Qatar. I myself hosted the ambassador of Qatar at the recent military tattoo in Edinburgh, and met others around that to reiterate the points that the noble Lord has made. Again, as I said to the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the way that Qatar and its Emir have responded to this flagrant violation of its sovereignty is such an important statement about the Emir himself and the nation of Qatar, and they are to be congratulated on the fact that they are willing to continue with those peace negotiations.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I declare an interest as an adviser to the Council of Arab Ambassadors. The previous UK Government played a bridging role. Indeed, I remember facilitating the first engagement between the hostage families—I spent an extensive amount of time with them—and the Qatari Administration. The intervention of Qatar and other partners resulted in the release of 139 hostages. As has been asked, where do these events leave the status of Qatar today and the important role that it plays? Where are we on the important issue of bringing the war in Gaza to an end? Again, Qatar has played a key role, and the facilitation of the dialogue between Israel and Hamas in Doha was an important role that it was playing.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his question. The work that the current Government are doing is very much building on the work that he did when he was in government and the relationships that he established between this country and Qatar. I reassure him that we see Qatar as a continuing bridge between the different parties in the conflict in and around Gaza. Qatar is to be congratulated on the way in which it has tried to bring the two sides, Israel and Hamas, together to try to create a peace settlement. As the noble Lord points out, we continue to discuss with the Qataris how we might bring about an immediate ceasefire, see the release of the hostages and bring an end to what we are seeing in Gaza. Qatar remains crucial to that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is day 706 of the detention of the hostages who were abducted on 7 October. The need for settlement negotiations is even more urgent than it was last week. Will the Government do all they can to urge the Government of Qatar to continue their most valuable efforts to secure some sort of settlement of the appalling tragedy in Gaza?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. Part of everything I have said in response to this Urgent Question has been to highlight the crucial role Qatar has played, is playing and will play in the future. What should ring out from the questions noble Lords have asked and the statement I am making is that we are grateful. We admire greatly the Emir, his Government and the people of Qatar for the fact that they are willing, and have said so publicly, to continue their efforts to bring about the release of the hostages and that peace settlement. They are to be congratulated for that. We do not take it for granted, but we admire and respect their fortitude in the face of what happened.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with everything the Minister said about the Qataris, the Emir and the commendable restraint they are showing in the face of unprovoked provocation. Can I ask, specifically in terms of chronology, is it the Minister’s understanding that Israel let the White House know of the attack on Qatar as it was happening, before it happened or after it happened? If it was before it happened, what position were the Americans in to forewarn the Qataris?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to speculate on who knew what and when, but I think it is interesting to note what the White House said in response to the attack that took place. The President himself said that the strike on Doha

“does not advance Israel or America’s goals”,

and he feels “very badly” about it. I think those White House comments speak for themselves.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, despite the difficulties that have been caused by this recent action, does the Minister understand the frustration of knowing that the Hamas leaders, who planned the butchery on 7 October continue to know where the hostages are and be involved in that, stay safe? For many people in Israel and around the world, that is a source of frustration. At least understand that, rather than just simply having a blanket condemnation of Israel.

Secondly, there has been a lot of discussion in the press and among commentators as though even the aim of removing the Hamas leadership was illegitimate. I do not remember such discussions when it came to taking out Osama bin Laden. Although I do not want the diplomatic fallout from what has happened, I think the aspiration, at least, to remove the Hamas leadership is one that I have some sympathy with.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me just say this: there is no difference in this House about the condemnation of Hamas. There is nobody in this House who would support Hamas or any of its aims and objectives. It is important to remember that. I understand the point that the noble Baroness is trying to make, but you cannot have a situation where a sovereign nation has its sovereignty ignored in the way that Israel ignored the sovereignty of Qatar, particularly, I would say—I think the majority of us would say—when Qatar has played an absolutely crucial role in trying to bring different parties and factions of Israel, Hamas and others together to try to resolve this conflict. I say again that the fact that they are willing to continue with those efforts brings nothing but admiration for them, the Emir and the people of Qatar.

Defence Industrial Strategy

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who has such expertise in this area. We on these Benches also welcome the Government’s announcement of this new defence industrial strategy. We support the objectives of both boosting defence capability and increasing economic activity within our country. As someone who has worked in the sector—I no longer have an interest in it—I can say that, in the main, the jobs in the defence sector are high-quality jobs that pay well over the national average, so they are very worthwhile jobs for our citizens. More than that, they will contribute in large measure, we hope, to the resilience and security of our country.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I will focus on procurement. I will not repeat the questions that she has already asked, although I am very interested in the answers. It is clear that an improved framework is needed and that, in the Government’s own words, waste, delay and complexity have prevailed. Big changes are therefore needed. We also support the aims of involving more SMEs and driving innovation. These are important, but how? Section 7 of the strategy sets out some details of process, but I would suggest that, as well as process, this all requires an entire change of culture across the sector, from the MoD to the primes and the SMEs. How will the Government fast-track the necessary culture changes that we need in order to move at pace?

The implementation of a UK offset regime is welcome and the sections in the strategy are encouraging. I appreciate that consultation is needed, but I also note that there are—we hope—contracts being let already before this regime is put in. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how any offsets will be gained from contracts that are let before then?

Similarly, a buy British focus is really good and very important. However, some contracts are being let at the moment that do the exact opposite. They are contracts that may call into question the future of established capacity in this country: capacity that, once lost, will not be regained. Can the Minister therefore ensure that these are reviewed as soon as possible to ensure that permanent damage is not being done before this strategy is implemented. I will be happy to discuss further details on that with the Minister.

In the Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves confirmed an extra £2.2 billion of UK military funding. This increase will be paid for by cuts in overseas aid, which the Minister knows we deplore. This strategy contains spending of £773 million on the Government’s estimate, but can the Minister confirm that this is not in fact new money, but money out of the pot that was announced in the spring by the Chancellor? At the time, the Chancellor also announced the new Defence Growth Board. Can the Minister say what role this will play, and indeed what role it has played in the preparation of this strategy? How does this fit with the new defence investors advisory group that is announced in the strategy?

I also seek information on the whereabouts of the Defence Growth Partnership, which has been in place for some time and shares many of the same aims, particularly around SMEs and innovation. What is its role? Is it still working and how does it contribute?

A key drag on the success of this strategy will be the lack of available skills. Part of this announcement includes skills investment, which is largely focused on five new defence technology colleges. This is also welcome, as is the emphasis on apprentices. However, what is the role of Skills England in all this, given that it was supposed to be part of the picture on the national skills programme.

Following events, it is very clear that things are moving very fast globally, and moving in the wrong direction. They underscore the vital importance of working alongside our European allies in securing the UK’s defence. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, we continue to play key roles in JEF, E3 and other groupings, while NATO is of course our foremost security defence relationship and always will be. However, more can be done to deepen the co-operation and integration with our European allies. They share security challenges and together we can build scale to rearm at pace. Will the Government, for example, now agree to seek the UK’s associate membership of the European Defence Agency?

While EU institutions have a more limited role in defence, the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—defence fund is being established by the EU Commission. Recognising the opportunity that SAFE presents, the Minister of State, Stephen Doughty, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Monday:

“It is a €150 billion instrument. It is very significant and could lead to significant opportunities for our defence industries”.


Can the Minister therefore update your Lordships’ House on the UK’s discussions with the Commission and the nation states on our participation in SAFE and tell us whether UK industry will be eligible to bid in the first round, which I believe is in November?

I have lots more queries, but I close by saying that this strategy is a first step and I absolutely concur with the noble Baroness that implementation is key to its success. We will happily support and work with the Government to help deliver the strategy and its objectives.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive comments about the strategy and the important questions he asked. I know it is from a position of support for our overall direction. I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie; I know that her questions are from a position of overall support for the strategy, but seek clarification on how we can improve it in the interests of our country and the nation’s Armed Forces. I very much appreciate the comments from both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

Notwithstanding the points that have just been made, sometimes we, as a nation, do not praise some of the things that are happening. Yesterday I was at DSEI at the Excel centre, which I know the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be aware of. It was a phenomenal statement about UK industry and UK business—small, medium and large—and what a phenomenal statement about the projection of British power across the globe. Many noble Lords have told me they have been, or will go, to DSEI and they too have been overwhelmed by the number of foreign visitors, armed forces and businesses that are here.

So, yes, there are questions about our strategy and how we might do better, but I challenge anybody—and this is for the audience out there, rather than in here—to not say that we have an awful lot of which to be proud in this country when we look at DSEI. I know that is a view shared by everyone, and it is an important starting point.

The strategy seeks to do more in different ways. I will try to run through many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Yes, it is about trying to get to war-fighting readiness. We cannot have a situation, now or in the future, where we cannot do what we want to do because we cannot produce the equipment we need at the pace we need it. We must do better than we have done, and part of that is building our sovereign capability. Of course we will work with our international allies, but sovereign capability has been something that we have not given enough attention to over the past few decades. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about the implementation plan. A whole chapter is dedicated to implementation. In each part, there are matrices about being held to account. The noble Baroness is right that on page 30 there are things that have yet to be implemented. I would point out that the strategy was published on Monday, but we are doing our best to get going.

On implementation, can I read directly from a note I was given, since I asked about this? An implementation team headed by a senior civil servant has been created. The Chancellor and the Defence Secretary—note to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—will hold the department to account via the defence growth board, and the Defence Industrial Joint Council will monitor delivery with our industry partners. The defence growth board will continue to exist to try to ensure, through the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, that all the various things that are outlined in the strategy are delivered.

In relation to what the noble Baroness said, we are working hard to try to protect jobs with respect to Typhoon. We have allocated £6 billion to munitions factories over the lifetime of the Parliament, with the six additional munitions sites, to try to ensure that we can have the munitions that we need. The defence investment plan will be this autumn.

The 10% reduction in the Civil Service headcount that the noble Baroness referred to is the aspiration. The new boards and bodies that are set up will see others disappear, others amalgamated, but all of it trying to give a greater focus. The noble Baroness went through some of the new bodies. They are not in addition to the existing bodies; they are going to be more directly focused to deliver the outcome we want and will subsume some of the existing bodies. We wait to see how that happens.

On the national armaments director, we have an interim director who will be in post for a period while we recruit the new director. I am not certain of the exact timetable for that. In terms of intelligence spending and defence spending, I think the amalgamation of that is not a smoke and mirrors; it is to try to reflect the reality of the new geopolitical context of our time, where we talk about homeland defence, cyber, and the importance of our security agencies working with our Armed Forces. The totality of the defence and security of our nation encapsulates all the above, and that is the totality of the spending. The noble Baroness and others can debate whether it is enough, but that is the concept behind joining those two together—to give us a sense of how much is being spent in the sphere. I know my noble friend Lord Beamish is behind us and will know the importance of some of the work that intelligence does to keep us safe, particularly from a homeland perspective.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about fast-tracking cultural change. I totally agree with that. Let me give the noble Lord one example of that. Why does the urgent operational requirement operate only when there is a war or a crisis? Why can we not bring that same culture—I think the noble Baroness asked this when she was a Minister—that same process and that same attitude to the situation when it is not a crisis or a war? It is not about being flippant; it is not about disregarding proper financial process, but it is about saying: “Come on, let’s get these decisions made; let’s give some certainty; let’s give a drumbeat to orders”. If we can do that, we will do ourselves a favour. I am perfectly happy to meet the noble Lord and others, if he wishes, with my colleague. I will volunteer him for it with the Defence Procurement Minister, and we can discuss the point he made about offset.

Offset is a really interesting concept as we go forward—the idea of trying to have mutual benefits. If we buy abroad, how can we ensure through offset that we do not lose any benefit that may accrue or that a complementary benefit accrues to UK industry? I take the noble Lord’s point, which was on what happens before the offset system comes into effect, and we will consult on that. What happens if decisions are made now? I will take some advice on that and talk to the noble Lord and his friends.

The noble Lord also mentioned skills. Skills is a massive issue for our country. If a cultural change is needed anywhere, it is in trying to ensure that skills-based occupations, skills-based learning and skills-based opportunities are seen to be as valuable as some of the other opportunities. That the skills option is not seen in that way has bedevilled our country for decades. We are trying to deal with that through the defence technical colleges. We are going to work with Skills England and the devolved nations—he will have noticed that the devolved colleges are here.

On working with our European allies, of course we will work with them. We have the EU-UK security and defence partnership. I say to the noble Lord that we could not have entered SAFE without an EU-UK security partnership. The fact that we have that means that we can start to answer all the questions that the noble Lord has asked.

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their support; I hope that I have answered many of the questions that they asked. This is an exciting time. At the end of the day, the defence industry is on the front line with us. If we want to defend our democracy, we need to improve, extend and develop our industrial capability as well.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce UK, I am absolutely delighted with the defence industrial strategy. Back in 2019, we debated the 70th anniversary of NATO. I was the only Peer in that debate who said that our defence expenditure should be 3% of GDP, rather than 2% as it then was. I am delighted to see that the strategy says that we are going to go up to 3.5%. Does the Minister agree that, sadly, with the world that we live in now, it will probably need to go up to 5% very soon?

The strategy is very good, but it does not talk about global strategy. I am co-chair of the India All-Party Parliamentary Group. Given our skills that the Minister spoke about, is there not an opportunity to partner with countries such as India, which has defence manufacturing as a priority, to our benefit as well?

The Minister spoke about skills. What about universities? As a former chancellor of the University of Birmingham, I have seen first-hand the power of business and universities working together. There is huge potential here for defence.

Finally, on defence procurement—which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spoke about—should it not be compulsory for everyone in defence procurement to be qualified through the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, which is headquartered here in the UK?

[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.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this Statement, with its intent to create British jobs across the UK and make defence an engine for economic growth. I especially like—this will come as no surprise to the Minister—the reference to a union dividend. I want to probe the Minister a little on how SMEs across the UK—including in Northern Ireland, where we have a history of innovation and flexibility—can be practically helped to be part of the supply chain in those huge announcements, such as the one we saw last week with Norway. How can we practically help those companies to become part of the supply chain in those enormous deals? I congratulate the Government on that as well.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comment about the Type 26 success that our country had and the frigates that will be built on the Clyde. It is a massive success for our industry. I also thank her for her continued efforts with respect to small businesses, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the UK.

I hope the noble Baroness will notice that in the defence industrial strategy we tried hard to make sure that all the regions and the nations of the UK were properly represented. In one diagram on page 33, the noble Baroness will see the number of jobs in Northern Ireland: a total of 3,300 MOD-supported direct industry, civilian and military jobs. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that we need to make sure that it is not only Thales in Northern Ireland which is of benefit, important as that is, but the small and medium-sized businesses. I do not want to incur the wrath of my noble friend Lord Beamish, but we have set up a specific body to drive small business growth and made a commitment to ensure that billions of pounds-worth of investment in the industry is directed towards small and medium-sized businesses.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, but some noble Lords will be used to that. I strongly support industrial policy, but the coupling of defence and industrial strategy needs some thought. It suggests that industrial policy is driven by military needs, whereas in fact the case for industrial policy needs to be made apart from that. To a student of economic history, it is reminiscent of military Keynesianism, which was born in the Second World War, continued in the Cold War and dropped only with the end of the Cold War. There seems to be a pattern here.

Is the Minister entirely comfortable with basing the case for industrial policy on the need to rearm, as developed in the strategic defence review? I support industrial policy, but I would not want to hinge my whole argument on the need to rearm. That itself is something that needs to be discussed quite independently of the case for industrial policy.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord has an opinion that not many people agree with, including me, but I appreciate that he puts it forward time and again in a respectful, calm and intellectual way. He is to be congratulated on that.

My argument to him would be this. There is a need to rearm and a defence industrial policy has to be geared towards the rearmament that needs to take place. I will give him one example, with which I know he will disagree. My premise is that it is a good thing that we are supporting Ukraine. Despite what we have been doing, with the defence industry as it was, we—not only us but other European countries—were not able to deliver the equipment necessary for Ukraine to do all that it wanted to do as easily as it could. That is a difficult, if not dangerous, position for us and our allies to be in.

I made this point at DSEI yesterday. I said that, as a Minister of State for the UK MoD, I do not want to be in a position where I believe in supporting Ukraine but read in the paper—as I did, going back probably a year—that Ukraine had had to withdraw because it did not have the necessary military equipment to continue the fight. That is not a situation we should be in. Part of dealing with that is to develop our defence industry and improve its capability and capacity, so we are not in a position where we cannot support those we would wish to support.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests re the defence sector. As has been said, there is much to welcome in this document, but we need a full day debate on the subject. To try to rush everything in 40 minutes or so is, frankly, ridiculous and an insult to the importance of it.

There is a small number of specific questions I would like to put to the Minister. First, there is no mention in the document—I found this disappointing—of the need to reduce the bloated number of civil servants already employed by the Ministry of Defence. What plans has the Minister got to streamline defence procurement personnel? Secondly, the very important role of the new National Armaments Director is a massive job and probably will be one of the most important in the UK. What sort of salary level are we talking about to attract the top people available? Page 18 of the strategy document, on resilience and reducing supply chain vulnerabilities, talks about an additional £1.5 billion in an “always on” pipeline for munitions. Could the Minister give me an indication of how that is arrived at? Finally, and this has not been touched on at all, have hugely important production sites in the UK, such as at Barrow, that are vital to our national defence. Is any thought being given to the protection of these key sites in the deployment of anti-missile systems and similar? There is nothing that I can see in the document about this and it is something we should begin to focus on.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. On his first point, about personnel, and his last point, about the security of sites, this is not the only defence document. There are defence documents that deal with personnel and what we might do about that. Similarly, there are reviews concerning the security of sites, partly because of Brize Norton but partly because we recognise there is a need for investment in that. He will see, over the next few months, various announcements made about the better protection of not only industrial sites but military bases—as he will with respect to personnel. That is the point I would make: not every single thing to do with defence is in the defence industrial strategy.

The National Armaments Director pillar exists only because of the defence reform we have introduced to create four pillars within the Ministry of Defence, of which the armaments director is one. The noble Lord is right about its importance. I do not know the exact figure—I can look it up and write to him—but it is the necessary salary. I remember looking at it and thinking it was a lot of money, but that is based on my idea of what a lot a money is. I thought it appropriate, let us put it that way.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

Will the Minister write to me?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will put that in writing for the noble Lord.

The “always on” pipeline is about trying to ensure that we have a situation where we can always, if we need to, step up our production much more quickly, rather than be in a situation where we have to wait two years before we can do this or that. An “always on” pipeline means, in essence, that we can get the equipment and munitions we need quickly.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, this is a very welcome strategy; I give it my full support. I will give it even more support when its theory and proposals have been turned into practicalities. The problems and delays that we have experienced in replacing war stocks that have been passed to the Ukrainians are well known and underline the need for proper resupply and resilience. One of the issues is around the recently announced building of six new munitions factories. Is the Minister in a position yet to say where they will be and when they will come on stream? Also, who is going to meet the cost of setting them up?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The state will work with others to support the establishment of those munitions factories. I am not in a position at the moment to say to the noble and gallant Lord where those six places will be; that is still a matter for discussion. As far as I am aware, that has not been resolved yet, but, if I am wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord. As of this evening, I believe that there is no news on exactly where those six places will be; if I am wrong, I will write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library to correct the record.

On the noble and gallant Lord’s more general point about munitions, he is right—this goes back to a point that a number of noble Lords have made—that we have to be in a situation where we can manufacture the equipment and munitions that we need. We must be in a position where, if we need to fight, we can fight because we have the sovereign industrial capability to do it. We are not in that situation at the moment. We are not in the place where we need to be, particularly given the current situation. The entire industrial strategy is about ensuring that the UK has the military industrial capability and capacity to do the things it needs and to fight the wars it might have to fight. I hope—I know that the noble and gallant Lord supports this—that we reach a situation where, by preparing for war, we deter war.

[Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)]

My Lords, one area where the UK has a unique specialism is demining. We are home to the world’s two largest demining organisations: the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. It is important that we continue to build on this world-leading expertise, as the unprecedented rise in global conflict means that the need for mine action has never been greater. Will the Minister consider what more His Majesty’s Government can do to uphold and strengthen the UK’s commitment to the global mine action programme?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have met members of the Halo Trust; I am perfectly happy to meet them again if that would be of any help.

We are committed to demining and all of the various treaties on it. We are proud to be a part of that. We will continue to pursue the objectives of those treaties and of bodies such as the Halo Trust, which try to prevent mines being placed in the first place, as well as supporting demining; we are very supportive of all of that. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing up a subject that is slightly different to some of the things that we have been discussing but is still hugely important to both our country and various other countries around the world.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming the Statement, I want to press the Minister further on the role of SMEs in defence, innovation and supply chains. Will the Government ensure that the UK’s space economy, which is vital for secure communications and situational awareness, is embedded in defence planning and procurement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course. That is a really important point and another aspect of the development of an industrial strategy. On small businesses, when we launched the defence industrial strategy on Monday, I deliberately went to Drone Evolution, a small company in Caerphilly, to highlight the importance of small businesses and the contribution that they make to the security of our country. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister suggests that campaigns to boycott and target defence firms, particularly on university campuses, are based on misunderstandings. Does he acknowledge that the campaigns occur in the context of British arms sales to dubious—and worse—regimes around the world? There is Israel, of course, under the dark shadow of the indescribably awful situation in Gaza. There is also, notably, Saudi Arabia, which is infamous for its internal human rights abuses. Saudi Arabia is on track this year to beat its own awful record of executions; Reprieve reports 241 to 5 August. Then there is the slaughter that it is linked to in Yemen, as well as the abuse of women’s human rights. Yet, in the first three months of the Labour Government, £1.65 billion of arms exports to Saudi Arabia were approved. Does the Minister agree that there will continue to be resistance while such sales occur?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me give a general answer to the variety of points made by the noble Baroness. Of course people can campaign against what they see as the arms trade and against what they see happening in various places across the world. Of course they can campaign about Israel and Saudi Arabia; they can campaign about a whole range of different things. What the document says, however, is that the defence industry is a perfectly legitimate way of doing business in the country.

People like me, and many others, take the view that preventing people being able to offer jobs and opportunities to people at universities or through various trade fairs—that is, the inability of people to do so without fear of intimidation—is not right, either. So it is a dual responsibility. I perfectly accept that, as long as the noble Baroness or anybody else conforms to the law and is non-violent, they can protest. As we saw, there are protesters at DSEI every year—although some went beyond. They are perfectly entitled to protest as long as they keep to the law. However, people are also perfectly entitled to go to DSEI, to purchase defence weapons, and to look at and discuss with other people what more might be done to ensure that we have the equipment we need. That is the only point I would make.

There is not a moral certainty on one side or the other here; that is the point that I want to make. I am sorry to go on about this. It is the same with respect to whether the Armed Forces can go into schools, to defence fairs and all of those things. Of course they should be able to do that. All of those things are really important. It is not a case of, “These people can protest but those can’t”; it is about people mutually respecting each other’s rights to pursue legitimate activity. I respect the noble Baroness’s right and that of others to protest against what I stand for and what I say, but I also recognise that I and many other people have a right to express our view as well.

Nuclear Regulatory System

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the interim report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published on 11 August, what steps they are taking to improve the UK’s nuclear regulatory system.

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

My Lords, the report identifies barriers to timely delivery of nuclear projects, including duplication and inefficiencies in environmental and planning assessments. The Government welcome the interim findings and continue to work with the regulators to understand opportunities to streamline the regulation of nuclear projects while upholding high security and safety standards. We are already taking steps to update the UK’s planning framework and aim to designate a new draft national policy statement on nuclear energy generation, called EN-7, before the end of 2025. The task force’s final recommendation will be published in autumn 2025 and the Government will respond in due course.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer and welcome him to his new role. He will know, from defence, how we have been producing small nuclear reactors for over half a century, and we were world leaders in nuclear energy. Fortunately, the Government have now made a decision on small modular reactors, after years of dither and delay by both Governments. We cannot permit further regulatory delay to progress. As he has identified, that is clearly the message of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, but can he be much more specific about when it will actually get on with it? “In due course” is not sufficient.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I should have read the Answer I read out more carefully; I thought that when I read out “in due course”. The serious point, I say to my noble friend, is that the report outlines the fact that recommendations are needed. Those recommendations will be made in autumn 2025. The Government are already discussing, across government, how they should respond to that. There will be a task force, there will be cross-government working to ensure, as my noble friend says, that the report is not just something we all read and agree with, but something we read and act on. It is our desire to come forward with concrete steps. We will bring those forward, and my noble friend will be able to see them for himself, but speed is of the essence.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the main finding of the interim report is the need for a firm steer from the Government to establish a strategy for nuclear safety, because the current policy does not address a strategic direction on safety management. As the report recommends an immediate start on this, and the publication of a consultation paper alongside the task force’s final report, will the Minister commit today to such a timetable?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend, we will do everything as speedily as possible. We will move forward on this. I say to the noble Lord: safety is of paramount importance, of course it is, and there cannot be any compromise on that, but we have to get on with this. In the mid-1990s, 25% of our electricity was generated through nuclear; it is now 15%. Even with the new power stations that have been agreed, unless we do more it will go down. That is not good enough; we have to do better than that—with the small modular reactors that my noble friend talked about and with the new power station that was recently agreed by my right honourable friend Ed Miliband MP. There cannot be any compromise on safety, but neither can there be the situation where, time after time, decisions are delayed and nothing happens. The consequence of that is that our economy suffers and jobs are lost. That is not good enough and we are going to do something about it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, we should concentrate on and give priority to building smaller nuclear reactors, as the Minister’s noble friend has suggested, which can be built in two years, rather than building the gigawatt giants, which apparently we are dedicated to doing, which take years to build and are far more politically risky and far more likely to raise political dangers.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree up to a point with what the noble Lord has said. Our big power stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley Point C are part of the answer. He is quite right to say that alongside that the small modular reactors are necessary. He will know that Rolls-Royce has three which have gone through the generic design assessment. Two additional GDA requesting parties have met the threshold to enter and there are others at other stages of the process. He is quite right to point out the need for small modular reactors, which can be done more quickly and are part of the answer to our energy needs, but nuclear has to be a part of that. Small modular reactors will be a part of it, alongside the big stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. The report rightly mentions the planning system environmental regulations, as the Minister said, as a barrier to the nuclear rollout. Of course, we have a legislative vehicle for any changes going through your Lordships’ House at the moment in the form of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to really join the dots between those two things and ensure that we take the opportunity with that Bill to ensure that it delivers on some of those recommendations? If we have to wait for a future planning Bill to come through, we simply cannot afford that time.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that and the Government are responding to that request. We are not waiting to legislate through the planning Bill. EN-6, the current framework within which these decisions are made, listed eight sites designated for nuclear applications. EN-7, as I mentioned in my Answer to my noble friend, will be published as a draft, as I understand it, by the end of the year and will soon be put into place. That will change those planning regulations to ensure that any site can be used to be apply for a nuclear designation. Of course, it will have to go through the planning process and be subject to all the safety regulations, but it will open up a number of sites for people who want to have small modular reactors or other nuclear provision—sites that, at the moment, they are excluded from applying for. I think that is good progress.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about SMRs as opposed to major gigawatt developments? Does he accept that we need both and that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite wrong in his criticism of Sizewell C? It is going to supply 6% of our electricity generation. It is a replica of Hinkley Point C so a lot of the risks are being ironed out. We should be giving our support to this fantastic development.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and in answering my noble friend, of course it requires the big nuclear power stations such as Sizewell C and Hinkley C, as my noble friend has said. They are clearly part of the answer to providing our energy needs through nuclear and these big power stations. Alongside that, of course, we need the small modular reactors. They can be put in place more quickly and can be a part of the contribution to ensuring that we can meet our energy needs. Rolls-Royce, Holtec, GE Hitachi and a number of others are all trying to take this forward and, as my noble friend says, they are part of the answer, as well as these big stations.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this interim report. It highlights the need for international collaboration to standardise and harmonise industry and regulatory approaches, the costs and time delays of which can be terminal to many innovative nuclear technologies and projects. We speak a lot about SMRs, but we must not forget the perhaps more interesting AMR technologies coming soon. It is imperative that the UK leads this effort, given the vast power demands of tech companies which really want to work with the UK. Who from the Government will lead the charge alongside our excellent chief inspector so that vendors have the trust and confidence they need to create investable projects?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course, the charge will be led by the Government. The Government believe in nuclear and in international collaboration. The Secretary of State, along with others, will provide a whole-of-government response. We welcome the support of industry, the Opposition and across the House and this Parliament for achieving that. Of course, it will be what we do nationally, but there will be international collaboration as well. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this because together we can sort out this energy problem, deliver much more quickly, and ensure that our planning process supports delivery to meet the needs that we have for energy, whereas sometimes it gets in the way.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that if this Government want a renaissance of nuclear power, they must also take reasonable measures to deal with the historical legacy of nuclear waste? What plans do the Government have to address the problem now that the Treasury has described the plans for a geological deposit facility as unworkable?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand the need to deal with nuclear waste. If you look at defence, which I primarily have responsibility for, there is a huge amount of work going on with respect to the dismantling of waste from nuclear submarines. We are looking at a whole range of options to do with that and we recognise the importance of dealing with waste.

Ukraine: Negotiations

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current state of negotiations for ending the war in Ukraine.

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

My Lords, before I answer the Question, let me quickly pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins for all the work he did with the Foreign Office and wish him well in the future.

We remain focused on putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We welcome President Trump’s efforts to end the war and are working closely with the US, Ukraine and our other partners to achieve a just and lasting peace. We continue to work with partners to ensure that Ukraine is able to defend itself against Russia’s aggression. The UK has committed £4.5 billion in military support this year alone, and we continue to ramp up economic pressure on Russia to get it to stop the killing and engage in meaningful talks.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I press him more fully to explain what contribution he thinks our country can and should make to the peace process? The Government have insisted on the need for British and European forces to be stationed in Ukraine to guarantee the integrity of any ceasefire and, indeed, of the peace settlement. The Russian Government have said that they would not accept the presence in Ukraine of boots on the ground from that source. Given this, does not the Government’s insistence on the need for such a force imply that they expect the war to continue indefinitely? If not, how and when, and with what result, do the Government expect the slaughter to end?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. The first point that needs to be made is that it is up to Russia as well to engage in meaningful talks, and it is up to Russia as well to be sincere in the efforts that it is making to bring about the ceasefire and, in the end, to come to some agreement. The contribution that we have made is by insisting that Ukraine has a voice in whatever solution we can come to an agreement about; to keep the US involved, which is crucial to the integrity of any agreement or settlement that is reached; and to move towards what we are calling a reassurance force, as the noble Lord will know, to ensure that the security guarantee that Ukraine has after any settlement is real and meaningful. That is what we are trying to do to ensure that we end the war as quickly as possible. We are supporting President Trump in his efforts to do that, but I say again that it also requires Russia to enter the talks meaningfully.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We enjoyed our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I know that he spent many years shadowing the job in opposition and only too briefly enjoyed it in government. We wish him well for the future. We are pleased to hear that he is still on the Front Bench.

In recent months, we have seen a massive increase in the number of Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets, often involving hundreds of drones and missiles. Ukrainian air defences are often overwhelmed, as we saw earlier this week. Therefore, can the UK Government can do anything to supply Ukraine with additional military aid, specifically to support its air defences in the light of those attacks?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point about the need for air defences and their crucial nature. The UK, with our friends and our allies, including the Americans, who have just provided Patriot missiles as well, is seeking to ensure that we do everything we can to maintain the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. The noble Lord makes a really important point. While we were negotiating—while the Alaskan talks and other negotiations were going on—we saw an increase in the attacks on Kyiv by the Russians using those missiles. We will certainly do all we can to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, as ever, children are paying a terrible price in this conflict. We know about the forcible deportation of some 20,000 children from Ukraine to Russia—it is probably a lot more than that—and deliberate attempts to erase their identity. Most recently, we have heard press reports of an adoption database featuring Ukrainian children categorised by their hair and eye colour, described by an NGO as a

“slave catalogue of Ukrainian children to adopt”.

What assurances can the Minister give that the UK Government will use every means possible with their international partners, including the USA, to ensure that the fate of those children will be a red line in any peace deal?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Is it not unbelievable that, in a war in Europe, a nation is using children to further its objectives? How deplorable is that? Sometimes, words fail us. In this awful situation, we are doing everything that we can. We have made monetary provision to support the agencies working to bring the children back; we have provided millions of pounds for that. We continue to raise this at the United Nations. In all the various other international bodies on which we are represented, we continually raise this issue; we will continue to do so. It is barbaric; it is an outrage. We should all do everything that we can to protect those children and bring them back.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add a tribute to my noble friend Lord Collins. What struck me was his support right across the House and the authority that he brought to his role both in opposition and in government. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that Ukraine cannot be expected to agree to a peace settlement if there is not a proper security guarantee for its future? No leadership and no country could be expected to agree to a settlement in these circumstances without the necessary guarantee, as he mentioned.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree absolutely with that, and I think the majority of people do so too. For any ceasefire or any agreement to be meaningful, it has to be such that the security of Ukraine is guaranteed and the integrity of whatever settlement is reached is guaranteed. One thing we are sure of is that, in any plan that we take forward, we must try to do all we can to ensure that the Americans are involved as well.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will join me in welcoming the warm and strong words of support by President Trump for Ukraine, but will the Government remind the United States Government that the warmth of President Trump’s welcome in the United Kingdom in a few days’ time will be increased by his words being turned into deeds?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

New to the Foreign Office brief as I am, let me try to say that we are very pleased that President Trump is coming and look forward to making his visit a success. Our intention is to continue to say to the United States that it remains an important partner—our most important partner—and that we will continue to work with it to bring about peace and security in Ukraine as in other parts of the world.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first join in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I sparred with him for over seven years as a Minister. His support both inside and outside the Chamber was not just welcome but often very important to ensure the unanimity of the focus of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the country on issues such as Ukraine. Specific to Ukraine, what engagement has taken place directly with countries such as China and India, which, clearly, with the recent meetings held in China, have leverage with Russia?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We continue to raise these issues and make the case with all countries. There are regular meetings with respect to China where all sorts of issues are raised, including international matters. We also raise these issues with India. We continue to make the point on what we believe to be the correct approach in respect of Ukraine and the defence of freedom and human rights, and that that approach is in the interests of us all. We will continue to raise it with those nations.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the brute fact is surely that President Putin will continue his illegal war until he is forced to pay a much larger price than currently. What are the prospects of his country having to pay that price in relation to the effect on his economy of sanctions imposed by the US and by the European Union, and by the freezing and use by Ukraine of Russian assets abroad?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say is that we have sanctioned numerous individuals. We have taken action in all sorts of ways to deal with the shadow fleet. As far as seizing Russian assets is concerned, negotiations continue with other nations, because we need to get international agreement to do some of that, but we will take action economically to try to punish Russia as well.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I thought his view of the prospects for peace was somewhat glossy. Is not a better strategic assessment, first, that Putin shows absolutely no intention of seeking a protracted or final peace, perhaps other than a temporary pause for his own tactical or strategic advantage; that, secondly, the general trend of American policy is to slightly lessen or reduce the security guarantees to Europe; and, thirdly, therefore, that the security of and support to Ukraine will increasingly rest on the European pillar of NATO? I must now defer to the outcome of our own defence review. Although in many respects it was an excellent review, the resources are simply not going to be in place in time to deter Russia effectively.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble and gallant Lord and to the House. I did not intentionally try to gloss over the seriousness of the situation that we face; I was just trying to point out the necessity for us to continue the actions we are taking to try to achieve as successful an outcome as we can. As part of that, our involvement with the Americans is extremely important. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, we know there are sometimes issues and points made either by President Trump or on behalf of him, but we try extremely hard to be positive and to build a relationship with him, because the involvement of the United States in Europe and beyond is essential to the peace and security of our nation and our alliances. We will continue to do that, and I know the noble and gallant Lord will appreciate that as well.

On spending and the European pillar, the noble and gallant Lord will know that for many decades all of us as a European collection of nations simply did not spend enough on defence. We are now starting to see increases in spending right across Europe, including in our own country, which will allow us to deal with some of the challenges that we will face. As for our own nation, I know the noble and gallant Lord wants us to go further and faster, but he will know the commitment has been made for 2.6% by 2027, with an increase to 3% in the next Parliament should the circumstances allow, and he will have read in the Defence Industrial Strategy published yesterday about the aspiration for defence and security spending to reach 5% by 2035. So, there is a trajectory. It is not as fast and as much as the noble and gallant Lord would want, but, across Europe, we are seeing an increase in defence spending which we can all welcome.

UK Defence and Aerospace Facilities: Protests

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Austin of Dudley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of protest movements targeting UK defence and aerospace facilities and exports, on the UK’s security and economy, and the supply chains and reputation of the defence industry abroad.

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

My Lords, the Ministry of Defence tracks risks to the defence sector as part of its routine monitoring of supply chain resilience. Some UK defence companies have faced costs and disruption due to criminal damage and staff intimidation by groups such as Palestine Action. We are working with the police to address those offences and mitigate future risks. Although individual businesses have been affected, the overall impact on defence has been limited, with no significant effects reported on the defence supply chain or the reputation of our world-leading defence industry.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the defence industry is vital to our national security and our economy, not least when we must do more to increase support for Ukraine. It provides thousands of highly skilled and well-paid jobs. We have to stand up for it and support it and the people who work in the industry. It is not just buildings and equipment that have been attacked; workers have been intimidated and police officers have been injured as extremist groups have smashed their way into factories. This is not peaceful protest; it is a violent national campaign. Will the Government put in place a robust strategy to support the defence sector and get the people responsible for those attacks before the courts more quickly, as they were able to do with other examples of public disorder?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there seems to be an issue with public opinion at present about a failure to understand the importance of defence. Recent polling has suggested that many people of service age would not be willing to fight for our country. What are the Government doing to engage in the national conversation that the strategic review said was necessary to help people understand the importance of defence to our country and that any attack on the defence sector is also an attack on our own resilience?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point and, by asking the question, she starts to raise the conversation that we need to have as politicians about having more confidence to speak to the British public about why, as a country, we do the things that we do—and why it is extremely important that we do them. On a practical level, to make that rhetoric a reality, one thing that we are doing is to talk about the need for national resilience, the importance of protecting our critical national infrastructure and the importance of the reserves as well as the full-time personnel. The noble Baroness, who follows these matters closely, will also have seen the massive expansion that we are bringing to the cadet organisation in this country, which I think will help to make a very real difference.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, it is welcome to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the defence industry. Does he share my view that it is completely unacceptable for anyone who says that they support working people in industrial settings and, most of all, those who claim to represent working people to seek to excuse and underplay the level of intimidation and fear caused to workers in defence factories, who have been terrorised for many years? Those people who defend that should have no place in the Labour movement. Is that not right?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know the point that the noble Lord is making, but the general point is that nobody should face intimidation for going to work. That is a completely unacceptable way of behaving. The noble Lord has done a lot of work in this area and has defended the right to protest and the right for people to make their views known, but to do so in a way that is acceptable and according to the law. It does not matter what hat people have on when they speak about this; we all need to encourage people to behave appropriately and properly when it comes to protest.

[Lord McCabe (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that smaller suppliers, essential to our defence, often lack the resources to withstand sustained intimidation and sabotage? Will the Government provide targeted support against extremists to ensure that those companies can continue to deliver critical components to our Armed Forces and maintain Britain’s reputation as a reliable defence partner?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Obviously, the deployment of police resources is a matter of operational independence for the police, but my noble friend makes the important point that, whether it is a large business, a small business, an international business or a business located in a small rural area, they all deserve protection, whether they are the workers or the business overall. The important point of principle is that we are proud of our defence industry and, whether they are small, medium or big businesses, we will support them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, have the Government made an assessment of the impact on the UK’s reputation of not imposing sanctions on arms deals with Israel when the Palestinian people are facing genocide?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is an example of what I have been saying: the noble Baroness, in terms of freedom of speech, has been able to get up and say something in this Parliament about Palestine—this is something that we should point out—and to challenge the Government on what they have done with respect to this in an appropriate and proper way, as she always does.

The noble Baroness knows that the Government have made comment about the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages and all the things that the Foreign Secretary made a Statement about just a few days ago and has continuously made Statements about. She has also heard what the Prime Minister has said with respect to the recognition of Palestine unless Israel meets certain conditions. She will also know that, last September, the Government changed the export rules so that we stopped exporting arms to Israel that were going to be used with respect to Gaza. I know that the noble Baroness does not think that goes far enough, but the Government have taken proportionate and reasonable action to say to Israel that this is what we think is acceptable and to stand up for that while we also pursue the two-state solution that we all want.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain how a relatively unsophisticated attack was able to put out of action an RAF aircraft?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have sought to explain that. We have said that the security in place at that time at Brize Norton was not good enough. The noble Earl will have seen that since that incident we have been looking at what we do to improve and enhance security in the short term in our military bases, and in the longer term. The point that needs to be reiterated is that the people at fault are those who thought an acceptable way to protest was to break in—whatever the rights and wrongs of how they were able to do that. We all agree that it was unacceptable that they could do that. Why on earth do some people think it is acceptable to break into an RAF base and put at risk this country’s national security? It is not, and I am glad that through the proper processes people have been charged and we will see what the outcome of that legal process is.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the criminal penalties for violence and intimidation are perfectly adequate; what is necessary is for the police to identify the ringleaders and the perpetrators quickly, for the prosecutions to be brought to court without delay and for the courts to impose severe sanctions that deter those people?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord provides my answer in the point he makes in the question. Of course, that is the right thing to do. Through the appropriate legal processes established in this country, in a democracy, the police investigate according to the priorities they set, and we see this as a very real priority. An investigation is held and if the police have the evidence and believe that the charging threshold is met, they will charge and then it is for the courts to determine guilt or not. The court will then put in place the appropriate punishment. That is the division of responsibility in this country. That is what we are standing up for in Ukraine and across the world and, going back to the noble Baroness’s point about young people or others and fighting for our country, I think democracy, freedom and the rule of law are pretty good things to fight for. They are not bad things to stand up for.

Republic of Ireland: Defence Co-operation

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in 2025 there have been a number of discussions between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on defence. The Permanent Secretary visited Ireland in January; the Chief of the Defence Staff visited in February, marking the first visit of a Chief of the Defence Staff to Ireland since 2016; and the Second Permanent Secretary visited in April. Irish Ministers met UK Defence Ministers under the wider coalition of the willing meetings held over the course of the year.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Does he agree that it is important that the British public understand just how much support the Irish Government get from the United Kingdom and NATO for their defence capabilities, and that they keep their neutrality without having to pay any contributions? I am not asking the Minister to send them a bill, but does he agree that there could be more co-operation on other aspects? The hostile state of the Irish Government is taking the United Kingdom to court on the legacy Bill and refuses to be involved in trying to get much more information about some of the terrible atrocities, when the IRA went across the border. The next time he meets the Irish Government, will the Minister tell them that co-operation is a two-way process?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentions that Ireland might increase defence spending. There is no doubt that, through the Second World War and the Cold War, in effect the United Kingdom made sure the defence of Ireland was secure, with almost no contribution from Ireland. We are now in a very dangerous world. If one looks at Norway and Ireland, which have about the same population, one finds that Ireland has 719 people in its navy while Norway has 4,000, and that Ireland has four coastal patrol craft while Norway has 69. Is it not time that we made it clear to the Irish that, in this globally dangerous world, they have to make an appropriate contribution to defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are witnessing the recognition on the part of Ireland that the changed environment in which it finds itself requires attention. These are decisions for the Irish Government. Like all Governments across Europe, they are looking at the changed geopolitical environment and the strains and stresses that puts on the defence of their own country. Discussions are taking place, in an appropriate way, between us and Ireland about what we can do around, for example, critical underwater infrastructure. Ireland is also looking at establishing its own radar capability. There are signs that Ireland is looking at what it can do to enhance its own defence and security.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the UK and the European Union had a rapprochement over security and defence in May of this year. Is there scope through that to begin to work bilaterally with Ireland within the realms of Ireland’s ongoing neutrality? That might be a way of ensuring that Ireland can begin to step up to the plate without saying to it, “Please write a cheque”, which seems to be mood of some of the Benches in your Lordships’ House. Keir Starmer is probably not going to be able to say to the Taoiseach, “Please can you sign a Eurocheque?”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Keir Starmer and the Taoiseach agreed, just a few months ago in Liverpool, that there should be a new memorandum of understanding, one pillar of which should be defence and security. That is a major step forward. It is important not only for the security of Ireland—and those are choices that it makes for itself—but for our security and the defence of Europe.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to the register and declare my interest as chair of a precision engineering company in Northern Ireland. In Policy Exchange’s excellent paper Closing the Back Door, there is a very clear acknowledgement of the strategic importance of Northern Ireland for the defence of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Minister knows well the defence scene in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, as well as geography, Northern Ireland has much to offer the UK defence strategy, especially as the SME supply chain moves into the UK defence scene?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree very much with the noble Baroness on the importance of Northern Ireland, with respect to not only its geography but the skills and commitment contributed by the people of Northern Ireland to industrial development. This is from not only the big companies we talk about, such as Thales, and the multibillion pound investment going into it, but the small and medium-sized companies which also make a massive contribution. The noble Baroness is a great champion of those and she should continue as such.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, the matter of transparency affects not only the people of the United Kingdom but the people of the Irish Republic. Does the Minister agree that it would help the debate—which is now more sophisticated and intense in the Irish Republic—about NATO and neutrality if we could be very open in the United Kingdom about the scale of the work that already goes on, which includes the areas that have been mentioned and many others, in which the United Kingdom helps the defence of the Irish Republic?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. The memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the Department of Defence in Ireland, in which a whole range of co-operative measures about how we work together were laid out and agreed by two sovereign Governments, was done in 2015 and was updated and refreshed in 2025, so that we have a fresh memorandum of understanding for 2026. That is something to be celebrated in Ireland and in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, given the relative military and defensive weakness of Ireland on our western flank and the enhanced nature of the threats that we currently face, does the highly respected Minister agree that, in view of its contribution to our defence, Northern Ireland remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom is a vital strategic interest?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows the arrangement with respect to Northern Ireland and its place within the United Kingdom. On his broader point about the importance of the Armed Forces, I was in Newtownards to celebrate and mark Armed Forces Day, and there were over 50,000 people there. I know the noble Lord has done similar things in the past.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions have taken place between the UK Government and the Irish Government regarding the protection of the ECHR and the Good Friday agreement, both of which are intrinsic and inseparable? Following suggestions by a Member of the other place that the Good Friday agreement could be renegotiated—which in my opinion is total nonsense—what is the view of the UK Government?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her point. Last week, the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said—I quote directly—:

“Let’s be clear: the ECHR underpins key international agreements on trade, security, migration and the Good Friday agreement”.


That encapsulates government policy on this and answers very clearly my noble friend’s question about the importance of the ECHR.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 2A in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3, and do not insist on its Amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of that amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2D.

2D: Because the Bill creates an effective regime for the investigation of matters of concern to service personnel and their families, Amendment 2A makes appropriate provision to protect the anonymity of individuals who raise such concerns, and the additional provision inserted by Amendments 2B and 2C is unnecessary and inappropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, with permission, I will say something that I should have said at the end of the defence review debate. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who, as we know, has now left your Lordships’ House. We wish her well in the future and have valued her contributions over many years.

I also note, as I know the noble Baroness opposite and the Liberal Front Bench will too, that today is our last opportunity here to mark VJ Day, which will be on 15 August. We know that the nation will commemorate it in the appropriate way, with respect to all of that.

I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to your Lordships’ Chamber ahead of the Summer Recess. I thank all Members of this House for their expertise and insight and the time they have generously given in critiquing this landmark Bill.

During Commons consideration of Lords amendments on 2 July, the amendments on whistleblowing tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, were put to a vote and were disagreed to. The Government’s proposed Amendment 2A was reinserted. While we have debated the wording and legal functioning of the amendments in question at length, it has become clear that both Houses agree on the importance of a robust and transparent process for service personnel to raise their concerns and blow the whistle. We want our Armed Forces and their families to have confidence and trust in the system and to feel empowered and protected to come forward with their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the Bill is a major step forward, but, throughout its passage, having been a veteran of every Armed Forces Bill for the last 20 years in the other place, I have been reminded that this is yet another attempt to get it right. That is the challenge. We have to ensure that this works, because if we do not, people will become very cynical. It is important that we not only select the right Armed Forces commissioner but that they are given the space and support to get on with their job if we are to embed what I think is really at issue here: a cultural change within defence.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this short debate at the end of our discussions on the Bill. I want to comment briefly on a couple of the points that were made. On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about the Written Ministerial Statement, we expect to do that in the autumn, when the terms of reference are concluded. We intend to consult on all that. Some of the detail that she asked for will be in the process of setting up the review, so we will need to come back to her and others on that.

We will seek the views of service personnel in a variety of ways, but it will be essential that we do so no matter where in the world they are. It will be important to seek them out, but, above all, to give them the confidence to come forward and be part of that. We will closely communicate with service personnel. There is a new defence voices panel, as well as existing Armed Forces networks, so we need to use some of the new procedures that have been set up. One reason that Minister Carns is good is his recent ex-military background. I think that gives him an advantage in seeking some of those views and giving people the confidence to come forward.

The findings of the review will be published and laid before Parliament—the noble Baroness asked about that. We intend to do that as quickly as possible. Therefore, any interim findings may not be made with the full picture of whistleblowing, but when we reach the conclusions and the review is finalised, yes, of course we will publish it and it will be laid before Parliament.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments and support. Her contributions have been very worth while and helpful to all of us. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Stansgate got his name on the annunciator, but he has been here a lot through our different debates, and I have been very pleased about the support that he has given to us as well. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beamish. He is absolutely right about the need for cultural change and that being crucial within the Ministry of Defence. It is very important. We made the commitment—in fact, I think, in response to one of his amendments in Committee—that we will of course involve both the Commons Defence Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Beamish was also right to say that this should be seen as an opportunity and not as a threat.

As I said, we will need to firm up some of the details, and we will do that in discussion and negotiation with others across the House. I am pleased that the Bill has now come to the point where we are in a position to pass it. It is a significant reform and will make a real difference. I just say in closing that we do not intend to use this review, as Governments sometimes do with reviews, to kick something into the long grass and as a way of securing support. This is a very real review. It is too important an issue for that to happen. I am sure that many in your Lordships’ House would hold me to account were that to be the case. With that, I commend the Motion.

Motion A agreed.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 June be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.

Motion agreed.