Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

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

It has been an honour to take forward the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill through this House, and I very much look forward to the valuable contributions as we finalise the last details of this defining legislation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to participate in our debates on this Bill. I echo and endorse the sentiments articulated by the Minister at the start of his speech.

These Benches made clear from the outset that we supported the Bill, and an independent presence in the form of the new commissioner is an important and welcome development. It was that very independence which suggested to me that the commissioner would be well placed to look at whistleblowing complaints. Those who have any knowledge of the Armed Forces know that the very environment of discipline and command structure that produces such exemplary servicemen and servicewomen is also a very closed environment, which can make it difficult to seek help when something goes wrong.

Sadly, we know all too well that things can go wrong. That may be in the life of an individual, or there may be a more systemic wrong, but the burning question is how redress is obtained. That is why it seemed that we needed an avenue over and above the existing procedures, and why allowing the Armed Forces commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints was the particular granite boulder at which I have been chipping away,

I have been greatly assisted by the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who has been so supportive of my efforts, and so helpful to the House in explaining the particular virtues of whistleblowing. I was immensely encouraged when the House showed such powerful support for our efforts in amending the Bill as we suggested.

Although the Bill now returns to us with the amendment stripped out, and the granite boulder now bears a new inscription from the Government, entitled, “We are prepared to carry out a review of whistleblowing in defence”, I am very pleased at that progress. As the Minister indicated, he and his colleague in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces, wrote to me to confirm that this was the Government’s proposal. I now want to thank the Minister—these are not easy, cosmetic words from the Dispatch Box; I absolutely mean it—because the way in which the Minister and his colleague, Mr Luke Pollard, have engaged, has been immensely helpful to our efforts to try to improve the situation for our Armed Forces personnel. Above all else, I want to thank them both for listening.

I have accepted the offer in good faith, and I have agreed that the Bill should now pass so that progress can be made with this important appointment. But, before I lay down my masonry chisel, there are a few further inscriptions I wish to add to the boulder so that we all know where we are. The Minister was kind enough to reference a few of these, extracted from the letter which I wrote to him.

As I have previously argued, more than one route for making a complaint is not a weakness; anything which facilitates accessibility by the complainer is a strength. However, the specific points I wish to raise in relation to the role of the review are that it can be a stocktake of the current procedures and can assess whether these need to be simplified, and, if so, how that can be done. The review should also recognise the key distinction between simply raising a complaint and blowing the whistle on serious wrongdoing. As the Minister has kindly indicated, the review should also take place in close consultation with the Armed Forces commissioner whenever he or she is appointed.

It is very welcome that Minister Al Carns has been proposed to lead the review; it is very important to have a person of his stature conducting it. If the review is to gain the trust of service personnel, we must have someone who has the respect of the forces and experience of life in the services leading it.

I have a small number of specific questions about the review. How will the consultation take place, and what are the timescales? In particular, how will the views of service personnel be sought, and will the interim and final findings be published and laid before Parliament to enable full scrutiny of the findings? In the letter there is a reference to

“consistency between the application and accessibility of military and civilian whistleblowing procedures”.

I was not entirely clear what that meant, but I am sure the Minister will clarify in his closing remarks.

Further details of the review are to be published via a Written Ministerial Statement in due course. That review will produce initial findings by the end of the year and a final report and recommendations in spring 2026. Can the Minister say when the Written Ministerial Statement will be published, approximately, and will it contain the terms of reference for the review?

In conclusion, I look forward to the Minister’s response, I reaffirm my thanks for his constructive engagement and I hope that I can play a helpful role when the consultation process commences. Our common aim—of the Minister, myself and our colleagues across the Chamber—is to improve life for our service personnel. I support the government Motion and I support the passing of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief, but first I join with the Minister in stressing the importance of remembering VJ Day. We on these Benches share his view.

I congratulate both the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the team that he stands with, including Luke Pollard, who I had the privilege to meet with. I just say to both of them that the outcome that has emerged now at the end of this process is, frankly, better than anything I had ever hoped for. What we have been promised by the Minister—because of the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in raising and pushing the issue, as well as the willingness of the Government to listen—is this much broader review of whistleblowing in the defence sector, led by the Minister for Veterans and People. That is exceedingly important, because it underscores a changing cultural attitude in the whole defence sector and in the Government, which means that in the future we can look forward to much greater transparency and much more effective paths for whistle- blowing right across the piece.

Once again, I add my congratulations to those who have been expressed earlier. We also will no longer attempt in any way to impede the passage of this legislation. Its content is very positive and we supported that underlying principle. It has been a privilege to be part of this discussion and this process. I accept on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith the opportunity to meet in the future, and we will put various thoughts in writing in order to assist the process.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the very powerful introduction to this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I thank the Government for facilitating this important debate. The strategic defence review is a very significant piece of work, with clear sight-lines as to what our defence capability should be in a world of multifaceted and fast-moving threat. So I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for his skilled leadership of the review and to his panel colleagues, General Sir Richard Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill, for their valuable contributions.

I very much look forward to the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord McCabe. He got off to a good start in life by growing up near me in Port Glasgow, attending Port Glasgow High School, which has enjoyed a fine reputation. Whatever our political differences, I feel an affinity with the noble Lord and I wish him well as a Member of this House.

The SDR is such a comprehensive document that there is insufficient time in this debate to do justice to the miscellany of issues and proposals within it, the great majority of which I agree with. So let me try to reduce this to bite-sized chunks.

First, I commend the reviewers for a realistic assessment of the threats and challenges confronting the UK. In the foreword, this phrase struck a chord with us all:

“The international chessboard has been tipped over”.


Another phrase in the foreword hit home:

“With multiple threats and challenges facing us now, and in the future, a whole-of-society approach is essential”.


These two phrases summarised for me the holistic threat that we have to confront. One part is the geopolitical environment and the other is what can now hit us at home, with incalculable consequences. That analysis creates a solid foundation on which to construct a modern, flexible defence capability that reaches beyond the shapes and structures familiar to many. In recognising that simple, inescapable reality, this review deserves the gratitude of us all.

I welcome the logical conclusions that follow that analysis: commitment to our independent nuclear deterrent, explicitly identifying NATO as the bedrock of our defence, reinforced homeland resilience, a new model integrated force, boosting our reserves, innovating at a wartime pace, a new partnership with industry and the appointment of a new national armaments director. I certainly hope all that enables us to address the new character of threat.

My one note of dissonance is that, amid the language of readiness, immediacy and pace repeated this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, there is a mismatch with reference to, for example, “when circumstances allow” or to essential equipment with no specific date. In that I detect the meddling fingers of the Treasury after the noble Lord had done his valuable work.

In this exciting and brave new world for defence, the elephant in the room is money. None of the excellent aspiration proposed by the review means anything without attaching pound signs to the proposals. Ambition must translate into specific financial commitment, so I make no apology for pausing in my plaudits to deal with funding, resource and spend projections. I direct these concerns and questions to the Minister. The Minister probably regards me as an unrelenting, irritating nag constantly pushing him on funding. I do so not as a political attack but as a constructive challenge to ensure that the Government are doing what they say they are, as repeated earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.

Noble Lords will all know that the Government have committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—or 2.6% if one includes intelligence spending. We now come down to simple arithmetic. If one takes the projected GDP figures for 2027 of £3.134 trillion, and then takes the spending on the single intelligence account for 2027—set at £5.1 billion in the spending review—it indicates that spending on the single intelligence account will be 0.16% of GDP in 2027.

This throws up several questions. If the Government are claiming that they will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027, or 2.6% including intelligence, how does this square with 0.16% being spent on intelligence? The Einsteins among your Lordships will have already worked out that 2.6% minus 0.16% equals 2.44%. If the Government shift all intelligence spending into definitions of defence spending, it appears they will not hit their 2.5% target. Can the Minister clear this up for me? Are the Government reclassifying all intelligence expenditure as defence expenditure or only a particular portion of it? If the latter, can the Minister tell the House what proportion of intelligence spending, in numerical terms, they are shifting into the definition of defence expenditure?

My second question on the money is on the new NATO defence targets. The 2025 NATO summit in The Hague led to the new target of spending 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements, defence and security-related spending by 2035. Of that, 3.5% would be allocated to core defence expenditure; this is obviously higher than the Government’s currently stated ambition of reaching 3% when economic and fiscal conditions allow. Can the Minister give an unequivocal commitment that the Government will meet that 3.5% NATO target by 2035?

The remaining 1.5% contribution is, in NATO’s words, to

“protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base”.

We need to understand what the Government will include in this. Italy has recently passed a resolution to reclassify a bridge over the Strait of Messina as a strategic project vital for NATO’s interests, so that it can be included in its 1.5% obligation. What will His Majesty’s Government be bundling into this definition? If the Minister could give some concrete—I use the word deliberately—examples, it would be very welcome.

My concern with this expanded NATO definition is that it will not actually lead to any new money being injected into defence but will represent little more than creative accounting. I hope the Minister will implore his ministerial colleagues at the Treasury and the MoD to ensure that the Armed Forces are not fobbed off with balance sheet wizardry but see tangible benefit.

In returning to the review, just as I welcome the reviewers’ blunt analysis of threat, I found refreshing the frank assessment found on page 12 at paragraph 3:

“In modern warfare, simple metrics such as the number of people and platforms deployed are outdated and inadequate. It is through dynamic networks of crewed, uncrewed, and autonomous assets and data flows that lethality and military effect are now created, with military systems making decisions at machine-speed and acting flexibly across domains”.


When, as a Defence Minister, I stood at the Dispatch Box warding off accusations that the Army was at its smallest size since Napoleon’s time, I responded as courteously as I could to the sheer inanity of that comparison. It implied that military strategy, equipment and technology had remained static for over 200 years—but in vain I made my argument. To some, numbers were all that mattered. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that it took courage for the reviewers to be bold, but what they said had to be said.

I could talk about a miscellany of matters—transformation, defence roles, war-fighting, integrated force model, reservists, industry and all the other excellent matters that are covered in the review. Each merits its own debate, and each gives rise to a separate range of questions. I anticipate that many of these will be reflected in contributions from your Lordships today. I also anticipate that we shall regularly return to all these issues within the House. Some of your Lordships may want to talk about what they see as omissions from the strategic defence review. We look forward with interest to the debate.

I will focus—and this is made possible by the thoroughness of the review—on the highlighted significance of two domains: space, and cyber and electromagnetism, or cyberEM. On page 20, at paragraph 31, the review says:

“With the Integrated Force fighting as one across all five domains, greater attention must be given to the space and cyber and electromagnetic (CyberEM) domains”.


It goes on to say:

“A reinvigorated Cabinet sub-Committee should set the UK’s strategic approach to space, maximising synergies between the UK civil space sector and clear military needs”.


I am delighted by that recommendation. When I was a Defence Minister, such a committee existed and, interestingly, was chaired by the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, because, astutely, he understood the need for strategic leadership and governance embracing government departments with primary interests in space. Quite simply, it meant that space—a domain with unlimited opportunity but which, if malregulated or non-regulated, could deliver catastrophic consequence—was at the top of government thinking and awareness. Sadly, my party and Government subsequently downgraded that committee. I urge the Government, in accepting this recommendation from the review, to give serious thought to restoring that top level of political leadership.

I had hoped for comparable recognition for the domain of cyberEM. Given the primary importance of this domain, I had thought that parity of status with space would be appropriate. In fact, the review has chosen to restrict its proposals to defence only; the creation of a new cyberEM command within Strategic Command, which is very worthy, but cyberEM is at the heart of government activity. With the best will in the world, sharing, thinking and awareness across government will not happen without strategic leadership and governance, as is proposed for space. The alternative is silos of varying knowledge. I urge the Government to consider replicating the new structure for space as applicable to cyberEM.

I have focused on these domains because of the rightful prominence the review has attached to them. They are the new defence territory in a fast-changing environment. But they have an umbilical connection with myriad other areas of government activity, and that must be matched by an appropriate structure at the top of government.

I look forward to this debate. I conclude with my overriding concern: the money. Unless the Government can be specific about amount and timing, this well-received, and justly so, strategic defence review will become an interesting but passive library exhibit. Our defence industry will wither in that vacuum. Our safety and security will be deeply compromised. None of us wants to see that. I ask the Minister to reassure us.

Afghanistan

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to speak with me extensively before the Statement. I thank him and his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place, for the tone they have adopted. I join the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge in their apology, on behalf of the British Government, to all those impacted by the data leak. It was a wholly unacceptable breach of data protection protocols and should never have happened.

This is a story of human error, an error of magnitude with profoundly grave and potentially tragic consequences, that was perpetrated by an MoD official and came to light only some 18 months or so after it occurred. Although as a Defence Minister I had no involvement in the issue, at that point in August 2023 the priority was to take all necessary steps as a matter of urgency to mitigate risk to life, hence the court’s involvement that culminated in the grant of a super-injunction. It was the political judgment of the last Government to seek the court’s intervention, and the decision of the court to grant a super-injunction clearly reflected how gravely the court regarded the risk to life. A court injunction is neither a cover-up nor political suppression of information; it is a court order.

No one should be under any misunderstanding about the potential consequence of this leak. If the Government had not sought the injunction, that data could have been disseminated globally through the media. This could have put the lives of countless Afghans at risk—people who helped Britain in our fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who saved the lives of British troops and who are incredibly brave, selfless and committed individuals who put everything at risk, including their families, to help us. If the Government had not sought to prevent the information being disseminated, those Afghans, who gave so much, could have been captured, tortured and murdered. The previous Government would have abnegated their responsibilities if we had left these Afghans to suffer the consequences of this data breach. That is why it was right to seek the injunction and resettle those affected in the UK.

I might observe that, regardless of what Government were in power at the time, these measures were the correct ones to take in the circumstances existing at the time. Indeed, on taking office, the current Government did not seek to have the super-injunction lifted.

Although this was human error and not a political mistake, the political responsibility is to keep the situation under review. It was right that this Government should seek expert advice on whether it was now appropriate to seek to lift the super-injunction and, if so advised, to make the necessary application to the court. In that, the Government have the full support of these Benches.

I understand that the Minister will be limited in what he can say, but I have a few questions for him. Is he in a position to give the House any more details on how the leak happened? I would have thought that there would have been digital safeguards within the MoD that prevented an email with a sensitive attachment being sent to a random person outside the department. What processes were in place to prevent this happening, and why were they not effective? Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the repercussions were for the official who inadvertently sent the data outside formal channels? Finally, what systems have the Government now put in place to learn from this regrettable episode and ensure that everything has been done to prevent a recurrence? As ever, I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I once again thank him for the manner in which he has approached this matter to date.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for a briefing yesterday. It meant that, temporarily, I was under a super-injunction. I was a little surprised when I was summoned to the MoD. On Monday afternoon I received a message asking me to come in for a confidential briefing. I had no idea what to expect, or of the magnitude of what we would hear in the Statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday.

It is a matter of extreme seriousness for a variety of reasons—the risk into which an official and the MoD placed Afghans who were already vulnerable, but also the fact that Parliament was entirely unable to scrutinise His Majesty’s Government on this issue for almost two years. The media reported immediately after the super-injunction was raised yesterday at midday; they had spent the last 22 months gathering evidence that, of course, they could not publish. There is a whole set of questions that are probably beyond the remit of the Minister who is responding today on behalf of the MoD, including what scrutiny Parliament is able to do and what the Government feel is appropriate regarding the media. Were the media being suppressed?

Lest anyone think that I am being cavalier about the lives of Afghans, it was absolutely clear that the United Kingdom had a duty to those Afghans who worked alongside His Majesty’s Armed Forces, including the interpreters and those who worked for the British Council. In light of that, the ARAP and ACRS schemes, which we all knew about, were the right approach. Yet we already knew, from open source material and cases that were brought to this House and the other place, that breaches of data had caused fines to be paid.

At the time of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, it was clear that many people were left behind, and that the helplines were not necessarily fit for purpose. The hotline for parliamentarians and their staff did not necessarily act as a hotline at all. I certainly left messages about cases and received no follow-up or reply. I was not alone in that and, although I believe that I was not part of this data breach, some parliamentarians were.

We began to acknowledge our debt to some of the Afghans, but not all. Then a data breach, about which we knew nothing, happened over three years ago. That in itself is shocking. Has anybody in His Majesty’s Government taken responsibility for that? We understand from the Statement that it was reported to the Metropolitan Police, which believed that there was no criminal activity. Has anybody taken responsibility for this catastrophic data breach that potentially put many tens of thousands of lives in Afghanistan at risk and caused considerable concern to Afghans who were already in the UK, having come over as part of the ARAP scheme?

The former Secretary of State, Sir Ben Wallace, has said that the super-injunction was not a cover-up, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Yet Mr Justice Chamberlain, who finally lifted the super-injunction yesterday, said in November 2023 that a super-injunction

“is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court’s processes are being used for the purposes of censorship … This is corrosive of the public’s trust in Government”.

Does the Minister agree? Can he confirm that this Government would not seek to use a super-injunction or, in the event that it was felt that a super-injunction was an appropriate course of action, that it would not last for more than 600 days but could be for a very limited amount of time while a particular, specific policy needed to be undertaken? The substantive policy change that was brought in—the Afghanistan response route—seems to have been very sensible. Had it been brought to your Lordships’ House and the other place, parliamentarians may well have thought that it was the right policy and been happy to endorse it—but we were never asked, because of the super-injunction. We knew nothing about it.

Could the Minister tell us whether, in future, the Intelligence and Security Committee might be briefed in camera? What role would Parliament and the media be allowed to play? If the courts, Parliament and the media are not deployed appropriately, that raises questions about our own democracy that need to be considered.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in finishing, I want to reinforce the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and ask not for more money for His Majesty’s Armed Forces—not least because this statutory instrument does not allow us to do that—but for the Minister and the MoD to think about making sure that our Armed Forces personnel are fully covered. A lot of the wording around numbers in the SDR says “when the financial circumstances arise”, but our Armed Forces are the bedrock of our security and defence. We should put them first in everything we do.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her impeccable judgment on timing, which worked very neatly. As she said, it seems that, every year, this comes round sooner than the year before; it is a bit like how policemen are getting younger. Anyway, here we are to approve the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for another year.

Apart from the necessary attention to legal process, this is a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to and thank our Armed Forces personnel for the incredible work that they do on our behalf. Some of those to whom we perhaps do not pay sufficient tribute are the ranks of talented civil servants over there—they were of enormous support to me when I was a Minister—so we should extend our thanks for the support that the MoD gives to both the political process and our Armed Forces personnel. I thank the Minister for opening the debate on the order and echo his praise for our men and women in uniform.

This debate provides an important opportunity to reflect on the previous year in defence. Over the past year, we have seen the international security environment deteriorate further. Russia is continuing its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Iran has become emboldened to lash out. Iranian-backed Houthis from Yemen sank two ships in the Red Sea just this month, and the conflict in Israel and Gaza is showing few signs of abating.

Currently, the carrier strike group, led by the fleet flagship HMS “Prince of Wales”, is in the South China Sea, reinforcing our global reach and maintaining freedom of navigation. As a country, we can take pride in the professionalism of our Royal Navy sailors doing so much to stand up for our country globally.

We have seen ever more harrowing attacks on Ukraine by Russia. Increased use of drones has meant that, as of 31 May 2025, 13,341 Ukrainians have been killed and 32,744 have been injured in Putin’s illegal war. The Government are to be commended for their continued, resolute commitment to aid Ukraine in repelling Russian aggression. With the recent announcements of the coalition of the willing, which has the best wishes of these Benches, we hope that further progress can be made on ending the war.

As my noble friend Lord Minto and I have said, we welcome the broad direction of the strategic defence review. I know that we will have a fuller debate on that matter on Friday, so I shall not delay the Grand Committee by dwelling on it. Suffice to say that, while I genuinely welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that much more must be done to bolster our defence capabilities, I shall have a number of questions arising out of the SDR, but the Minister will have to contain his excitement as to what those questions are until Friday.

I was very struck by what my noble friend Lord Lancaster said about the reserves, given his profound knowledge of them and his own military experience. He raised a number of interesting points, which I confess had not previously occurred to me, but I think are substantive. As we live in a new threat environment, with increasing need for resilience and swiftness of response, they are very well-made points, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on them.

What I would like to stress at the moment applies to the Northern Ireland veterans. The Minister was helpful last week when he said that there would be a Statement soon on this matter, which is a welcome development; we might finally know what the Government are planning with regard to the legacy Act. I might point out that I did not get an answer to the question that I asked last Monday: does the Minister think that recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces will be aided by constantly relitigating cases where veterans were simply doing their jobs? The recent case of Soldier C—who has already faced multiple investigations and been cleared each time but has now been told as a very elderly man that he may face another investigation and possible prosecution—is more than egregious. I do not expect the Minister to comment on media commentary that the Minister for Veterans and People, the honourable Mr Al Carns, is allegedly deeply unhappy about possible changes to the legacy Act, but it underlines the need for urgent clarity by the Government as to their position.

On the issue of retention and recruitment, we all know how much service accommodation requires improvement. My right honourable friend in the other place, James Cartlidge, when a Minister in the MoD, began the process of buying back the estate from Addington Homes, to which the Minister referred. This was the first step in resuming control by the MoD over living conditions. But that work is not yet complete, and the next step requires further structural innovation and change and further investment. That is why my right honourable friend has launched his policy of instituting an Armed Forces housing association, where our service personnel would be part of the association governance, to better meet the needs and listen to the voices of our service men and women. I hope that the Government consider that a constructive proposal.

Finally, it would be remiss of me if I did not continue to push the Minister on the money. We know that the Government have decided to shift spending on intelligence to the definition of defence spending but, so far, it is not quite clear exactly how much of that intelligence spending will be redefined as defence expenditure. Could the Minister enlighten the Grand Committee on that point? Does the Minister have full confidence that the Government will be able to reach the new NATO defence spending targets?

I look forward to the Minister’s response but, of course, confirm that these Benches support the statutory instrument to keep the Armed Forces Act current in law.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie. They expressed their support—I know it is true for every single Member of the Committee and across the whole Chamber—for our Armed Forces and the recognition of their work, both seen and unseen. It is quite right for all of us to remember that. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in recognition of the work that he does, we know that many Members are either still active or have been active as former military, and we continue to pay tribute to them. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he does, and I want to make sure that when we thank the Armed Forces we also include the reserves. I know that we would all wish that he conveys that message to them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, paid tribute to the civil servants as well. I like to think that, by and large, we are served well by the Civil Service in this country. They get some stick sometimes but in my experience, they are they are pretty good. I have one word, that I will not use—sometimes, I think that perhaps they could do a little better at understanding, but I shall leave that to my private secretary who is here and knows exactly what word I mean. But overall, they are a tremendous and great credit to our country. They deserve more support and recognition than they often get. I thank the noble Baroness to pointing that out; it was well made.

I shall go through a few of the points in no particular order. The noble Baroness talks about spending. She will know that the way in which this is now going to be included goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about homeland resilience and Article 3. That is what has taken us down—the fact that for too long we have talked about Article 5 but not Article 3 in terms of civil defence, homeland resilience and homeland defence. That is why 1.5% is being talked about. What is included in the 1.5% will obviously be a matter for discussion and debate, but it will not include some of the silly suggestions that we have heard. There will be a debate about what it should include, because it will be part of building up to a significant homeland defence, civil resilience and all those sorts of things. So you will get whatever is spent on defence, plus that 1.5%. The noble Baroness, as well as other members of the Committee, will have seen the Government laying out that target of 2.6% by 2027. You can add 1.5% on it then, if you want, depending on how you get to 4.1%, the 3% in terms of defence spending in the next Parliament, and 3.5% by 2035.

In same way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said that I will have to wait for her questions on Friday and contain my excitement, she will have to contain her own excitement about when the Government lay out exactly how we will reach those figures. But that is the aim and policy of the Government—to reach that target in terms of defence spending. I know that this sentiment is shared across the House in the last Government, this Government, and all of us: I thank her for the general support for Ukraine and what we are doing with respect to that country. It is an important statement of this country regarding standing up for our principles and providing leadership not only in Europe but beyond. I thank her for that and for her reminder. It is an important statement. Our debates and discussions are read by others, so it is important that we continually reiterate those points.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her comments about the carrier strike group, which is currently just off the coast in Australia for Operation Talisman Sabre. She will know, because I have mentioned it in the Chamber, that I was with the carrier in Singapore recently and with the other support ships, including the Spanish frigate. The air power that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned and will be pleased about is all over the carrier, with the F-35Bs on the deck projecting that hard power. There is also the soft power, the defence diplomacy and receptions that have taken place. It is easy to mock that, but the diplomats, friends and the military from other countries came on board the carrier as well as the other ship.

I will digress slightly if the Committee allows me. I visited HMS “Richmond” and the Spanish frigate in Jakarta, which as everyone will know is in Indonesia, to show the fact that the Indonesian Government were welcoming British warships into Jakarta, which I think is very significant, as well as allowing exercises to take place, which some of their senior military would go on, off the coast of Indonesia. It shows the importance of that carrier strike group and the importance of the fact that our military, with our friends, allies and partners from the region, are out there in that part of the world, emphasising the importance of what we do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising that and giving me the opportunity to talk about that and about Ukraine.

Armed Forces: Recruitment and Retention

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, given the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Verma, does he think that creating uncertainty by reopening the possibility of vexatious prosecutions against Northern Ireland veterans who were simply doing their job will assist the goal of improving recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. If she waits a couple of weeks, my understanding is that a statement will be made by both the MoD and the Northern Ireland Office about how we might take this forward.

UK–EU Defence and Security Co-operation

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We need to look at the new frameworks, which will deliver many of the things that are in the defence and security partnership. The noble and gallant Lord asked specifically about Bosnia. The EU mission there is Operation Althea, as he knows, and the Government are currently considering what to do with respect to that. Let me make it clear to all Members of this House that this Government, like the previous Government, support the integrity of Bosnia and support the Dayton accords. All of us over the decades have tried to support that agreement. It is under threat at the moment, as he knows, from Dodik in the Serbian part of Bosnia. We need to do all that we can to support the Bosnian Government to continue under the Dayton accords framework.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, there continues to uncertainty, and indeed anxiety, about whether UK defence firms will be able to access the EU Security Action for Europe fund. Is the Minister able to give this House any update, or has he any estimate to make, of the progress of discussions and when we might get a decision?

F35A and F35B Jets

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his questions. On his very serious and important point about those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Far East, he will be pleased to know that, on my visit to Singapore, I visited the war grave cemetery there, and that when I was in Jakarta a day or two later, I visited the war grave cemetery there and laid a wreath to remember those who had gone before. I think that is really important.

On the issue of the nuclear doctrine, of course one always reflects on these matters but, as it stands, the nuclear doctrine is as it is. The major investment decisions, in terms of the money and the direction of travel, remain the same. It was felt important, given the serious geopolitical challenges that we face and although the number of planes remains the same, that there should be some movement from F35Bs to F35As. It was important that we made that decision at this particular time in the light of the threat that we face.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the procurement schedule for the F35As, but delivery of the F35Bs has not been free of problems. Does he have confidence in the delivery schedule for the F35As being achieved?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do. To reiterate and clarify, the procurement phase for the 48 F35Bs should, and will, end by March 2026. For the second procurement phase for the additional 12 F35As and the 15 F35Bs, which will give us 75 in total, our expectation is that they will be procured by 2033. It is important we meet the schedule and I have every confidence that we will be able to do so.

UK Weapons Systems

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We need to unpick that. It is a very good question the noble Lord asks, but no Government will comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. The strategic nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent. It cannot be used without the agreement of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. As for the F35A, which I presume he referenced with respect to the Government’s announcement, that forms part of the nuclear mission of NATO. For that capability to be used for a nuclear mission, it will require the agreement through the nuclear planning group of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. So both the strategic deterrent and the fighter deterrent of the 12 F35As will require the authorisation of the United Kingdom Prime Minister.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Given the answer that the Minister has just given, can he clarify that, while it may very well be the case that at NATO level the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be required to give consent, is it conceivable that the United States in that scenario might refuse consent?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let us deal with this, and I apologise to the House if this takes some time. The strategic deterrent, CASD, remains, as we have always had it, operationally independent and a UK weapon. As for the 12 F35As that the Government have announced, that forms part of NATO’s nuclear mission. The F35As are UK jets and they are dual-capable aircraft, so they can be used normally or, in a particular crisis or a particular sense in which we felt and NATO felt that they should be used, they would become part of the nuclear mission. At that time, they would be armed with American nuclear missiles.

Of course, that means that the authorisation of the use of those missiles remains US-controlled, because, in the same way that we control our UK nuclear weapons, US nuclear weapons remain subject to US approval. The point I was making to the noble Lord is important. Of course, the authorisation for the use of those weapons within the context of a NATO mission has to be agreed by the NATO planning group and the UK is part of that. In that sense, the Prime Minister would have to authorise those UK planes being used to deliver that nuclear capability. I hope that is clear to the House and to the noble Baroness, because it is an important point for us to make with respect to the nuclear shield and the nuclear capability that this country has, and how it will work in practice.

Defence Industrial Base

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord asks a good question. We have reinvigorated and put more money into the defence innovation fund. With respect to defence, you cannot move forward without innovation, challenge, new technology and new ideas. One of the lessons from Ukraine is that sometimes, for not an awful lot of money, innovators—those who think for themselves—provide the defence equipment and security that we need. Of course, we must be sensible and not throw money away and waste it, but innovation is an important part of any defence industrial strategy, which is why it was mentioned in the defence review and why the Government are putting more money into it.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the strategic defence review is an admirable blueprint for what our defence capability should be. But, as it stands, it is devoid of any specific information about implementation. The Government have accepted the 62 recommendations from the reviewers, but they have given no detail about how or when they will deliver them. We know the review was predicated upon a defence budget of 3% of GDP. I ask the Minister: when is that 3% is happening and is it sufficient to implement the recommendations fully?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has been very clear about his commitment to ensure that the 62 recommendations are properly funded. The noble Baroness will know that the 3% is a commitment in the next Parliament, should the economic circumstances allow us to do so. The Prime Minister’s commitment is absolute, with respect to funding the defence review, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, accepts and understands that. As to when we will lay out the capabilities, the noble Baroness knows that alongside the defence review and the defence industrial strategy, in the autumn there will be a defence investment plan. This will be a line-by-line outline of the capabilities and choices needed to deliver the defence review according to the budgets that have been set.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

Leave out from “3” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A and do propose Amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of Amendment 2A—

2B: Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(aa) to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, and”

2C: Clause 4, page 5, line 12, at end insert—
“340IC Commissioner’s functions in relation to whistleblowing
(1) The Commissioner may investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower of which the Commissioner becomes aware (whether because the whistleblower has contacted the Commissioner or for any other reason) but only if the whistleblower informs the Commissioner, before the beginning of the investigation, that he or she consents to an investigation taking place.
(2) The Commissioner must, when carrying out an investigation under this section, take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower.
(3) For the purposes of this section and section 365AA a person (“P”) is a “whistleblower” if—
(a) P is subject to service law or is a relevant family member,
(b) P raises a concern about a person who is subject to service law,
(c) the concern raised by P relates to general service welfare matters (as defined by section 340IA(2)), and
(d) the concern raised by P does not relate to the conditions of service of persons subject to service law.
(4) After carrying out an investigation of a concern raised by a whistleblower under this section, the Commissioner may prepare a report setting out the Commissioner’s findings.
(5) A report under subsection (4) must not include information which identifies the whistleblower or enables them to be identified, except with their consent.””

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, having dealt with the technicalities of process, I once again thank all noble Lords from across the House who supported my amendments to the Bill on Report, and I thank all those in the other place who also gave their support.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Official Opposition have approached it in a constructive manner: we have challenged the Government when necessary, but we have also sought to be supportive. In that vein, I have tabled my Amendments 2B and 2C, in lieu of the Government’s Amendment 2A made in the other place.

In the debate on my initial amendments in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the amendments,

“while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/25; col. 188.]

Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just repeated that argument. I agree that the Bill provides a voice for Armed Forces personnel outside the chain of command and that is fundamental to the role of the commissioner, but this does not mean that my amendment is either unnecessary or irrelevant.

All Governments go through a black cloud and search for a silver lining. I am handing the Government a silver lining on a plate, because with my amendments the Bill puts the Government and our Armed Forces personnel in a good place. Let me explain why. As I argued on Report, and my right honourable friend Mark Francois argued in the other place, “whistleblowing” is a recognisable term. It is recognisable in law, in the Police Reform Act 2002 and in the Armed Forces Act 2006. Most importantly, it is recognisable by the thousands of Armed Forces personnel who know exactly what whistleblowing means and who would benefit from this enhancement.

If Parliament has already deemed it appropriate to give the Service Complaints Commissioner a function to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers about the military police, how can the Government argue that their new Armed Forces commissioner should not have a similar function? This is a question of consistency and fairness. This is not a two-tier system, as the Minister was arguing. I am offering a Rolls-Royce version of what is already in the Bill.

That is why I disagree with the Government in their Amendment 2A, which will place a duty on the commissioner to ensure that the reports do not contain any information which could be used to personally identify a person who requested that an investigation take place. This is a welcome first step. It is at least a tacit admission by the Government that the Bill as originally drafted did not go far enough in safeguarding individuals making a confidential disclosure. But it is just that: a first step. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It also does not accept the unique meaning of whistleblowing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so eloquently stressed on Report. I thank her especially for her support.

I therefore propose a new amendment, Amendment 2C, as a reasonable compromise between what I have set out to do and what the Government have proposed. It seeks to insert a new clause which contains the same definition of “a whistleblower” as the original but with two important additions. First, in proposed new Clause 340IC(2) I have included a duty on the commissioner to

“take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower”

when the commissioner is investigating a whistleblowing concern relating to general service welfare matters. Secondly, in the spirit of constructive engagement, which I have endeavoured to reflect throughout the passage of the Bill, I have listened to the Government’s suggestions and included new subsections (4) and (5), which provide for the commissioner to produce a report once they have completed an investigation into a concern raised by a whistleblower, with a requirement that the report

“must not include information which identifies the whistleblower or enables them to be identified, except with their consent”.

As noble Lords can see, this new amendment therefore includes both my and the Government’s proposals for whistleblowing. I hope that the Minister can see that I genuinely want this to operate in the most effective manner. I hope, perhaps in vain, that he can support this improved amendment. His remarks this afternoon indicate the contrary. I have taken on board his previous reservations and sought to allay them.

Let us not forget how vital it is to improve the treatment of our service personnel. I have mentioned before the horrifying case of Jaysley Beck, who was sexually abused and tormented relentlessly before taking her own life. On Report, I referred to the BBC Wiltshire reports of the horrific accounts of alleged rape and sexual assault from three women. One of them was in the Navy, another was in the RAF and the third is still serving in the Army. Just last week, we saw the tragic case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan, who was found dead in his bedroom at Catterick Garrison in 2020. The inquest into his death heard that he was consistently degraded and undermined by his superiors, with a friend saying that bullying would be an “understatement”. Another friend told the inquest that communication is an issue and a failing—the system should have worked.

The system has not been working. It is not working. We have an opportunity to do our bit to rectify this. I hope that the House agrees and supports Motion A1. I beg to move.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s response, but I wonder if she could help me to understand a point raised by the Minister. It appears from proposed new subsection (1) that if a whistleblower is involved with the commissioner, the whistleblower controls the investigation. The whistleblower can stop any investigation by the commissioner, even if the commissioner has information from other sources. Does the noble Baroness think that that is a reasonable approach?

--- Later in debate ---

We are legislating. If the amendment is passed, we create a two-tier system and we have the other problem that I just mentioned with respect to consent. I have no hesitation in accepting the point that the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Stansgate and everyone else has made: we all want the best for the commissioner and we all want the awful examples of bullying, sexism, racism and all the other things that a small number have participated in to stop. That is not the issue. The issue before your Lordships’ House is whether we pass something that is legislatively sound and gives the commissioner the powers that we want, in a way that is consistent with good practice.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate, not least the Minister, with his impassioned defence of the Government’s position. I shall try to deal with the individual points that have been raised.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked a simple question: does the whistleblower control the process? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, indicated, a whistleblower is indeed an individual, and implicit within that is the whistleblower’s right to withdraw consent if they become concerned. That is an inevitable consequence of an individual pursuing a complaint. What I am less clear about in that objection to the amendment is that, while at the moment an individual could complain to the Armed Forces commissioner under the terms of the Bill, I do not know what the commissioner would do if the individual suddenly turned round and said, “No, I’m very worried about what I’ve embarked upon. I want to stop”.

It is true that the commissioner can look at thematic issues, and we expect that they will do so, but as far as I can see there is nothing in the drafting of the Bill that says the commissioner cannot look at something that an individual raises. Indeed, the Government’s objection to my amendment seems to be that there already exist facilities, processes and procedures that enable an individual to raise a concern. So I am not convinced that these objections are cogent. I accept that it is legitimate to ask the questions, but I do not accept that that is a justifiable reason for opposing the amendments that I have tabled.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said in effect that whistleblowing was covered by the Bill but did not address the point that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised: why, if it is so good and desirable, is it the word that dare not speak its name in the Bill? That is what is beyond me, to be honest. “Whistleblowing”, as we have previously discussed, is legitimate text and terminology in other legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, made an interesting point: very wisely, he concedes that, once the Bill is being operated, there may have to be tweaks and it may have to be reviewed, because we may find that it is not working just as we intended. He made the distinction between thematic and individual. I understand that distinction but, as I have explained, there is nothing in the Bill as far as I can see that would stop an individual at the moment making a complaint under the provisions of the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, again with cogent perspicacity, got to the heart of the matter. As she said, whistleblowing and complaints processes are different, so why would you not give the Armed Forces commissioner the tools to do what has to be done? She added that whistleblowing is a channel that—in her opinion, to which I am inclined to defer—would create more trust, and I think we all understand that more trust is certainly needed to reassure our Armed Forces personnel. I was struck by her observation that where we have got to in political thinking, and in parliamentary process, is that whistleblowing should almost be the norm, not the exception.

In short, I reiterate that I am glad that this debate is neither polemical nor party political, because we all want to arrive at the same destination. Where we have got to is a difference of opinion on the legal semantics. However, I firmly believe that the amendments I have tabled would enhance the Bill and help the Armed Forces commissioner to do the job better. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.