Ministers condemn protests targeting UK defence sites

Peers in the House of Lords have warned that violent protests at UK defence and aerospace facilities risk undermining national security, disrupting supply chains, and damaging the reputation of the British defence industry abroad.

Responding to a question from Lord Austin of Dudley, Defence Minister Lord Coaker said the Ministry of Defence routinely tracks risks to the sector as part of its monitoring of supply chain resilience.

He acknowledged that “some UK defence companies have faced costs and disruption due to criminal damage and staff intimidation by groups such as Palestine Action”, adding that the government was working closely with police to “address those offences and mitigate future risks.” While individual firms had been affected, Coaker said “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 described the actions of protest groups as “a violent national campaign,” arguing that workers had been intimidated and police officers injured. He called for a “robust strategy to support the defence sector” and to bring offenders to justice more swiftly. Lord Coaker agreed that such behaviour was “totally unacceptable,” reaffirming that legitimate protest would continue to be protected, but that the government “will not allow our bases to be broken into, people to be intimidated and protests to stray into the realms of illegality and violence.”

Former Defence Minister Baroness Goldie described the sabotage of defence sites as “profoundly serious,” likening it to historic dockyard sabotage offences. Lord Coaker replied that while the government had “no intention of restoring the death penalty,” it would “take the action necessary to protect our defence industry and to stop intimidation.”

Several peers urged the government to communicate more clearly with the public about the importance of defence to national security and the economy. Baroness Smith of Newnham said polling showed “many people of service age would not be willing to fight for our country.” Coaker replied that ministers were working to “raise the conversation” around resilience, the reserves, and the value of defence employment, citing plans to expand the cadet organisation as one practical measure.

Lord Walney warned that some public figures were “seeking to excuse and underplay the intimidation and fear caused to workers in defence factories.” Coaker responded that “nobody should face intimidation for going to work,” and reaffirmed the right to lawful protest.

Other peers, including Lord McCabe, highlighted that small and medium-sized defence suppliers were particularly vulnerable to disruption. Coaker agreed that “whether it is a large business or a small rural company, they all deserve protection,” and said the government remained “proud of our defence industry.”

Asked by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb whether the UK’s export policy toward Israel damaged its reputation, Coaker said ministers had paused arms exports related to Gaza and continued to call for “an immediate ceasefire, the return of hostages and a surge in humanitarian aid.”

The session closed with Lord Pannick stressing that criminal penalties already exist for violence and intimidation, urging faster prosecutions and tougher sentences.

Coaker agreed that “through the appropriate legal processes established in this country, the police investigate, the courts determine guilt, and appropriate punishment is applied.” He added that upholding democracy and the rule of law was “a pretty good thing to fight for.”