Afghanistan

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

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

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

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.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, noting that this is a consequential amendment, I simply have one question relating to what the Minister has just said. He said that there was an issue about duplicate or repeat complaints. If there were duplicate complaints—an equivalent complaint from two different people—would that not be admissible, or have I misunderstood what he said?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s consequential Amendment 15. In Committee, the Government brought forward this amendment, claiming that it was minor and technical. At the time, I argued that it was neither minor nor technical. It sought to introduce a substantive change to the service complaints process, and I asked the Minister for clarification, which he and his officials have helpfully provided.

The effect of these changes would mean that the current process—whereby the decision as to whether a service complaint is admissible is made by an officer—could now be made by a civilian, and the Armed Forces commissioner would be able to refer a complaint to a relevant person, as opposed to a relevant officer. Permitting a civilian to undertake these roles, even if an officer could undertake them as well, means that the decisions will, to some extent, now be taken out of the chain of command. The Explanatory Notes explicitly mention that these roles would be undertaken by a civilian, and the Minister confirmed such in Committee. The Government intend for these two roles in the complaints process to be undertaken by civilians as well as by officers, if that is necessary.

In Committee, I expressed concern about this approach, but, after meetings with the Minister—for which I thank him—I am now reassured that the decisions regarding admissibility of service complaints and the referral of complaints is much more of an administrative task than I had understood, as enlarged upon by the Minister earlier in his remarks. I accept that that is not necessarily an efficient use of an officer’s time. Given this clarification, my concerns have been assuaged, my opposition has dissipated and I am content with the position.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will take it from the Minister that this is a technical change that is necessary as a consequential. I will not raise further questions.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, we may be getting near the end of the business, but my work here is not yet done. I thank the Minister for his comments and address my remarks particularly to Amendment 23. The group has indeed been given the title “minor and technical” by the Government, and I know that the Minister has, in good faith, accepted the advice of his officials in that respect. But this amendment makes consequential provision to Clause 3, and it therefore actually makes a substantive change to the process by which complaints are handled—and, crucially, who is responsible.

As the Minister outlined, Clause 3 substitutes the words “a person” for “an officer” in Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006. That section outlines the procedure for making a service complaint. Currently, the process begins with a person subject to service law making a complaint to an officer, and that officer then decides whether the complaint is admissible, as per regulations from the Defence Council. If that officer decides that the complaint is not admissible, the person who made the complaint can apply to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for a review, and the ombudsman can then make a decision that is binding on the complainant and the officer to whom the complaint was made.

Section 340N sets out the proposal for a referral of an allegation, whereby the ombudsman—soon to be the commissioner—may refer an allegation to the appropriate officer. Clause 3 therefore changes the process for an admissibility decision so that a person subject to service law can make a complaint to a person other than an officer, which could be a civilian or, I presume, someone of any other rank. If that person decides that the complaint is inadmissible, the complainant can appeal to the commissioner. Government Amendment 23 means that the commissioner may refer an allegation to an appropriate person, who could also be a civilian—but what civilian? Is the type of civilian to be further specified in statute, or by statutory instrument?

It seems to me that this proposal does not simply alter the language of the 2006 Act to permit a complaint to be made to the commissioner; it also enables a civilian to make an admissibility decision, which can then be referred to the commissioner. That is a major change to the current system, and it begs the question: why would the commissioner need to be able to refer an allegation to a person who is not an officer, and why would a person who is not an officer make a decision about the admissibility of a complaint? The implication is that there will potentially be a civilian in between the person making a complaint and the commissioner, yet the complainant may be content to involve the chain of command.

Can the Minister establish whether this is a substantive change to the 2006 Act? Does it mean that civilians could be dealing with allegations referred by the commissioner? If so, does this mean that a civil servant, perhaps, could take over the role of complaints and welfare, as opposed to officers—and, if so, would that not interfere with the chain of command? It appears to me that this amendment, which is no doubt well intended and which may be the consequence of a desire to keep drafting neat, introduces some very real concerns. It is not technical—it goes a lot further than that—and, as I said, could risk interfering with the chain of command. Can the Minister confirm whether this change is intended to grant responsibility to other ranks or civilians in respect of service complaints?

For the record, I should say that it is the policy of the Official Opposition that substantive government amendments to Bills should be made not in Grand Committee but on the Floor of the House. Consequently, if this amendment should be shown to be substantive, which I suspect that it is, rather than minor and technical, I would be obliged to object to it today and ask the Minister to bring it to the House on Report so it can be properly scrutinised. Having said that, we want to probe this change and understand it fully, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. He may wish to consider, depending on what his views are, withdrawing Amendment 23 and using Report to clarify the position—but I am very happy to listen to his comments.

Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

Monday 10th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it would be easy simply to stand up and thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument clearly, and it goes without saying that it should have the support of the opposition parties, in particular for the reasons that she outlined at the end—to demonstrate that we stand united with our NATO allies on a cross-party basis—but I have a few comments to make.

On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we considered whether somebody on the defence side or the transport side should respond, but the sad circumstance is that today my noble friend Lady Pidgeon is in Cardiff for the funeral of our late lamented friend Baroness Randerson, so it was agreed that, almost regardless of the subject matter, I would take the business today. In doing so, I pay tribute to Baroness Randerson, who would in many ways have been the perfect person to lead on this because her interests were in transport but she also had a real interest in the international.

With those words of introduction, I came to this statutory instrument rather cold. When we take part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, we are very much told that air, sea, land, cyber and space are so important for defence. It is very clear that we need to ensure that space is safe, so we absolutely support the principle of the statutory instrument. In particular, as the Minister said, it is vital that Exercise Formidable Shield can take place, but a few questions come up.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has on various occasions pointed out that, if the UK were subject to the sort of attacks that Israel faced from Iran, we would not have been able to defend ourselves in the way that Israel was able to do with its Iron Dome. One of my questions, therefore, is: will the exercise that takes place in May, which, as the Minister said, brings together our NATO allies, be replicated in various ways and places to assist in our securing space? I realise that that may be a defence question on which she may wish to write, but I thought I would raise it here and now.

I also have a couple of other questions. Clearly, the Minister is right that the regulation can be done better by the MoD than by the Civil Aviation Authority, but if actions are being undertaken by our service personnel under the auspices of the MoD and therefore military law, there are various issues at stake and, if something went wrong, we would know whom to hold accountable. With our partners and allies, how will that be dealt with? Are there international agreements that would enable us to ensure that any accidents, errors or misdemeanours could be dealt with in an appropriate way? This is not to suggest that the statutory instrument should not go ahead but rather to understand how matters will be dealt with if there is some flaw in the system that means we might need legal measures.

I also have a query—nothing of great import—that I was slightly wondering about. The statutory instrument refers to the “Crown interest” and “Crown land”, as well as to the “Duchy interest”, which is:

“an interest belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall”.

Does that mean the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall currently, which belongs to the Prince of Wales, or are there Duchy lands that still adhere to His Majesty the King? That is purely a question that puzzled me slightly.

Apart from those few questions, there is nothing else for me to say other than that we wish the statutory instrument well.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, with reference to her friend and colleague Baroness Randerson.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, comes to this cold, I come to the issue out of the deep freeze, but let me do my best. The Minister has helpfully laid out the primary purpose of the draft statutory instrument, by describing the exemptions that the draft instrument creates; of course, these activities, unless exempted, would otherwise be caught by the civilian-focused regulations. Therefore, let me say first that I accept the priority that must be accorded to defence operational flexibility, and I not only support but applaud the Government’s desire to ensure such flexibility is not compromised.

Having said that, while I support the statutory instrument, developments in the space domain are fast-moving and, while protecting our defence capability activity is of course vital, broader questions arise as to how the Government will keep abreast of that fast-moving scene. I have a number of questions, on which I will be very happy if the Minister wishes to write to me. My first question is: welcome though this SI is, how do the Government align this exemption with consistent principles of oversight and accountability, which are central to the overall integrity of space operations?

To minimise risk, do the Government propose to review the operation of this exemption in practice, perhaps after a year, to ensure that there are no unintended and potentially dangerous consequences and that there is transparency about how the exemption is operating? We must be satisfied that the shift of power from civilian regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Authority, to the MoD is not inadvertently reducing accountability unacceptably and potentially sidelining important safety protocols that are in place for good reason. I seek the Minister’s reassurance about that.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, Russian maritime activity has increasingly been a matter of concern, and I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for his timely update on the UK response, through the agency of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Equally welcome is the candour that has been deployed. It is important for Parliament to understand what the response is, but the detail that the Secretary of State has been willing to disclose is unexpected and certainly helpful and reassuring. It sends a clear message to President Putin that we know what he is up to, and his covert and menacing activity is being closely monitored, with an appropriate Royal Navy intervention.

These Benches support the Government’s response to this brazen maritime activity. We commend the Secretary of State on changing the Royal Navy’s rules of engagement, and his robust attitude towards this provocative intrusion by a Russian spy ship deserves praise.

It is clear from the Statement that the Government are also cognisant of the wider Russian threat and helpfully lists both the RAF and Royal Fleet Auxiliary response, together with our contribution to NATO and JEF activity. All of that has the support of these Benches, as does the Government’s continuing support for Ukraine. But all of this comes at a cost, and if our UK defence capability is to continue to operate at a level necessary to meet these continuing threats, we have to know how the Government intend to resource that new level of response.

In anticipating the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to the SDR report, which we are led to believe is expected in March, I gently remind him that by then the Government will have put defence funding into the deep freeze for nine months. Given the news stories now swirling around, with the financial challenges hitting the Chancellor head on, is 2.5% of GDP for defence by 2030, regardless of what the SDR comes up with, off the agenda?

Given President Trump’s very robust approach to defence spend, believing 5% to be necessary, what are the repercussions for the special relationship if the UK fails to make 2.5% by 2030? In particular, what are the implications for our mutual defence engagement?

Against this backdrop of defence funding fog, what types of MoD orders are currently in limbo? What preparations are in hand to adapt to the new and harsh reality of cutting our defence coat according to the Government’s visibly reduced and increasingly threadbare cloth?

In conclusion, there is a patent irony that the Chancellor can find £9 billion to hand over to Mauritius, thereby reducing our national security, while slapping inheritance tax on to our Armed Forces personnel, who fight for our security, and at the same time exempting US armed forces personnel from paying VAT on private school fees in this country while clobbering our own Armed Forces with VAT on school fees.

Will the Minister, who I know is a champion of defence and the Armed Forces, convey to the Chancellor, in his own unvarnished language, which I know he is more than capable of using, how illogical, how unfair and how unacceptable this is?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I associate myself with the first remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in supporting His Majesty’s Government in their response to the Russian ship, and thanking the Minister for being here today to answer questions, as well as the Secretary of State for his Statement last week. It is clearly important that parliamentarians have the opportunity to understand what is happening: equally, we understand the Secretary of State’s point that there is a limit to how much operational information can be given.

We support the Government’s action, but I have a series of questions. The Minister will probably be quite relieved that, for once, they relate not to defence expenditure but to defence posture and practice. We are looking in our own waters at the North Atlantic area —the Euro Atlantic area—which is the most important for our security. We are, in many ways, benefiting from the fact that NATO has two new members, Sweden and Finland. They are both committed to serious defence and Finland, in particular, is committed to national resilience. At the end of the Secretary of State’s Statement is a point about securing the UK’s borders and our own security. What are His Majesty’s Government doing in terms of United Kingdom resilience? Are we considering giving further information to ordinary civilians about the security concerns that we are aware of but perhaps they are not thinking about?

That is not necessarily to go as far on civilian training as Finland does—I am certainly not calling for conscription—but are we at least thinking about widening the discussion with society to include the threats in not just traditional hard military concerns but cyber? Are we thinking about the need for us all to be vigilant and to be aware that we need to think about the threats coming from Russia as a whole society? At the moment, there is a reluctance to understand that we need to devote more time and resource to defence. This is a plea not for a percentage of defence expenditure but about the need to talk to citizens about the threats we all face.

There have been clear threats in our waters, but we have also seen threats in recent days in the Baltic states and a potential threat to Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty. To what extent are His Majesty’s Government willing and able to speak truth to power, in the form of the President of the United States? The idea that the United States somehow requires a sovereign territory for its own security is wholly unacceptable. For it essentially to threaten the sovereignty of a fellow NATO member state is also unconscionable. While I do not expect the Minister to tell us what the Prime Minister and the President spoke about recently, will he at least suggest to the Secretary of State, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we need to ensure that NATO is fit for purpose and that the whole edifice is not in danger of coming down? After all, NATO has kept us secure for over 70 years.

Defence Programmes Developments

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the marvellous men and women in our Armed Forces, and the civilian cohort who support defence in such an extraordinary manner and help to keep our country safe. Sometimes, in our political badinage, we are inclined to forget that. I know that noble Lords entirely support what defence is doing in our name and for us. I also pay tribute to the Government’s clear resolve to continue supporting Ukraine. I know, again, that this enjoys universal support in the House.

Prompted by the Statement, there are so many questions that I could ask that I am going to try to keep this simple. Looking at the recent antics of the Government, you might think that the pantomime season had arrived early: an embattled Prime Minister and his Chancellor telling business and farmers, “We’re on your side”, to be met with a chorus of, “Oh no you’re not”; an isolated Secretary State for Defra being told, “Look behind you” as the Prime Minister and his Chancellor hover above British farmers with a guillotine.

On defence, the Government’s approach is clearly predicated on the premise that ignorance is bliss. Defence spend will rise to 2.5% of GDP, but we do not know when. Will that decision, when it is known, inform the strategic defence review? We do not know. Will the strategic defence review inform the fiscal imperative of pinning down a date for 2.5% of GDP? We do not know. What impact is the imposition of VAT on school fees going to have on our Armed Forces? We do not know. Is it going to impact on recruitment? We do not know.

What do we know? We know that any significant question asked of the Government about capability—GCAP, the progress of AUKUS, the development of drones—is met with, “Wait for the strategic defence review report next year”. That response might be disappointing to inquisitive nuisances like me but, in fairness, it is a sustainable position if consistently adhered to by the Government—but it is not, because without awaiting any SDR outcome, the Defence Secretary announced in the other place last week that we are scrapping ships, including HMS “Albion” and HMS “Bulwark”, and helicopters. Given the Government’s steadfast fallback on the SDR to explain their reluctance to talk about anything, this is an odd aberration.

Let me explain, however, what makes it even odder. Earlier this year Luke Pollard, now the Armed Forces Minister, said that HMS “Albion” and HMS “Bulwark”,

“play a key role in the Royal Navy’s ability to project power and deploy Royal Marines at scale”.

He even criticised the Conservatives for not ruling out the mothballing of the two amphibious assault ships, which he said in January

“are important for the Royal Navy and should be retained”.

He also said on Twitter in January—this has been reported to me, because I have nothing to do with Twitter—that:

“Mothballing HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark when they still have a decade of planned active service ahead is bad for Plymouth and bad for the Royal Navy”.


I put the following questions to the Minister—or should that be Prince Charming? He is certainly one of the more acceptable faces of the Government. If his honourable colleague Mr Pollard was so right in January, how is he so wrong now? If, as he identified, these ships are a classic illustration of a capability that is not going to be used every day but must be held in readiness, to what extent is the operational mobility of the Marines compromised by this decision? Does the Minister anticipate, ahead of the strategic defence review report, more precipitate announcements about assets being scrapped and decommissioned? Lastly and in particular, will he reassure the House that there are no plans to mothball either of the carriers?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not plan to engage in any pantomime discussions, which we are getting perhaps because we are slightly close to Christmas, because it is important that we remember the significance of defence. Something that is appreciated, not just in your Lordships’ House and the other place but by our Armed Forces, is the extent to which the political parties are united in the tributes that we pay to them, and the fact that we recognise their commitment to our country. We also owe them a duty to ensure that defence expenditure means that the equipment for our Armed Forces is the best appropriate and that we are putting the right resources into defence.

We have a strategic defence review where we understand that there is a cap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, we do not know at this point when the 2.5% is going to be introduced, so that is an uncertainty. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State brought forward a Statement on defence programmes and that the Minister is in his place today to answer questions on it, because a lot of questions that require further probing.

The Statement from the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the answer to a lot of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is, “We didn’t know the state of either the Budget or our Armed Forces when we took office”, and that is why the issues about decommissioning are being brought forward now. Could the Minister say whether the decommissioning of equipment is being done now because the Secretary of State has discovered that the time has come and in fact it would cost more to keep these ships and other pieces of kit operational? How much is the decommissioning going to cost? Has that been taken into consideration? Are the further pieces of equipment part of an ongoing review programme? It is important for us to understand what the Secretary of State and the chiefs are actually looking at.

Beyond that, what scope is there for the Secretary of State, and the Minister of State in your Lordships’ House, to tell us what is planned for defence procurement? In the Statement, the Secretary of State made the repeated point that the Treasury has understood the importance of defence for growth. We agree, yet the Budget increased expenses for the defence industry, like every other business, because of employers’ national insurance. The Minister has reassured me, both in Grand Committee and in private discussion, that the national insurance increase will not impact on the cost of the Armed Forces. We accept that, and it is very welcome. However, presumably the defence industrial base will pay the increased national insurance costs. While the primes might be able to take that as relatively small change, is that true of the sub-primes? What impact will it have on the small and medium-sized enterprises so vital for the defence industry?

I turn to something that could be either a vicious circle or a virtuous circle. If defence is indeed able to contribute to the growth of UK plc and we see our economy grow, that will, by definition, also help with defence expenditure if the 2.5% is part of a growing GDP. But if the defence sector and the economy as a whole go into decline—and there have been suggestions that the Budget might lead to a decline in our national GDP—what impact is that going to have on our defence expenditure? These are some clear questions that we need to understand. They are not intended to be unhelpful, but simply to ask whether we are really giving the support needed to the defence industrial base.

Finally, one of the things we heard across the Chamber in discussions about the G20 and COP summits was the importance of internationalism. The Secretary of State mentioned the Trinity House agreement on British-German defence co-operation. What are we expecting in terms of a Lancaster House refresh? Also, what is His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the reports in today’s Financial Times that France has begun to step back from its attempts to veto non-EU countries such as the UK being part of the European defence investment programme? That, presumably, will assist the UK in strengthening our defence relations not just with France but with the European Union.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords—oh, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith; I am so eager.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Yes, there is obviously a certain choreography to this: the smaller opposition Front Bench is allowed to go first.

This time last year—or not quite this time last year, but when we renewed our commitment to the Armed Forces in 2023—we again had a rather small group of Peers speak in the debate. I note this tendency, despite the fact that, in 1688, the Bill of Rights found it so important that Parliament consented to having our Armed Forces that we had to give our consent. Now, we tend to have a very small number of parliamentarians discussing this vital matter and we are tucked away in Grand Committee. One noble Lord referred to this the other day, saying to me, “It’s a cupboard. Nobody takes any notice if we do things in Grand Committee”.

However, we clearly should take notice of the commitment to His Majesty’s Armed Forces that this renewal order gives and which all our Benches wish to support. Each year, we remind ourselves and others of the important role that His Majesty’s Armed Forces play in the security of the realm, which matters to each and every individual. The fact that so few individuals who are not service personnel, in their families or veterans, do not spend very long thinking or talking about His Majesty’s Armed Forces is perhaps a sign of how effective those forces are: we do not have to think daily about our security because the Armed Forces are doing that.

I note that the Explanatory Memorandum quotes the Bill of Rights, saying that

“raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against law”.

Clearly, the United Kingdom is not in a state of war with any other countries but I wonder how we should interpret the idea of being at peace, because there are so many parts of the world where His Majesty’s forces are deployed. When I looked back at the debate we had last year, it turned out to have been 16 months ago. For some reason, the previous Government felt the need to have the 2023 renewal on 15 June 2023. That was in a slightly different context.

We were at that time already supporting Ukraine but the context of the Middle East now, referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks, was somewhat different. It was before the horrific attacks on Israel of 7 October 2023. Since then, the United Kingdom has been involved in the support of Israel, in particular the support of Israel’s Iron Dome. Questions have been raised about our own defence and security, so I will reiterate one of the questions that I raised last year when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was responding at the Dispatch Box. I said that His Majesty’s Armed Forces serve the United Kingdom incredibly well, but asked: do we serve our Armed Forces sufficiently well?

I welcome from these Benches the comments the Minister just made about the commitment to enshrine the Armed Forces covenant in law—I hope it will be made applicable to His Majesty’s Government, rather than just to certain councils and other bodies—and to having an Armed Forces commissioner. But does the Minister feel that we are doing sufficient to support our Armed Forces community, and should we be doing more in this time of heightened security concerns? I realise that his default position will probably be to say that we have a strategic defence review in the offing. Nevertheless, some commitment to ensuring that we have adequate resources for our Armed Forces in terms of their equipment and accommodation, but also service numbers, would be very welcome.

Finally, given that this continuation order is very much about service justice and that just last week we received the first report of the service complaints commissioner, do the Government feel that this new role and service justice are working well? In conclusion, we obviously wish to support the continuation of the Armed Forces and this draft Order in Council.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for my alacrity in wanting to contribute to this debate and for rudely seeking to barge in front of her.

I remember with pleasure having to move this annual order as a Minister. On the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, it is entirely process in character, and that perhaps caused some perplexity about what exactly we should be saying. On the other, the effect of the order could not be more important in keeping our Armed Forces legally constituted and, as has been said, compliant with the fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688.