Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. Of course, I always discuss with the Treasury questions asked by noble Lords and Baronesses. The position remains exactly the same. The defence review will be published, it will lay out the threats we face, and at a future fiscal event the Government will then determine the pathway to spending 2.5%. This is our real commitment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is a suggestion that NATO, at its summit in The Hague next June, is going to look at a 3% target. Are His Majesty’s Government willing to think about this? If not, are they going to reject what might seem a very necessary change in the light of the global situation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have been very clear about NATO. Irrespective of the outcome of the American presidential election, European countries would have had to spend more on defence. As a first step towards that, all NATO countries need to meet the 2% target, which 23 out of 32 currently do. Our next step is to reach 2.5% and to set a pathway towards that. That will result in billions of pounds of this country’s money, as well as multi-billions of pounds across Europe, being spent on defence. That is the first step we need to take.

Defence Programmes Developments

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

I want to start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their comments and by reiterating that defence is an issue that unites us across this Chamber: we all want the best for our country and for our Armed Forces, and here there is no division between us. I also thank the noble Baronesses for their ongoing support in respect of Ukraine, just as we supported the previous Government when we were in opposition. Again, this House is united in that regard, and I am grateful that reiteration.

I hope the House will bear with me while I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who gave his valedictory speech a few days ago, when I was unable to be in attendance. We all know of the noble Lord’s work on defence, and I want to put my personal thanks to him on record and to wish him well for the future.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, paid tribute to our Armed Forces across the globe and they were right to do so. Not everyone in the Chamber will agree with everything I will say today, but there is no division between us on our respect for our Armed Forces and the work they have done, are doing and will do. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was particularly right to remind us of that, and perhaps we should start every debate by saying it, because I know that many members of the Armed Forces read such debates.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the 2.5%. As I have said, the pathway to the 2.5% will be laid out at a future fiscal event in the spring. She asked about the sequencing with respect to the SDR. The SDR will come prior to the 2.5%. I hope that clarifies that point.

The noble Baroness mentioned my honourable friend Luke Pollard MP, who campaigned hard for clarity on the landing platform docks to which she referred. He fully supports the Government’s publicising and making it clear that, following the mothballing introduced by the previous Government, neither ship had been to sea since 2023—indeed, HMS “Bulwark” had not since 2017. On current planning, neither ship was due to go to sea again before their planned out-of-service dates of 2033 and 2034. In a sense, the previous Government had effectively got rid of those two platforms themselves, while all this Government have done is to announce something that had already happened.

I would also point out that, as the noble Baroness will know, we have three Bay- class landing ships, “Lyme Bay”, “Mounts Bay” and “Cardigan Bay”, and a further RFA “Argus”, which will do virtually the same for us as the two ships that have been decommissioned. As the defence review will no doubt point out—I see that my noble friend Lord Robertson has walked in—the Royal Marines will play a full and proper part in the future defence of this country, as they have done already this year without the use of those two landing platform docks. They have been in Australia, in Gaza and all over the world, conducting their various activities. As the noble Baroness says, we should be proud of the fact that they have done that—and they have done it with two landing platform docks mothballed in Plymouth.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, what the Government are trying to do is to get rid of outdated equipment that is no longer being used. All of this has been backed by all the chiefs in the Ministry of Defence, who have supported every single thing laid out in these proposals. If noble Lords object to it, they are objecting to something the professionals have told us they support. They support the decommissioning of the landing platform docks and of HMS “Northumberland”, which is beyond repair. We are trying to accelerate the replacement of the Type 23 frigates with eight of the world’s most advanced, Type 26 anti-submarine ships.

The Wave-class tankers are being got rid of because we do not need them any more. Instead of having two that were last at sea in 2017 and 2022, we will have four RFA Wave-class tankers that will provide the same commitment and resource to the Royal Navy as the two that are being decommissioned. I would have thought that was a sensible thing to do.

We are getting rid of Watchkeeper because that system has been in service since 2010 and, according to all the military chiefs, is out of date. The Ukraine war has shown that we need to replace it with something else. The Chinook helicopters are going—14 out-of-date helicopters that have been in service for more than 35 years. They are to be replaced with new, state-of-the-art helicopters. The contract for the Pumas is not being extended and they will have to be renewed in due course.

These pieces of equipment are all currently on the books, and we believe they can be decommissioned and that new equipment can replace them, so that the Armed Forces of this country have the modern equipment they need to prosecute the conflicts we send them to work in on our behalf. I would have thought that all noble Lords could support that. If we do not support such decommissioning, we will have equipment that is 50, 60 or even 80 years old. That is ridiculous. You have to move on and, at times, take difficult decisions because that is the way to ensure that we move forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the continuity education allowance with respect to providing for the education of the military. The CEA will be increased to be consistent with the current policy of meeting the increase in VAT fees. She will know, as will the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that, notwithstanding the defence review, the Government have made a clear commitment that the nuclear deterrent and AUKUS will be protected. There might be better ways of doing both, and we would always search for savings within them, but it will not be at the cost of the ability of those systems.

The noble Baroness asked me about the carriers. The thing to point out for this country is that next year the “Prince of Wales” will lead a carrier strike group into the Indo-Pacific with our allies, with ships all around it, taking hard power from this nation with our alliances, to show that we support the international rules-based order, the rule of law and the freedom of navigation on the seas. That is where the carrier the “Prince Wales” will be next year, and I think that is something we should be singing about and talking about. Not only will that be demonstrating hard power, but defence diplomacy will go on all around the world to reassure our allies that this country, along with America and everyone else, stands up for the rules-based order that seems to be threatened by others who seek to undermine it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about procurement. Defence procurement will be at the heart of everything we do. Noble Lords can see the point we are making about new equipment. We hope that much of it will be built within the UK, across the whole of the UK, benefiting all the regions and nations.

On national insurance, the noble Baroness will also know—again to confirm the point I made—the Armed Forces will not pay or will not have a cost, though there may be accounting issues. Of course, national insurance will have an impact on other firms as it will for all firms.

The defence equipment plan before us seeks to decommission equipment that we believe is out of date. New equipment can be better placed to meet the threats we face, and it is those new threats that we need to face: it is the wars of the future we need to fight, not the wars of the past.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I do not agree with that caricature of what is happening. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said at the weekend, and it has been repeated since, that we will reach 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. The defence review is looking at what capabilities we need and we will then set that in the context of the 2.5% as we move forward. That sequencing is the proper way for us to go ahead. As it stands, no major projects are being disrupted as a result of the review.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The Minister’s answer was very clear, but at the weekend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggested that the Government were waiting for the SDR to report. However, one of the provisions of the terms of reference of the SDR is that there is a cap of 2.5%. Who is setting the agenda—the SDR or the Treasury—and should we be worried?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course the Treasury sets the context of the budget within which defence operates. The 2.5% commitment is cast-iron; the discussion is about the timeframe. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced at the weekend that the 2.5% will be announced at a future fiscal event in the spring. The sequencing is everything. If we decided to spend billions of pounds on a project now and the defence review suggested that that was not the best use of money to meet future threats, the noble Baroness would be asking me why we had spent the money before knowing what those threats were.

Decommissioned Nuclear-Powered Submarines

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to ask about dismantling. As I said to my noble friend, we are seeking to speed up that process. On the new submarines, if he is referring to the Astute class submarines, seven were ordered, six are already in the water and one is now under construction in Barrow. If he means the successor to the Vanguard class, we expect the first to be in service in the early 2030s. We are making considerable progress, and I hope that answers his question.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness’s follow-up question pointed out, there is an accumulation of nuclear submarines that have been decommissioned but are still in Rosyth or Devonport. Are His Majesty’s Government sure that they are safe? Can the Minister commit to ensuring that freedom of information requests are responded to? Apparently, the MoD has not been responding to safety questions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On freedom of information requests, if the noble Baroness has any examples that she would like me to look into, she only has to ask and I will certainly do so. Freedom of information requests should be responded to within the timeframe laid down, so I will look at that. As I said, we are looking to accelerate the dismantling programme. I am confident that the processes that we are seeking to put in place will speed that up and that they are safe.

Combat Air Capability

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I certainly believe that the noble Lord is right to point out that, if we have aircraft carriers, we need aircraft to operate from them. I accept that. As far as the defence review is concerned, there is no doubt that we will look at the future capabilities we need, in respect of how those carriers are deployed and where they should be deployed, but also in respect of the necessary air combat power we need to meet the threats that the noble Lord will know well—as indeed will the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is indeed reassuring that His Majesty’s Government appear to be recommitting to GCAP but, like AUKUS, this agreement has been inherited from the previous Conservative Government. The allies, in this case, are Italy and Japan. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any scope for bringing in other partners and whether that would that help with resilience and interoperability with our NATO allies, for example?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As it stands, we are certainly sharing the costs with Italy and Japan, as the noble Baroness points out. Regarding other partners, we are considering that and discussions are taking place, without any firm commitment as it stands. Interoperability is key. She will know that Germany, France and Spain are also developing a sixth-generation fighter—SCAF—as is the United States. They are all part of NATO, so interoperability becomes essential.

Ministry of Defence: Expenditure

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that the situation with respect to the Belfast shipyard and Harland & Wolff is a difficult one. Our expectation is that those ships will be able to be built. Clearly, the company is looking for a private sector business to support it, and we will look to do what we can to support it in that.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister able to reassure the House, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that this is intended to be a defence-led review, not a Treasury-led review? If the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his colleagues in the review find that expenditure needs to be not a vague 2.5% at a certain point but 3% or more, would His Majesty’s Government be willing to spend whatever is necessary?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I think she slightly gets in front of herself. We have made a commitment to 2.5%, and that is a cast-iron guarantee. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is in his place and has heard the points she has made. We look forward to a deliverable, affordable plan that will meet the threats we will face in the future—not the threats now or in the past, but in the future. That is why the review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is so important. The money that we spend has to be spent to deliver the capabilities needed to meet those threats. That is the fundamental principle that underlies what we are doing, and it will be maintained.

Tempest Global Combat Air Programme

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I said in answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord—and the noble Lord makes the point for himself—the relationship between ourselves and Japan is extremely important. The technological advantage that both the UK and Japan get from our close partnership is extremely important. As I said in answer to the original Question, progress continues on the GCAP with the other partner, Italy. A strategic defence review will look at all the various programmes, but progress continues.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his place. When he and I sat on adjacent Benches, we tended to agree. I always had the benefit of being able to piggyback on his comments before I asked my questions, so I very much hope that we will continue to agree across the Chamber. The only slight problem this afternoon is that, in answering the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, he took away all the questions I was going to ask about diplomatic relations with Italy and Japan by giving an answer that I think is welcome. On the review, we clearly need to think about diplomatic questions and questions about our defence industrial base. While the defence review is going on, what security are His Majesty’s Government giving to defence contractors that the work being undertaken on various programmes will continue? Clearly, not just our international partners but defence contractors will be concerned.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I very much hope that the noble Baroness and I can carry on working together. Without being pompous about it, all of us across this Chamber share an interest in the defence of our country and in freedom and democracy across Europe and the world. Working together is extremely important. On her question about the defence industry, she may have seen that yesterday the Prime Minister announced Skills England, which will work with the defence industry and defence companies to overcome one of the biggest hurdles this country faces: the skills shortage, which we have been trying to overcome for a number of years. Redoubling our efforts on that will make a huge difference—but that is just one example of how we intend to work with the industry.

Defence Personnel Data Breach

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the opportunity to discuss this Statement again today and the noble Lord for repeating it. He will know that on these matters we are united with the Government. We cannot and must not stand for any such attacks. With the number and level of such threats increasing, we have to do all we can to make our country secure at home and strong abroad, so the news of this grave security and data breach is of real concern to us all. It is particularly alarming given that this is yet another example of an MoD data breach. It is particularly concerning as it involves our Armed Forces personnel past and present.

In the last five years, there has been a threefold increase in MoD data breaches, with 35 separate breaches reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Such threats—from state activity and other malign actors—are increasing across government, including attacks on prime contractors and subcontractors, as in this shocking case. Do they not present a soft underbelly to our national security?

Can the noble Lord explain when this breach took place? When did Ministers become aware of it? Reports say that these attacks took place weeks ago, but that Ministers were informed only days ago. Is that the case, or are the reports simply wrong? In these instances, who is responsible for alerting whom, how quickly, and when? Who monitors these contracts? Why did it take this appalling incident to alert officials, as the Defence Secretary said in the other place, to the potential failings of the company now named SSCL? What other potential problems are there? What other government departmental contracts are run by SSCL—or indeed by others—which could also be impacted by this breach? This itself would represent a very real threat to national security. Does any review being undertaken by the Government include all these other prime contracts and subcontracts, stretching across government?

The noble Lord and the Government say that this constraint is now offline, but I am unclear on some of the facts. Can the Minister confirm that all salaries and expenses will be paid by this Friday? Can he confirm how many service personnel, past and present, have been or may have been affected by this breach? In the other place, a figure of up to 272,000 was mentioned. How near to that figure will it be? The Government were unclear about that. What is the Government’s latest estimate of the number of Armed Forces personnel, past and present, who will be affected?

The Minister in the other place went to great lengths to say that a malign actor was responsible for the breach, but he would go no further. Why not? Can the noble Lord explain how it was briefed all over the media that sources believed it was China? Of course, evidence is needed to confirm that, but how did that occur? Has the noble Lord anything further to say about that? When will he be in a position to update us on the outcome of the Government’s own inquiries? Can he also explain how this data breach appeared in the media—presumably through a leak—meaning that Armed Forces personnel found out what had happened through the media, rather than in the proper way? How did all this happen?

This is exceptionally serious. In addition to reassuring our Armed Forces personnel, who, frankly, deserve better, our country, too, needs reassurance. The MoD, the guardian of the nation, is threatened, along with others, and its defences appear to have been breached. Time and again, we also see security undermined in other areas of government. We all hope that the eight- point plan will reassure our personnel, and their welfare must be our top priority. The Government have been warned time and again—not least by recent reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee, for example —about threats from China and others. Why have the Government not taken more urgent action? They need to adopt a more cross-cutting, far-reaching, urgent approach to cybersecurity. We all support the security of our country. We all want our country to be safe. Does this further example of a cyberattack not represent yet another wake-up call to the Government?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that His Majesty’s Government have many questions to answer. I thank the Minister for taking the hospital pass and repeating the Statement to the House this afternoon.

The wording of the Statement is interesting. The Ministry of Defence has identified indications that a malign actor gained access. Did it identify these indications only after the leak to the media, or was it aware of this and trying to deal with matters behind the scenes? It would be helpful to understand whether the MoD has a handle on the data breach.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has pointed out, there are questions about prime contractors and subcontractors, and the eight-point plan raises some concerns about what is being asked of government departments and our contractors. Point four states:

“specialist advice and guidance on data security has been shared”

and is available now on GOV.UK. This is part of the eight-point plan—after the horse has bolted. Why on earth was this advice not available before the data breach? It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to refer the other place back to his Lancaster House speech and remind us that the world is a “more dangerous” place. We know the world is a dangerous place. We know that there are cybersecurity dangers, and if the MoD and its contractors cannot ensure that we are safe and secure from data breaches, who can? Can the average citizen of the United Kingdom feel secure if the MoD is not able to deal with its own cybersecurity? Why can it not? To say that this is a contractor and therefore separate from the MoD’s HR supply is not necessarily adequate, either. Are the requirements for our prime contractors and subcontractors adequate?

A question asked in the other place, and which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has also touched on this afternoon, is: which other government departments are using Shared Services Connected Ltd and to what extent should we be concerned? My understanding is that the Home Office, the MoJ and possibly the Cabinet Office are also part of these contracts, but the Secretary of State did not appear to be able to answer the question in the other place. I hope, with the additional 24 hours, that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, may be able to give us some answers to this question.

Point six of the eight-point plan says that His Majesty’s Government are now

“providing a commercial personal data protection service for all service personnel”.

Why is it a commercial personal data protection service? Would it not now be appropriate to learn the lessons of outsourcing and think about whether we should provide our own HR and payroll? Would it not be appropriate for His Majesty’s Government to rethink that and for personnel data to be ensured by His Majesty’s Government and not outsourced?

I have two final points to make in my last 33 seconds. Given the Border Force issues yesterday, do we suspect that the same malign actors who hacked the data impeded people entering our country? Are other malign actors damaging UK infrastructure? Is that a further security concern? My final point concerns the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. During questions on the response of Israel and its iron dome a couple of weeks ago, he asked whether, if London were faced with a similar issue, we would be able to defend ourselves. Should we not be concerned that, if the MoD cannot defend its personnel against hackers and malign actors, maybe our country is not as secure as it should be?

Defence Acquisition Reform

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Thursday 7th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for coming to the House to respond to these questions and the necessary scrutiny, on a repeat of the Statement from another place. It is welcome that the Government are finally beginning to acknowledge what we on these Benches and many others, including the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Committee, have been saying for a long time—that defence procurement is not working.

The Statement referred to the narrative of the acquisition system being dogged by major programmes and, while certain programmes have indeed been over budget and over time, the issues go much wider. Some 46 of 52 major projects have been either late or over budget under this Government. It is a systemic problem. In the past 14 years, £15 billion of taxpayers’ money has gone to waste, £5 billion in this Parliament. Report after report from the NAO and the committees that I have mentioned have been critical.

This is not just about the wasted money, as important as that is. Continuous failure in MoD procurement sends a message to the world, to both our allies and our adversaries. Good defence procurement can strengthen our sovereignty; make our country more secure; provide economic growth by creating and supporting jobs; and ensure that our troops can fulfil their roles and fight, while allowing us to fulfil the obligations that we have to our NATO allies. As we would all agree, it is therefore a top priority.

The changes are right and welcome and we agree with the reasons for the reforms set out by the Minister. Indeed, there is not too much in the Statement that you can disagree with, but the real concerns with the Government’s approach stem from the lack of action to tackle the bigger issues, which is a disappointment and a missed opportunity.

The Government’s policy for acquisition reform, as set out in the Command Paper refresh and the Statement, do not address the waste and poor value for money that have plagued the Government’s mismanagement. Without addressing the waste of taxpayer money at the scale that I have set out, it is difficult to see how the reform as set out by the Government will fix the problem. How will the Government ensure that these reforms offer value for money and stop the waste that we have seen? What steps are they taking to address the underlying systemic issues that have contributed to the delays and mismanagement that the Minister has acknowledged in the Statement, which have led to these projects being late and over budget? It certainly does not appear that they would have prevented the issues with some of the major programmes mentioned in the Statement, such as Ajax or Morpheus, or others that were not mentioned, such as the E-7 Wedgetails. Is that analysis wrong and, if so, why?

We are under no illusions that the problems can always be eliminated entirely—as the Statement says, these are incredibly complex programmes and procurements—but they should not be on the scale that we have seen. Does that not mean that there is real scope to improve in this situation? How will these reforms ensure proper accountability to prevent further delays and mismanagement of these vital defence contracts, those that we have now and those we will have in future? A fundamental question that the Government need to answer is how the report will make the difference that we all want, and why it will be successful when so many other reports have failed.

We believe that we should create a new strategic leadership in procurement. If we form the next Government, we will establish a fully fledged national armaments director, responsible to the strategic centre for ensuring that we have the capabilities needed to execute the defence plans and operations demanded by the new era. We envisage core delivery tasks that currently do not seem to be vested properly anywhere in the system; they should have sufficient authority or accountability to carry these out effectively. This leadership includes alignment of defence procurement across all five domains to cut waste and duplication, securing NATO standardisation, collaboration with allies, driving export campaigns and delivering a new industrial strategy. What is the Government’s view of a new director such as this to drive the change that we all want? Which of the things that I have said does the noble Earl disagree with? They are a sensible plan for driving forward change.

We have to do better. Report after report promises action on the problems in defence procurement and promises that there will be improvement as we move forward. Yet our procurement process is dogged with failure and delay, which means that our troops and Armed Forces do not have the equipment that they rightly should. The fundamental question that the noble Earl needs to answer is this: why will this report be different from the reports that have gone before it?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, “over-complex, over-budget and over-time” is how major programmes of defence procurement have been characterised not just by the opposition, our enemies or even our allies but by the Minister for Defence Procurement in giving this Statement in the other place. Defence procurement has, over years, been riddled with problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out. While this Statement is very welcome, there is a question about whether it goes far enough or thinks about the wider pattern of defence procurement.

I read the Statement as it was produced and put into the Printed Paper Office last week. It said, “Check against delivery”. I read it, and there were various points where I thought, “Surely no Minister actually said this”. I went back and looked at Hansard to see what the Minister for Defence Procurement said in the other place and, indeed, some of the slightly strange comments were made in the House of Commons. I will therefore ask a few very specific questions.

What we have as the fifth aspect of the new approach to procurement is:

“Fifthly, we will pursue spiral development by default”.


Other noble Lords might know what spiral development is, but I am afraid that I do not. The Statement did not give me much clarity on it, nor does the document that was produced to go alongside it, so I hope the Minister can explain a little more what spiral development means.

Even more, however, I would like to know what is meant by the next line:

“seeking 60% to 80% of the possible, rather than striving for perfection”.

I realise that there have been concerns about the fact that we have looked for exquisite solutions and platforms that are so highly specified that they become ever more complicated, with the timeline for procurement shifting ever further to the right. However, “60% of the possible” raises a lot of questions. Does it mean that only 60% of our ammunition is going to work, or that only 60% of our trials of Trident will work? Given that we seem to have had a couple of problems with Trident recently, I very much hope that the Minister can explain what this means. There is nothing in the Statement or the document that explains clearly that we do not want to spend so long over-specifying things that we never deliver the platforms or equipment that our Armed Forces need. Do we think that we need to specify less? What do the Government mean?

The Statement talks about learning the lessons of experience, which is clearly very welcome. We do not want another Ajax. Learning from that experience is highly welcome and I am sure the Minister would be very grateful not to have to face the situation that his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, did, of repeatedly coming to your Lordships’ House and having to answer questions about Ajax for which, frankly, there were not any good answers.

Do the Government think that just learning the lessons of the recent past is enough? Will that deliver, at pace, as we say we need, the defence equipment that the United Kingdom needs in an era of unprecedented challenges? Will the noble Earl, in his response, tell the House how far this procurement model will really help us deliver beyond what we have been seeing and help ensure that, if we are sticking at 2% of GDP on defence expenditure, which seems to be the case from the Budget, that we are actually going to be equipped at the level we need to be to face the challenges that we and our allies are facing, and send the messages that we need to be sending to Russia, China, Iran and other countries, some of which we certainly would not think of even as collaborators in international relations?

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, marking the second anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine gives us another chance to reaffirm our support for Ukraine and its people—people who, in the defence not only of their freedom but of our freedom and our democracy, have suffered so much. So many have been killed and wounded. Cities, towns and villages have been ruined or destroyed.

Yet, in the face of that, Ukraine has stood tall, firm and resolute. Once again, all of us salute Ukraine’s courage and bravery. As a country, we are united in our support and our determination to see this through with them. We have seen this in military support, but also in Ukrainians welcomed into our homes, donations of assistance to Ukraine and continuing rallies on many of our streets, marking that sense of solidarity.

Can the noble Earl tell us whether the Government’s recent welcome announcement of further support for Ukraine will ensure that the ammunition shortfalls that the Ukrainian armed forces face will be speedily replenished? Do we have the stocks to do this quickly, and can we do all we can to ensure that such shortages are not experienced again? In part, this needs a boost to Britain’s industrial production. The Government have announced plans to enable this uplift in capacity to take place with respect to armaments. What progress has been made with respect to this, and what timeline do the Government expect in order for that increased capacity to be available to meet the ever-increasing need?

The chief of the Armed Forces said this week that addressing this shortage of ammunition could take months until the West agrees further steps to support Kyiv. What are these further steps, and what progress has been made to achieve them? Ukraine has had to withdraw at times, not because of a lack of desire to fight but because of a lack of ammunition. This cannot be allowed to happen again. I know the Government will agree with that, but we simply cannot read again in our papers that military withdrawal has had to take place because of the lack of necessary ammunition, let alone equipment.

Alongside raising the amount of ammunition supplied and the speed of supply, we need to maintain the diplomatic effort to maintain our unity. Can the noble Earl comment on President Macron’s calls for troops in Ukraine, which appeared to come from absolutely nowhere?

One of Putin’s mistaken beliefs was that the West would be weak in the face of his aggression. Is it therefore not significant to note again that the opposite has happened, with the very welcome strengthening of NATO? Finland is now a member and the last obstacles have been cleared for Sweden. Can the noble Earl outline the Government’s view of what Ukraine’s path to NATO membership is? Do the Government have a view on how they expect this to happen?

The Government have made many announcements, including the recent one about 200 Brimstone missiles. Can we expect a full military aid action plan? Is there to be an implementation plan for the welcome UK-Ukraine security arrangement and agreement?

Alongside equipment, the training of personnel is also crucial. We have trained up to 60,000 individuals so far, which is a great feat on our part. Can the Minister update us on the latest news regarding Operation Interflex, which is our main training effort?

The morale of the Ukrainian people has been immense, and we must do all we can alongside our military support to maintain that morale. What thought have the Government given to this aspect of the war? In other words, what thought have they given to maintaining civilian morale in the face of the aggression and hardships that we all understand?

The shocking death of Alexei Navalny shows the sort of regime that we are dealing with. Success for Ukraine is our success, and it is crucial to the future of freedom and democracy in Europe. The resolve of the Ukrainian people is immense, and they should know the strength of our resolve and that of our friends to stand with them. It is a task we will not shirk, and they should hear that message again.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. We stand here today supporting our Ukrainian friends. Across the Chamber and across the country, we give our support to Ukraine. It is unwavering, and it needs to remain so, because Ukraine’s war is our war. If we flinch, that only gives succour to Vladimir Putin, so it is absolutely right that we all stand up and say that we support His Majesty’s Government in the aid that they have been giving to Ukraine. The aim of this evening is perhaps to ask a few questions about what further support can be given; our own defence capabilities, to ensure that we have the ammunition we are seeking to give and are backfilling appropriately; the defence industrial base, perhaps; and what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of the ammunition support that Russia is getting from North Korea and Iran.

First, it is very clear that there is a concern about a lack of ammunition. President Zelensky has said that we must be very careful not to have an artificial deficit in ammunition. Can the Minister tell the House what preparations His Majesty’s Government are making to ensure that we can supply or help supply Ukraine not just this week and next week but for the months and years to come? What discussions are His Majesty’s Government having with other Governments in Europe and in NATO about their support? There have been problems about the pledges of ammunition being delivered from other European countries. We are all in a similar situation, and we are all trying to procure weapons from the same industrial base, even if we have our own defence industries. What co-operation do we have, and what discussions are we having? Are we ensuring that, collectively, we can provide Ukraine with what is needed?

I think there is a real issue. The Secretary of State, making the Statement in the other place last week, talked about the new UK drone strategy. Obviously, drone warfare is one of the issues that has come to the fore in recent years. In Ukraine, but also in the Middle East, particularly the Red Sea, we have seen drones that appear to come from Iran. Could we hear what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made about the potential of Iranian drone warfare? Do we have any sense of the numbers?

Beyond that—I realise that sanctions probably fall in the remit of the FCDO; certainly, Minister Mitchell talked about sanctions in his Statement today—one of the issues about sanctions is that they ought to be stopping Russia being able to export oil and gas in the way that it has been doing. Are His Majesty’s Government satisfied that the existing sanctions are working sufficiently well? In particular, if the rumours are true that among the other countries buying oil now is India, which is one of our Commonwealth partners, what discussions are His Majesty’s Government having to try to persuade India and other Commonwealth partners that have not necessarily bought into the same level of commitment to Ukraine as we have? What are His Majesty’s Government doing to try to persuade them to support the sanctions?

Red Sea Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for repeating the Government’s Statement. I very much welcome its tone and content. I say at the outset that we back the US-UK air strikes, which are supported by other countries, as the noble Earl read out. We also praise all the members of our Armed Forces involved in these actions and actions that have gone before. We should all pay tribute to their bravery.

We know that, as the Government said, these actions are to protect shipping and freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. In essence, we are standing up for the international rules-based order. This is of extreme importance, as the noble Earl mentioned, as the Houthis are attacking the ships of many nations, threatening maritime security and international trade. They are putting lives in danger. They cannot just act with no consequence. We cannot just stand by and let these things happen. Let us be clear: taking no action also has consequences.

We fully back the leading role that the Royal Navy has played, with the US and others, in the continuing defence of shipping for all nations in the Red Sea, but as the Minister said in the Statement in the other place, despite having had

“a significant effect in degrading Houthi capabilities”,

their intent

“has not been fully diminished”.

Can the noble Earl tell us what assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of the action that has been taken so far? At what stage do these one-off strikes become a sustained campaign, with the need to involve Parliament? It is good to see a coalition of countries supporting the action, but perhaps the noble Earl can outline the efforts the Government are making to persuade other countries to join Operation Prosperity Guardian.

Actions in the Red Sea raise many legitimate questions. In particular, we know that Iran is the sponsor for many actors in the region, including the Houthis. What steps are the Government taking to prevent regional escalation, which we all wish to avoid, while maintaining dialogue with Iran about action that may be taken?

Questions also arise about our ability to sustain a military operation, even in the support role we have. Can the noble Earl reassure us that we can and will be able to provide all the necessary equipment and military assets? For example, are the Government rethinking the need for our ships to carry missiles that allow them to attack land bases, such as drone bases in Yemen?

We also read of the fact that the aircraft carrier “Queen Elizabeth” now needs repairs to a propeller. Can the noble Earl update us on this? Has it impacted on Red Sea deployment decisions, given that we were all led to believe that the “Queen Elizabeth” was being considered for deployment to the Red Sea? How long before the “Prince of Wales” can be readied to take on her role in the NATO exercise? Could it also be the case that she will be sent to the Red Sea?

It is also important that we recognise, as the noble Earl did, the important role played by the RAF and the importance of the base at Akrotiri. Can the Minister outline whether we are due to rotate HMS “Diamond” with another naval ship? Can we be certain that any of our ships can be fully supplied at all times?

These questions arise on the day that a Defence Select Committee report said that

“parliamentary scrutiny of and debate about UK armed forces readiness currently relies on media reporting and corridor conversations”.

That simply has to change, hence my questions. Operational ability to do all we would wish to do, even with our allies in the Red Sea, becomes important.

Ministers have said that they need to deter Houthi attacks and degrade their capabilities. As I asked earlier, what assessment has been made of that? This also has to be done alongside diplomatic efforts, so can the noble Earl update us on these efforts to put pressure on the Houthis, particularly via Iran, and other diplomatic measures that have been taken?

Finally, we agree with the Defence Secretary in rejecting Houthi claims that this is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. They have been attacking ships in the Red Sea for at least five years. This is about the international rules-based order, and we will act with the Government to defend that principle.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I also thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I support the actions that have been taken so far. In particular, I thank the Government for being so clear about the precision with which the actions have been taken. It is hugely important that if we state that we are taking action against the Houthis to support the international rules-based order, we are very clear that our actions are proportionate and in line with international law. That is very welcome. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from these Benches I thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces for their deep commitment and the fact that they have been able to act and react so effectively.

I will start with Akrotiri and the RAF, because over the years Akrotiri has been hugely important, and we have made significant demands on the RAF. My starting point for questions on His Majesty’s Government’s capabilities is whether the noble Earl thinks we have sufficient support in Akrotiri. Is the Air Force able to keep up the level of support we have, or do we need to think about additional support for the RAF? Clearly, what has been happening so far has been significant and is working well, but can we sustain that—and for how long?

I have a similar set of questions about the Royal Navy. We rehearsed some of those at Questions this afternoon, and discussed naval capabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already raised some questions, but I will ask a little bit about crewing. One option is obviously to rotate out HMS “Diamond”, but do we need to do that, or might we think about changing the crewing? Is that what His Majesty’s Government might be thinking about?

Can the noble Earl also tell the House how many of our ships are currently at sea, how many are in planned maintenance and how many need to have, for example, propellers mended, which is not part of planned maintenance? Can he elaborate a little further on some of the answers he gave this afternoon about our naval capabilities? The Defence Select Committee’s report from the other place really is quite damning about our capabilities.

From these Benches and the Labour Benches, we have raised questions over years with His Majesty’s Government about not just defence spending but how effective that expenditure is, and how effective our capabilities are. It is great that we have two aircraft carriers, but if they are troubled by defects, that raises concerns. The Type 45s were beset by design defects. The noble Earl’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was very keen to say that with the PIP, the Type 45s were a better ship than they had been before the refinements, but do we not need our ships to be right first time?

Are we confident that, moving forward, as we see ever more zones where His Majesty’s Armed Forces need to be present, we really have the capabilities, as an individual state and alongside our allies, to play the international role that we seek to play and to give our Armed Forces the support they deserve?

LGBT Veterans Independent Review

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Government for this welcome Statement on the outstanding review of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, with respect to this matter.

Between 1967 and 2000, the treatment of those Armed Forces personnel deemed to be LGBT was a total disgrace. They were discharged or dismissed while others felt that they had to resign. Their friends and families felt the trauma of these individuals’ pain. It was 33 years before the ban was lifted, following a change in legislation in 2000. Here we are, nearly 24 years later, with the outstanding review of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton; although it cannot right the wrongs of the past, it means that we can do all we can to recognise these injustices fully, to put what we can right and to fight for a better future.

In doing so, I praise, as I have already, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his review, and the efforts and campaigning in this House of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who I am pleased to see in his place, and my noble friend Lord Cashman. However, why is it that these injustices, inflicted by the state and often covered up, not just in this instance, take so long to put right? Had it not been for brave individuals whom I have mentioned, plus the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Fighting With Pride, and many others, these injustices would have remained unresolved for many more years with respect to our Armed Forces.

The Government have said that there will be continuing debate and discussion on this issue, so can the Minister guarantee that this will also be the case for your Lordships’ House? Will he make sure that such debates cover not only the Etherton review but the current situation with respect to LGBT+ personnel in today’s Armed Forces?

At the heart of the review were the testimonies of those who were victims of an overt, brutal, homophobic policy. The review had 49 recommendations, and I believe this to be the case, but can the Minister confirm in this House whether the Government intend to implement all these recommendations in full? If that is not the case, which ones are not to be implemented?

The Prime Minister has himself apologised, which is very welcome. We also welcome the handing back of medals, an Armed Forces veterans badge, and a proper memorial at the National Arboretum. We also welcome the opening of the registration of interests. Can the Minister say more about how the MoD is to make sure that everyone and every family are to be made aware of what is happening and what they have to do to register? Is there any closing date for such registrations to be made in terms of restorative measures or compensation?

The Government will know that, specifically, the Royal British Legion and others are concerned that an arbitrary cap on the total amount offered in compensation is unfair. Can the Minister explain to us why such a cap was introduced and how it will be calculated? How can a cap be set now, before people have come forward with their claims? What if it is found that claims actually exceed any cap? Personally, I think—as I am sure others do—that the Government will have to revisit this. Will all of the restoration of rights, including pensions, include the accrual rates that were lost when people were forced to leave?

I have a final point on the cap. There is a provision for £50 million from the 2024 MoD budget. I believe that is the actual cap, and I am aware that there was discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. However, I believe that at the very least this will need to be kept under review. Can the Minister outline how the £50 million is to be distributed—to which groups and how might they make these claims?

As I say, the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, sets out the need to do as much as we can to address the wrongs of the past. But it also has to be a further watershed moment for our Armed Forces now. We know that discrimination on the basis of sexuality still exists, as does sexism and misogyny, despite recent progress. We owe it to all those who came forward to honour their service, and that of their comrades and families. It shames us all; it saddens us all. But, at the very least, let it be an inspiration to us all, to build that better, more inclusive Armed Forces and society that we all want and deserve.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, when the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, was first published, we had the opportunity in your Lordships’ House to debate it at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already touched on some of the issues that were discussed then. For many of us who are not from a service background, the issues that went on in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, as they were then, were absolutely shocking, just as they were for the people who served. It is noticeable that, in his Statement in the other place, Dr Andrew Murrison made the point that when he became a reservist, he was asked, “Are you gay?” As he said, even in 1980 that seemed out of place. And that was because it was out of place.

It is important that we look again at the report by the noble and learned Lord and remind ourselves of the injustices that were done, while at the same time paying tribute to the Government for taking on board almost all of the recommendations. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked, “Is it all of them?” My understanding is that one or two of them will be taken on in a slightly different way—but the acceptance of this report is hugely welcome.

There are some questions we might all need to understand in a little more detail. They are, in particular, how do those people who were affected by the ban know where to access the ways of getting restoration? In particular, if somebody was sacked, that is straight- forward, but if somebody felt the need to give up their commission early because they felt that their sexuality was putting them in extreme difficulties within the Armed Forces, what information will be available to them? How far will His Majesty’s Government be making clear to the wider service community and to veterans’ communities that people can come forward, and explaining how they can do so?

When we talked about the report when it was initially published, the issue was in part about next of kin and those who had service personnel who had died—perhaps who had committed suicide. Yesterday’s government Statement is very welcome in saying that it will be a little more open in terms of who counts as next of kin, recognising the very nature of relationships that might be important to those who are veterans, or who were veterans but are no longer alive. Again, how will those people be informed about ways of ensuring that their loved ones are able to have their service records reinstated? The commitment in itself is good, but we need to ensure that the reality works for both LGBT veterans and their next of kin, and also for those other people who were not actually LGBT service personnel but who, for some reason, were thought to be. This is another group of people who were victimised not because of their sexuality but because of their perceived sexuality—which, again, suggests that there is, or was, a real issue within the Armed Forces about inclusion and diversity.

Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the fact that there are still issues around gender within His Majesty’s Armed Forces—are there other issues we should be picking up on and thinking about, to make sure that, going forward, whether it is about gender or sexuality, people are not victimised for who they are?

This report and the Government’s response are very welcome, but we need to ensure that the inclusivity is there for the service family of today as well.

Defence Command Paper Refresh

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am always grateful to the Minister for her co-operation and help when it comes to these Statements. There may be some differences, but our overall objective is the same, particularly at this moment with our support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. Could the Minister initiate talks through the usual channels about a longer debate involving more of your Lordships’ House, perhaps in the autumn, when time allows? A longer debate on all these matters would be helpful for us. Could she consider that?

In the light of the work we have done between us, I particularly ask the Minister to relay our thanks to the Defence Secretary in view of his announcement that he is to step down. At this time, it is particularly important to note his leadership with respect to Ukraine and in building a coalition of support in NATO and beyond for that effort. I know that maintaining public support has been very important to him. He has been a Defence Secretary of integrity who has done all he can to strengthen our defence and that of our allies, including our nuclear deterrent and its modernisation. I would be grateful if the Minister could pass that on; I am sure it is a view held by many in this House.

On public support, can the Minister say what we are doing to continue our support for the Ukrainian people? Maintenance of their morale is crucial, and we can only admire their effort and resolve in the face of Russian aggression. In that vein, continued support in this country is also important. Can the Minister reiterate the measures the Government are taking to explain why we are involved in the conflict in Ukraine, and why it is so important for us all?

On the future, can the Minister assure us that an incoming Defence Secretary will not initiate a defence refresh 2 or indeed 3? It is crucial that the current Defence Command Paper is seen as a longer-term plan. To that end, with a general election approaching, what discussions are the Government planning to have with my right honourable friend in the other place, John Healey MP? It is important for our defence that this is an ongoing plan, with consensus built across Whitehall.

The defence plan contains a lot of strategic vision, including the demand to be a campaigning department and to tackle skills shortages, but it fails in some respects to outline in detail what changes to various other plans should be made. That is very important, since the Command Paper says, in a crucial phrase, that we have shifted

“from a competitive age to a contested and volatile world”—

mentioning Russia and China, of course, but other threats too, including those posed by terrorism and fragile regions. What does that mean for the current shape of our Armed Forces as envisaged two years ago, with the change being made in the Defence Command Paper?

The Defence Secretary says that we must

“match our ambitions with our resources”.

To do that, what ambitions have been left out? The defence paper also says we must match our equipment plans to our budget. Does that leave a shortfall? If so, in what?

Many questions are left unanswered in the Command Paper. Why does the paper not halt the cut in troop numbers—which, as we have seen, has led to the smallest number of troops since Napoleon—following the second-in-command at NATO, a British officer, saying that the British Army was now too small? I remind noble Lords that the Army has been cut by 25,000 since 2010 to 76,000 and, despite the threat from Putin, will fall again to 73,000 by 2025.

The defence paper confirms cuts in tank numbers. Despite equipment promises elsewhere, how can we be sure that the MoD can deliver them, given that just on Sunday the Defence Committee published a report into military procurement that said the system was broken? Thousands of skilled Armed Forces jobs remain unfilled, and supply is now a real problem. Again, little is said about how to address these problems now, although plenty is said about the future.

We fully support NATO and defence across the world with our allies, but troop numbers are being cut, as are tank numbers; one of our aircraft carriers remains in dock; Ajax is still a promise rather than a reality; there are problems in the engines of many of our new destroyers; Hercules transport planes have been scrapped while we will wait for the A400M; we have inadequate stockpiles; and defence spending at 2.5% of GDP is still an aspiration rather than a full commitment.

Many real questions come out of the Defence Command Paper. Of course we support the Government, but these are challenges that they need to address. The Government must reassure us that, in our support for NATO, we have the Armed Forces that we need.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as so often from these Benches, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. There is nothing in his comments or questions with which these Benches would disagree, so I will augment them.

First, I want to express disappointment that the Secretary of State is stepping down. His time as Secretary of State for Defence has been important, and his leadership on the Ukrainian situation has been particularly significant. We can only hope that when the next reshuffle comes, the Prime Minister is able to find someone to serve as Secretary of State who can lead our defence capabilities and take this defence refresh forward effectively, because we are at a difficult time. The fact that we have a refresh after only two years is significant. It is clear that what was said in 2021 was not sufficiently forward-looking; we were looking at the threats of today and not those of tomorrow.

While much is to be welcomed in this defence refresh, so much of it seems to rely on the lessons we have learned from Ukraine. Great: we need to learn the lessons of the last 15 months, but are we thinking forward sufficiently strategically? What is being put forward, and what was outlined in the Secretary of State’s Statement yesterday, seems to be modest in its ambitions in many ways. Saying that we will not be looking at new platforms is probably just as well, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has touched upon, defence procurement is an area where we have been remarkably weak. The defence platforms that have been procured—Ajax, the “Queen Elizabeth” class and various destroyers—have all come with problems.

What is being proposed in the defence refresh seems to be more limited in terms of procurement, talking about working closely with industry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I press the Minister on whether His Majesty’s Government have given any thought to their procurement procedures. It is fine to talk about working more closely with industry, but have they got their procedures right? What lessons have been learned in that regard?

It is noticeable that the new mantra being put forward is about partnership. When I have raised issues with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office over the years, I have stressed the need, post Brexit, for having closer bilateral relationships and stronger multilateral relationships. So it is good to hear that in a defence Statement, but it comes alongside this mantra of “allied by design, national by exception”. A cynic might suggest that is simply because alone the United Kingdom is too small to act in the way His Majesty’s Government have so often suggested they want it to act. The defence refresh talks about being more agile and having a role globally. Is that really feasible if we are sticking with the size of troops, whether regulars or reservists, outlined in 2021? Is it not time to think about troop numbers again? Do we have the size of forces that we need in this world of contestation rather than competition? Have His Majesty’s Government really thought this through adequately?

Finally, there is a suggestion that we need to think again about risk and how we view risk. Could the Minister explain what is really meant? Again, the Statement and the refresh document seem to be quite limited in explaining what His Majesty’s Government really mean about this.

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Monday 15th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for their Statement last week in the other place and for the opportunity to take it here today. As the House knows, His Majesty’s Official Opposition fully support the Government in the action they are taking to support Ukraine in its fight with Russia. We fully recognise that this is all our battle, a battle to maintain the international rules-based order, and that such aggression cannot and will not be tolerated.

Is not one of the greatest misjudgments that Putin made that Europe would not stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, would not support Ukraine against this illegal Russian attack and, even if we did, that support would only be limited and for the short term? So, it was good to see the solidarity that President Zelensky has had, particularly this weekend in Italy and from France. But does the Minister agree that it was particularly good to see Germany promising an additional €2.7 million in military aid, and the German Defence Minister saying that it would provide help for

“as long as it takes”?

On collaboration, will the Minister update us on any recent discussions there have been with the United States and on its view of where we are at the present time?

On last week’s announcement, we support the announcement of the new military equipment, such as Storm Shadow. On Storm Shadow, can the Minister confirm that Ukraine has all the necessary planes to launch these weapons, given that, as we all know, they are air launched? Last week, President Zelensky said:

“Not everything has arrived yet … We are expecting armoured vehicles”.


Can the Minister update the Chamber as to whether all the promised equipment, including armoured vehicles, has now been delivered? I understand the Defence Minister said he was going to write to the shadow Defence Minister: is there any update on that?

We read in the media today that further weapons have been promised as a result of the welcome meeting today between the Prime Minister and President Zelensky at Chequers. Can the Minister confirm what these new promised weapons are, and what other agreements were discussed and made at Chequers today? How many long-range attack drones, for example, are to be sent, and are there air defence missiles in sufficient numbers to defend against Russia’s unrelenting and indiscriminate attacks?

Is it not important for us all to emphasise that these are defensive weapons, weapons developed to help Ukraine recover lost sovereign territory, not an attack on Russia itself? Of course, we support the announcements I just mentioned on drones and air defence weapons made today by the Prime Minister, but I just seek further clarity from the Minister this evening.

On fighter jets, can the Minister tell us when the announced training of Ukrainian pilots on western fighter jets will commence, and how many pilots we expect to train? We read today in the media, and indeed from the various press releases from No. 10, that the Prime Minister

“has promised to spearhead an international effort to secure fighter jets for Ukraine”.

Can the Minister explain which countries this means, and how he intends to do this? In other words, the Prime Minister has announced a so-called “jets coalition”. Can the Minister give us some more detail, particularly on any timescale and the types of jets we are talking about?

The Minister will also know of the role that the Wagner Group is playing in the war in Ukraine. What plans do the Government have to proscribe it, particularly as the Defence Secretary said that the Wagner Group

“does pose a threat to the United Kingdom and her allies, either directly or indirectly”?—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/23; col. 478]

Finally, the will of the Ukrainian people has been immense and, frankly, inspirational. The Defence Secretary reminded us that it is day 442 of the conflict, with almost 8 million refugees and 6 million people internally forced from their homes. Some 23,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed or wounded, with 6,000 children appallingly sent to so-called re-education camps. We need of course to provide the military aid that is needed and to do so, as we are doing, proportionately and sensibly, but, alongside that, does the Minister agree that we must continue to support the Ukrainian men, women and children who are also on the front line with all the help that they need?

President Putin chose to invade Ukraine and its sovereign territory. He must continue to know that we in the West, with the UK at the forefront, will continue to stand for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We should stand by the people of Ukraine and continue to support them as they defend their country. As I say, their fight is our fight.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, as so often when we discuss Ukraine or other defence matters, I endorse wholeheartedly everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Therefore, rather than re-iterating the questions he has raised, I will ask a few more about what is going on on the ground in Ukraine.

Like the noble Lord, I obviously welcome this Statement, and we endorse what His Majesty’s Government have been doing in terms of support for Ukraine. It was very clear when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister how far the United Kingdom supported Ukraine and stood shoulder to shoulder. It was not immediately clear that that was followed through, and I think that today it has become very clear that Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister really does understand the importance of supporting Ukraine to the largest extent possible.

The Secretary of State for Defence has said on numerous occasions that the Statements he makes are deemed to be “proportionate”. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has asked, what precisely is being offered today and what more His Majesty’s Government expect to do. I initially had this Statement as a “check against delivery” document which had a nice little bit in red which said, in square brackets, “blank for announcement”. The announcement is covered in Hansard, but even Hansard from last Thursday has been overtaken by the discussions today, so I think the House would welcome an understanding of what is happening in terms of drones and long-range missiles.

I particularly wanted to ask what discussions His Majesty’s Government may be having, not just with NATO partners but within the UN, about some of the war crimes being perpetrated. The Secretary of State’s Statement talked about the casualties, but also various war crimes. In particular, one of the issues that we have seen in Syria, and which we are seeing again now in Ukraine, is the bombardment of healthcare facilities. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the actions of Russia in this regard, and to what extent is it possible to already begin to make a case? Those victims—innocent children and others who are in hospital facilities—really need to be looked at as a matter of urgency. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker said, we also support the men on the front line and the women and children who may be at home, but that wanton attack on healthcare facilities is unspeakable. Equally, there have been attacks on energy facilities and nuclear power facilities, and I wonder what activity His Majesty’s Government are undertaking to support Ukraine in making sure its infrastructure is secure. Beyond the military hardware and the training, are His Majesty’s Government are able to provide additional support on the ground in that regard—we obviously know about the humanitarian aid.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I conclude by supporting the work that has been done by His Majesty’s Government and our service personnel in helping train the Ukrainians.

Afghan Resettlement Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Thursday 30th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for their Statement, although serious questions remain around this Afghan resettlement scheme. Let us start by reminding ourselves that our nation promised those who put their lives at risk to serve alongside our Armed Forces in Afghanistan that we would relocate their families and give them help, as well as rebuild their lives.

Our operations depended on courageous Afghan interpreters and guides, and we made commitments which we have a moral duty to accept and honour. Can the Minister explain why, 18 months after the airlifting of Afghan families to the UK, 8,000 people are still in hotels and thousands await processing in a backlog? The Government have announced new money to tackle the 8,000 in temporary accommodation; is this available immediately and how long will it take to relocate those people?

In the other place, the Minister said in the Statement:

“We will honour our commitment to those who remain in Afghanistan.”


Can our Minister say what is our estimate of this number, how they will be brought here and whether the Illegal Migration Bill have any impact on any of this?

Can the Minister tell us why on earth the Ministry of Defence said that applicants to ARAP could come to the UK only if they had Taliban approval? Some 10 days after apologising for that error and committing to changes to its practice, what do we learn? An applicant under the other scheme, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, was told to retrieve documents from the Taliban or risk rejection. Can the Minister confirm that the need to seek Taliban approval under the ARAP or ACRS schemes has been immediately stopped? The Minister in the other place said:

“I will not stand here and defend the system”. —[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/23; col. 843.]


That is fine, but who then is responsible and who is sorting out the mess if the Minister has said he is not going to defend it?

To clarify figures mentioned in the other place in response to questions, how many Afghans brought over on these schemes have been permanently housed and how many remain in temporary accommodation? Johnny Mercer MP, the Minister in the other place, said that, under the ARAP scheme, 4,300 entitled personnel remain in Afghanistan. What is happening to them? On the ACRS, he said that we have promised 20,000 places and so far only 7,637 have arrived. What is happening to ensure that the Government achieve that figure given by the Minister?

These people cannot wait indefinitely in Afghanistan, neither can those who arrive wait indefinitely in hotels. The Minister’s Statement in the other place focused on Afghans who have reached here. Can the noble Baroness the Minister tell us what we are going to do about the 1,000 people accepted by the schemes—that figure is from the Minister’s Statement in the other place—who are waiting to get to the UK but are stuck in hotels in Pakistan?

This all needs to be sorted out, so what is the action plan to do it? If all is well, how on earth is it possible to read in today’s paper that, under existing legislation, an Afghan pilot could be sent to Rwanda? Yes, he arrived on a small boat, but this Afghan pilot flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban on our behalf. Is it correct that somebody like that will face deportation?

There are a number of questions that urgently need to be answered by the Government. We need these schemes to work more efficiently and more effectively. These are people who stood shoulder to shoulder with this country when they were needed. They fought, and in some cases died, alongside our Armed Forces. They supported us and now look to us to support them. Clearly, we must do better—above all, because it is the right thing to do and because our reputation and standing in the world demand that we do so.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. As so many times on issues to do with defence, and on the ignominious retreat from Afghanistan, we speak with one voice. It is right that we give asylum and a home to those from Afghanistan who fought with us and alongside us, served as interpreters, worked for the British Council and taught English in Afghanistan.

The commitments of His Majesty’s Government’s under the ARAP and the ACRS are laudable but, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just made clear, even on their own admission they are failing. There were many thousands of people left behind in August 2021, and there are few obvious safe and legal routes for them to get from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. In his Statement in the other place, Johnny Mercer kept stressing the government mantra about being open to those who come via safe and legal routes. If those people who are left behind in Afghanistan could get here via safe and legal routes, does anybody think they would still be in Afghanistan? Of course they would not be; the reason they are not here is because there are no safe and legal routes out of Afghanistan. For those who have been given the right to come through the ARAP or the ACRS, there are very few routes out of Afghanistan.

What are His Majesty’s Government proposing to do to assist those people who are still in Afghanistan, but who do not have the passports and paperwork, to leave the country? It is all well and good to say that we will find accommodation for those who get here via a safe and legal route, but how do they do that?

People have been left for nearly two years in a vulnerable situation; if they were vulnerable in the middle of August 2021, how much more vulnerable are they in March 2023? Many of these people thought they had found safe houses, but a safe house can suddenly become unsafe. They move from place to place, with ever-diminishing resources. Some of them have passports but many of their dependants do not. It costs maybe $10 to get a visa legally, but how does one get one? It is almost impossible, so brokers are used and they might cost $1,100, and it is $3,000 for a passport through a broker.

Could the Minister reassure the House, and anyone with colleagues and networks back in Afghanistan, that those people who have managed to find the resources to pay for passports and other documentation through brokers, and have got to Pakistan, would be deemed to have done so legally? Would they be deemed to have got to Pakistan legally? Will they be reassured, if they have got to Pakistan, that they have a safe and legal route from Pakistan to the UK? That is vital.

It is disappointing that His Majesty’s Government seem to feel a need to focus on the people who are already here by saying that if they are in a hotel, they must move out. Of course nobody wants people to be stuck in hotels and it is wholly right that we should want to rehouse those people who are here as refugees, but Johnny Mercer’s Statement almost seemed to suggest that people were staying in the Ritz—that somehow they are staying in such wonderful hotel accommodation that they decline suitable offers of accommodation. If His Majesty’s Government are giving suitable offers of accommodation to people who are already here and they decline it, could the Minister perhaps look for ways of explaining to people how the accommodation is suitable? Maybe there has been a misunderstanding—or is it perhaps that there is a lack of suitable accommodation? In which case, what are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that suitable accommodation is available? Just saying that another £250 million has been made available does not do the job.

We need to understand that the accommodation is available to rehouse people; we need to find a way to get the thousand people out of hotels in Pakistan and over here, and we need to ensure that the other 8,000 people left behind can find a way here. Even if they do not come out of Afghanistan through safe and legal routes, if they come here through other routes, we should still open our doors to them. We owe them that.

Ukraine: Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, given that it has been a month since the last update, I once again reiterate our full support on this for the Government, and the people, Government and armed forces of Ukraine. We all understand that illegal force has to be stood up to, or the consequences can be severe, as we know from history. That is why the war in Ukraine is important not only for them but for us. It is the defence of democracy, and a stand for international law.

We have heard various reports about the war, often conflicting, so I wonder if the Minister could tell us what the latest situation is in Ukraine, as far as she is able to. On that point, is it not remarkable how, in the face of Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, however brutal, it has failed to break the will of the Ukrainian people or their Government? Is it not important that they continue to hear the support of us here in the UK, and of the unity of NATO? Is it not the case that sometimes the importance of maintaining the morale of the civilian population can be forgotten? Personal courage, human fortitude and a determination to stand up for what is right need to be saluted wherever they occur, in this instance in Ukraine. Can the Minister update us on the provision of food, energy and other supplies to help the Ukrainian people in their need?

The Secretary-General of NATO said a few days ago that it is important that we provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win, so we support the first package of military assistance for 2023 that the Government have just announced. Can the Minister tell us when the 14 Challenger tanks and the other equipment will be supplied to Ukraine, as I understand that speed of delivery is essential? Where are these tanks coming from—are they in storage or currently in active service?

The integrated review cut the number of Challenger tanks from 227 to 148. Do the Government now regret this decision, and will the review of this decision that the Defence Secretary has announced mean reversing the cuts or increasing the numbers above the original 227? Can the Minister tell us what the Chief of the General Staff meant when, according to press reports, he said that the donation of these tanks would leave a gap in our own capability?

The Prime Minister has ordered a review of UK military aid to Ukraine. Could the Minister update the Chamber on whether this has started and why the Prime Minister felt it was necessary to do that when the importance of our support is obvious?

Over the weekend we were also told that No. 10 has tasked

“the Defence Secretary with bringing together European allies to ensure the surge of global military support is as strategic and coordinated as possible.”

The Defence Secretary is in Estonia and Germany this week, I believe. Can the Minister reassure us that European unity remains as strong as ever and that Ukraine is being provided with all the weapons it needs from us all and, indeed, from all our allies?

There was one particularly interesting sentence in the Defence Secretary’s Statement that I draw the Chamber’s attention to. He said that this military package means that Ukraine

“can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil.”

Is that now the Government’s strategic aim?

President Putin believed that his forces would win in Ukraine in a matter of days. He believed that NATO’s resolve would weaken and that western support would fracture and split. In fact, the opposite has happened: NATO is strengthened and we have all shown great resolve, but nowhere near the resolve and bravery of the people of Ukraine and its armed forces. We must continue to do that. Would it not be appropriate for this Chamber and all of us in this Parliament to demonstrate this through not just a Statement but a full debate in this Chamber, so that many noble Lords can contribute to show our solidarity with the people of Ukraine? There is a war in Ukraine, a struggle for democracy on our doorstep. We should debate it in full in this Chamber.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as usual on matters of defence and in particular Ukraine, from these Benches I fully support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. These Benches also support what the Government are trying to achieve in Ukraine.

The Secretary of State for Defence has again given a very considered Statement to the other place. We should be grateful for the fact that he has been in post now for a considerable amount of time. He has not been one of the Ministers subject to repeated rotations. That is important, because we need to send the right messages—not just to Ukraine, the Ukrainian Government and the Ukrainian people but to Vladimir Putin and Russia—that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in its battle for its independence and sovereignty.

First, I note the helicopter crash yesterday and the loss of the Interior Minister, the Deputy Interior Minister and others from Ukraine since the Statement was given in the other place. I send sincere condolences to their families, and to the Government of Ukraine, whom I hope will be able to find worthy replacements in the interior ministry, because it is important that the Government of Ukraine can continue to defend themselves and their country as effectively as they have been doing for the past 11 months.

I very much support the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that we should have a full debate on Ukraine. We are coming up to the first anniversary of the invasion, and I wonder whether the usual channels could consider having a full debate, perhaps as soon as we come back after the half-term recess.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised questions about what is happening with supplies of food and energy. I noted in the Statement that the Secretary of State talked about the importance of

“collective efforts diplomatically, economically and militarily.”

As one might imagine, much of the Statement is about the military support that His Majesty’s Government propose to give. I realise that this is not quite the Minister’s remit, but could she tell the House whether there are any further moves for co-operation and co-ordination in economic and diplomatic sanctions and other activities to reinforce our commitment to ensuring that Russia understands the strength of western feeling on these matters?

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the tanks we are proposing to send. In addition to the question of the location of the tanks, one of the other questions we need to think about is what availability of equipment His Majesty’s Government have. The Hansard recorders and the Minister will probably think, “Oh, no, does Baroness Smith of Newnham really have to ask this question again?” But I think I do, because we are 11 months into this war and our support for Ukraine. Can the Minister advise the House, not on specific negotiations that would breach commercial confidentiality, but on what work His Majesty’s Government are doing with suppliers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to ensure that supply chains are in place? It was one thing in February and March 2022 to say, “We will support Ukraine. We will supply artillery” and so on and so forth. But, 11 months on, are His Majesty’s Government really sure that the UK has the supplies that we need and that in the pipeline for 2023, 2024 and 2025 we have the capabilities? We support the acceleration of support for Ukraine, but the Government need to be very clear that they have in place equipment and supply chain availability to ensure that we can keep the commitments that we are making. They are the right commitments, but we need to be able to deliver.

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start, at the end of this year, by thanking the Minister for her very helpful and co-operative approach in keeping me and this Chamber up to date with respect to Ukraine over the last 300 days. It has been very welcome. I also make the usual but nonetheless extremely important restatement of our support for the Government’s actions with respect to Ukraine. As we have stated many times, the fight for freedom, democracy and the rule of law remain as important now, 300 days after Russia’s illegal invasion, as they were on day one. President Putin has strengthened the resolve of NATO and been surprised by the co-operation that is so evident, again demonstrated by today’s visit to the White House of President Zelensky. The Ukrainian Government and their people should know that our resolve in this country remains strong.

I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions which arise from the Statement and the Government’s actions. First, can we expect the full 2023 action plan for Ukraine that the Defence Secretary promised four months ago, and which is not yet published? When will it be published?

It is reported again that Russia is seeking to boost and extend its military links with Iran: the Defence Secretary says that Russia intends to supply military technology to Iran in return for it supplying drones to Russia. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking on this with respect to Iran? The Defence Secretary says that the West must hold Russia’s enablers to account. How do the Government actually intend to hold Russia’s enablers to account—in this respect, Iran? Does it not also cause worries for that region around Iran as well, and show that the Ukrainian conflict has far-reaching consequences not only for Europe but beyond it?

In the face of the increasing support of drones being provided to Russia by Iran, what additional support are we providing to Ukraine to defend itself? Can the Minister update us on the latest situation with respect to the provision of military equipment to Ukraine by us and our allies? Are there any shortages, and are we maintaining our own stockpiles in the face of this additional demand?

Alongside the discussion around Ukraine, we read that the Prime Minister has ordered a review of UK spending in Ukraine, and of our support. Can the Minister explain what this actually means, given that Downing Street also said that it involved an audit of progress? Did the Ministry of Defence know that that statement was coming? Was there proper consultation about it and was it fully agreed?

The Ukrainian Government have also said that they require support, such as with energy, to help them through the winter in the face of the Russian attacks on their energy supply. How are we supporting civil society through such shortages, as the maintenance of the health and security of the civilian population in Ukraine is crucial to their own war effort? Given the reports in the media that Royal Marines have also been deployed in Ukraine—reports based on briefings from senior Royal Marine commanders—and particularly given that the missions carried

“a high level of political and military risk”

is there anything further the Minister can say on that?

As London is to join other cities in darkening Christmas lights for Ukraine, in a show of solidarity with the millions of Ukrainians without power this winter, will the Minister join me in praising the British public for their support for the people of Ukraine? There is not only Homes for Ukraine, but the many fundraisers and expressions of support. This support is also essential; it shows the understanding that this has been a long struggle and is likely to continue for some time yet. The British public, in the face of their own difficulties, deserve much praise for understanding that some face even more difficulty. Was not the Defence Secretary right to say in his Statement that 300 days

“is not the maximum attention span of the international community”?

It has to be the case that our dedication to help Ukraine is enduring. It will not, and must not, let up through 2023 and beyond.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as so often, I am very happy to associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. However, unlike yesterday in the questions on the Statement on the Afghanistan inquiry, I have a whole series of additional questions to put to the Minister. These are intended not to undermine anything that the noble Lord said but simply to press a little further.

Clearly, we must all salute the resilience of Ukraine, President Zelensky, First Lady Zelenska and the Ukrainian people, who have done so much to stand up not just for their own liberty and freedom but for freedom more widely, as the Secretary of State said yesterday in another place. It is indeed right that the United Kingdom and our NATO allies have been supporting Ukraine. I thought the words of the Secretary of State yesterday were very well measured, that

“our support is calibrated to avoid escalation”,

because that is absolutely vital. There is a very real danger, as I thought the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on, that this conflict could become much wider. Clearly NATO countries want to support Ukraine, but it is Ukraine’s war. It is right that we support by training Ukrainian service personnel and providing equipment, but we need to avoid escalation.

To press a little further, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify what work is being done to ensure that we have adequate contacts with the supply chains and those supplying military hardware to ensure that, down the line, there will be sufficient capabilities for His Majesty’s Armed Forces. We have raised these issues many times over the last 300 days, but the longer the conflict goes on the more important it is to ensure that there will be no difficulties with capabilities, not just in supporting Ukraine but for the United Kingdom Armed Forces themselves.

In addition to the question of capabilities, there is another. It is welcome to know, as everyone is aware, that the Royal Navy has been in the Black Sea and that the Army has been in various parts supporting the Joint Expeditionary Force in Eastern Europe. Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact on our Armed Forces of all the requirements that are being put on them? Yesterday, we talked about the need for our Armed Forces personnel to stand in to replace key workers during the strikes. Again and again, we are calling on our Armed Forces. Does the Minister think we are giving them sufficient support? Should we be thinking about reversing the cuts to the Army?

Beyond that, there are clearly questions about what Russia has been doing and the activities that it has perpetrated—war crimes, alleged atrocities of rape, and many other atrocities that have been put forward. In particular, there appear to be many Ukrainians whose bodies cannot be identified. Last month I was in the Falkland Islands, visiting on the 40th anniversary of the liberation. There, of course, we have attempted to put graves for Argentinian soldiers, who were not easy to identify. That was by way of reconciliation, in some ways.

Last year, I was in Bosnia where there are mothers still weeping because the dismembered bodies of their dead children are scattered. In the light of what we are seeing in Russia, will the Minister say whether the Government are ready to consider supporting the idea of some sort of tribunal on war crimes perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine?

Afghanistan: Independent Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition welcome this special inquiry under Lord Justice Haddon-Cave into alleged unlawful activity by His Majesty’s Armed Forces, and the fact that it will start in early 2023. We also welcome the fact that this work will provide full legal and pastoral support.

Can the Minister confirm at the outset that the inquiry will be given access to all the records, documents and other evidence that it needs, as well as personnel? The reputation of our Armed Forces and our Special Forces is second to none and we are rightly proud of them. However, we are also proud of the high standards of military ethics, professionalism and respect for international law that we abide by and uphold. Therefore, does the Minister agree that an inquiry such as this is essential to protect the reputation that we rightly have, and that it must not only succeed but be seen to succeed?

There are currently two ongoing judicial review cases which have informed this decision to have the independent inquiry. Can the Minister outline the relationship between these judicial reviews and the inquiry? The Minister’s Statement says that the MoD accepts that Operation Northmoor should have started earlier and that there may be further lessons to learn from the incidents, despite there being insufficient evidence for any prosecution.

The terms of reference allow the investigation to look at whether there is any credible information that any of those who died in the DDOs carried out between mid-2010 and mid-2013 were killed unlawfully. What happens if they find such information? Are prosecutions then possible concerning Operation Northmoor, despite what was said in the Statement? What has changed in the MoD since July, when the BBC’s “Panorama” reports on these allegations were immediately dismissed by the MoD as irresponsible, incorrect and jumping to unjustified conclusions? Now, just a few weeks later, we have an independent inquiry. What changed?

Can the Minister confirm that the terms of reference allow the inquiry to substantiate any allegations, as well as how the allegations were handled? Can she clarify that the inquiry’s independence is fully assured, given that it is to take place in the MoD? And can she confirm that, as this inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005, it is statutory and, therefore, that Lord Justice Haddon-Cave can summon whichever witnesses he sees fit and, if necessary, compel them to attend and give evidence under oath? Can he also ask any serving military personnel to attend the inquiry, whatever their rank? Does that also apply to civil servants, and political and other personnel? In the same period that is the subject of this inquiry, Australian Special Forces were also being investigated. Have we spoken to them to see if we can learn any lessons from them?

Then there are the implications, or potential implications, of this inquiry for Acts that have been passed and Bills currently before Parliament. I will give two specific examples. Can the Minister assure us that nothing in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act will prevent or hinder the investigations of this inquiry? Of course, we are all opposed to repetitive, vexatious, historic claims, but some clarification and reassurance is needed here.

Furthermore, can the Minister tell us whether the inclusion of Clause 28 in the National Security Bill has anything to do with this inquiry? In other words, is the proposed legislative change in this Bill a consequence of what has or has not happened? Clause 28 of the National Security Bill amends Schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 to provide that extraterritorial application of certain offences of assisting or encouraging the commission of an offence overseas does not apply if the behaviour was necessary for the proper exercise of any function of the intelligence services or Armed Forces.

Section 50 of the Serious Crime Act already provides a defence of acting reasonably where the defendant believed certain circumstances to exist and the belief was reasonable. The House of Commons Library states:

“The provision … appears to be intended to extend immunity from criminal prosecution to actions which could not be proved to have been reasonable.”


What, if any, discussions have the MoD had with the Home Office about Clause 28, and is it relevant or not?

I finish by quoting Minister Murrison, who said:

“I hope that the whole House shares my pride in our armed forces. They are renowned throughout the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/22; col. 1259.]


Well, we all do, and we are very grateful for their professionalism and loyal service. It is because of that that we need to make sure that we get this inquiry right and that everyone is committed to seeing it succeed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I start exactly where the noble Lord just left off: by acknowledging the debt we owe our Armed Forces and the high standards to which we hold them and to which the vast majority always adhere. But it is vital for the reputation of His Majesty’s Armed Forces and of our country that, if there has been illegal, inappropriate and unlawful action, it is investigated.

These Benches endorse all the questions that the noble Lord has just asked from the Labour Benches. They are all pertinent to the questions that the House should be asking, but I will add just a few points for further clarification.

One of the first questions that came to my mind was indeed about the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I note that Minister Murrison had almost second-guessed what noble Lords might ask by saying that the 2021 Act was always designed to enable the investigation and follow-up of any serious allegations, irrespective of time passed. So I ask the noble Baroness whether it is possible to reassure the House that none of the issues that will now be subject to the inquiry could be deemed out of scope under the purview of this Act. One of the serious concerns expressed by all sides of your Lordships’ House was that, precisely by having a time limit, certain crimes and unlawful actions would not be investigated. The House really needs reassurance about that. It is notable that the actions we are talking about date back over a decade, from mid-2010 to mid-2013. The timeframe is therefore very significant.

As the noble Lord pointed out, there are two cases of judicial review at present. It would clearly not be appropriate to ask questions or expect an answer on those at the moment, but might the Minister be able to tell us whether His Majesty’s Government believes that these are the only cases that need to be investigated, or whether the Ministry of Defence is anticipating that there could be further significant cases coming forward? At the moment, we are looking at potentially quite a limited inquiry. However, it could be very significant indeed. Some reassurance would be welcome.

The final point is on the question that we have already heard about the National Security Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House. How does Clause 28 fit with the investigation and the overseas operations Act? Can we, as a Parliament and a country, actually expect there to be proper scrutiny? Clause 28 seems to pave the way for some lacunae in the law. Can the Minister reassure us? If not, she should expect a number of amendments to the National Security Bill from all parts of your Lordships’ House.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we of course fully support this SI so that the Armed Forces Act 2006 can remain in force. It gives us a chance once again to offer the Armed Forces our full support and acknowledge all that they do, as the Minister said. The order is essential for the Armed Forces to be maintained as disciplined bodies. Indeed, it is as a result of this discipline that our Armed Forces are so successful in the discharge of their duties, whether at home or abroad, which she outlined for us. The need for our Armed Forces has been brought into sharp focus by events in Ukraine following Russia’s illegal invasion.

We are all proud of the way in which our country has supported Ukraine, and we need to ensure that it goes on as long as necessary. I ask the Government continually to explain to the British public the importance of our efforts and that we are defending democracy and freedom in eastern Europe, and for the rest of Europe and ourselves. Their fight is our fight. There will be other occasions to discuss this more broadly as well as the recent NATO summit in Madrid, the new strategy that emerged from it, defence spending and the future of our Armed Forces, including the mistake, as we see it, of reducing our Army by 10,000 troops, a decision which needs to be reviewed.

I have one specific question relating to the order. It is about Article 1(2), which states:

“This Order extends to England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories”.


I understand that, but can the Minister explain why it continues:

“(except Gibraltar) and the Channel Islands”?

We have a base in Gibraltar and our Armed Forces serve there, and I assume that there are some Armed Forces activities in and around the Channel Islands, and I wonder why they are not included.

I thank the Minister for her comments. As she said, we are rightly proud of our Armed Forces, whether they are supporting local communities, delivering aid or defending human rights, democracy and freedom in Europe and beyond. We will never take them for granted. They are respected across this Parliament and across the world, and for that we are humbled and grateful.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

From these Benches I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the Minister in supporting the Armed Forces and recognising the huge debt that we as a country owe them every day of every year.

When I realised there was yet another Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order, I began to think that perhaps I was getting so old that time was running away from me, because it did not feel like a year since we last debated the continuation of the Armed Forces Act. Then I looked and realised that Her Majesty gave Royal Assent only in December 2021, so it is not quite that we have gone a year without discussing the Armed Forces.

In some ways, this legislation ought to be the most important parliamentary business that we conduct. Having our Armed Forces is vital. We often talk about the security of the realm being the most important duty of government, but at the moment we do not see very many people on the Government Benches. It may be that noble Lords are busy trying to work out whether there is indeed a Government who are going to ensure that the Armed Forces provide the security of the realm at the moment. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will remain in his role for a little while longer, because we clearly need to ensure that defence is a top priority.

This is a very simple piece of legislation, but it is very important. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, it matters because of discipline. The Minister mentioned that statutory instruments will be coming forward in future. I looked to see whether my noble friend Lord Thomas was here because I normally rely on him to deal with the legal aspect of forces discipline and those aspects of Armed Forces legislation.

This order gives us the opportunity not just to pay tribute to our Armed Forces but to ask Her Majesty’s Government what they are doing not just to ensure that there can be service discipline and that our Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, but that as a country and a Parliament we are ensuring that our Armed Forces have the resources they require in terms of procurement, that the equipment they work with is adequate and does not cause health issues, that they have adequate accommodation, that their morale is ensured, and that we look again at forces numbers because having legislation that simply says “We have Armed Forces” is not sufficient. We need to ensure that our Armed Forces are fit for the 21st century and for the many tasks that are asked of them. I hope that in her reply the Minister will be able to go a little broader than the legislation in front of us today.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Report stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. The hour is very late and it is customary at this time of night to say that I shall be brief. I am not proposing to say that—which is probably just as well because, normally, if a noble Lord says they are going to be brief, they talk for at least 10 minutes.

This is an incredibly important amendment. In many ways, it is worthy of a debate in its own right—perhaps a Question for Short Debate—which would allow the House to discuss the details and the Minister to give a full answer. Six months ago, we were all talking about Afghanistan and our duties to people who had worked with us, alongside our forces, for the British Council and as security guards. In the last two weeks we have heard little about Afghanistan. When the Secretary of State for Defence was asked on the radio yesterday morning whether the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme had been opened, he was unable or unwilling to answer. He eventually said, “Well, it’s a matter for the Home Office, and by the way we’re very busy with Ukraine.” Yet as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has pointed out, the issues that we are thinking about here have parallels in Ukraine.

Importantly, the fact that there is a war in Ukraine does absolutely nothing to take away our moral duties to those people in Afghanistan who have been left vulnerable because they worked with us—perhaps for the British Council as contractors. There is a group of people who are petrified now, moving to safehouses on a regular basis and going underground so that we do not know where they are. Their lives are at risk. While the world is looking at Ukraine, we still have a duty to Afghanistan.

This amendment is detailed and specific. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, made clear when moving it, it is extremely important as a way of delivering on the commitments that we made six months ago. The ARAP scheme, when it was announced by the Secretary of State for Defence in April 2021, was seen as being important; nobody quite thought it would be needed to the extent that it has been. But the rules have changed, and they keep being changed. People who worked for the British Council as contractors and as interpreters—as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said—thought they had a right to come under ARAP but then that has become unclear. The Minister has on previous occasions agreed with me and other noble Lords that it is important that the Home Office, the MoD and the FCDO work together. Could she tell us, at least, that there is going to be some progress on ARAP?

It is now so late and there are so few Peers around that I believe it is unlikely we will take this to a vote, because it would be unfortunate and unhelpful to those who might wish to come under ARAP that a vote be lost. That would look like a kick in the teeth, which I hope is not a message that your Lordships’ House would wish to send.

Even if this amendment is not put to a vote, can the Minister give us some commitments on the ARAP scheme and the ACRS that might give hope to people who are still stuck in Afghanistan? Finally, might people who have been in Ukraine as Afghan refugees and are now seeking refuge yet again be able to come here? Might we deliver on some of our commitments under the Geneva convention on refugees?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will speak briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza; it is a really important amendment, which goes to the heart of the matter. Whichever way you look at it, there are Afghans who helped us who cannot relocate to the UK; that goes to the core of the importance of the noble Baroness’s amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has given us some examples and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us of the obligations that we continue to have. What assessment has the Home Office made, with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, about the number of people they would have expected to help who are still trapped in Afghanistan? What is the current situation there?

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, seeks to extend that eligibility to others who may be at risk from the Taliban-controlled Government in Afghanistan. We have a duty to help those who helped us; we all accept that, but what is the current situation? What are the routes available, and why would the Government not accept the amendment? We all agree with the principle but we know that problems still exist. An explanation would be extremely helpful; even at this late hour, this amendment enables us, once again, to ask the Government the extent of the problem and what they are going to do about it.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support both Motion A1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and Motion B1 in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, just pointed out, several noble and learned Lords and noble and gallant Lords have already articulated the case for Motion A1 very cogently. I do not propose to speak to that in any detail, because they have already made the case, as did the Member for Wrexham, Sarah Atherton, in the other place.

If there was only one Minister who was keen to keep service justice the way it is and for issues of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, and so on, to be kept in the courts martial system, that suggests, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out, that the Minister perhaps does not share the same views as the Secretary of State. Clearly, it is not the job of your Lordships’ House to persuade the Minister to come clean on her personal view; she is clearly speaking for the Government. However, if there is perhaps some difference of opinion within the MoD, might it be possible for the Minister to think again and for her to persuade Members of the other place to think again? The cases that have been put forward—the words of Johnny Mercer MP and the report brought forward by the Defence Committee of the House of Commons—are compelling.

I suggest that Motion B1 is in some way superior to what the Government are asking us not to agree with—that we do not go with the amendment that we voted on and approved on Report. At that stage, the amendment just talked about the Secretary of State, but that is slightly ambiguous. Which Secretary of State? The assumption implicit in that amendment was that it was the Secretary of State for Defence. However, on Report, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, pointed out that the situation was vital in Northern Ireland, and there it would not be necessarily be the Secretary of State for Defence that mattered so much as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The new amendment makes clear the import of what we had intended in the first place, all the way back at Second Reading and in Committee, that central government should be brought within the purview of the Bill.

The Minister says that this is about ensuring that key policymakers have the right information. She seemed to imply that this related only to local government, housing associations, local health providers—that is, people providing health, education and welfare support that come under the Bill. But surely that relates also to central government. In particular, it relates to all parts of central government. It does not just relate to the Secretary of State for Defence, particularly if he is caught up some blind alley. It also relates to the Home Secretary. We have already heard about some aspects of what might appear to be issues related to the military being passed over to the Home Office. Surely it is not adequate for the Secretary of State for Defence to report annually to the other place if what we need is the Home Secretary to bear in mind the needs of veterans and service personnel, particularly those who served in Hong Kong, or maybe the Gurkhas.

There is a need for the Bill to apply to central government as well as to local government and other authorities. I urge the House to support Motion B1 as well as Motion A1.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments A1 and B1. I will not go into the legal arguments around Amendment A1: the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and others have spoken about many of the legal reasons why this would be an improvement, and we wish the Government to think again on it. I say to the Chamber that review after review has said to the Government that the civilianisation of murder, manslaughter, rape and these charges would be of immense benefit. It is review after review after review; not just one review and then another review says something different, but review after review after review.

In what I thought were devasting comments in the other place—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out—the Minister responsible for the delivery of these policies agreed with the amendment that was put. You sometimes wonder what parallel universe you live in when all the evidence and all the points put forward support the amendment, only for it to be resisted by the Government. I ask the Minister—who frankly even in her remarks today went further than she has in some of our other debates—to reflect on that. The reviews and now Johnny Mercer MP in the other place say that as well.

Can the Minister clarify the statistics for us? The statistics quoted by Johnny Mercer were 16% but, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, the Minister quoted a much different figure. I think it was around 50%—to be fair, I cannot remember the exact figure. I think we would all be interested in this House in how that figure was arrived at, what the sample size was, and what length of time it was done over. This is an important amendment. I am very pleased to support Amendment A1, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

I ask the Minister: is there is any update on where we have got to with the defence-wide strategy for dealing with rape and serious sexual offences within the service justice system? Is there any further news about when we can expect that?

I also want to briefly say something about this. I say this as my last comment on these issues around the service justice system. Significant numbers of cases continue to be raised by Sarah Atherton and by many of the other members who continue to serve. We read about it in our newspapers. We need to reflect on the fact that case after case is brought forward. This would be a way for the Government to restore confidence in the system and in the way that these issues are dealt with.

In supporting the amendment from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, I point out to the Chamber that again this is something that the Royal British Legion sees as of immense importance and that needs to be done. It is something that would improve the situation.

Just recently, on 6 December, the Government published the draft statutory guidance for the covenant. It lists the responsibilities on healthcare authorities, the responsibilities on local authorities, the responsibilities on every single public body you could virtually think of except the Government themselves. I say to the Minister that I have never been convinced in any shape or form that the people of this country would believe that a covenant between the state and the people would exclude the national Government. I just do not believe that people, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, would understand that. The perception of it, apart from anything else, is something that undermines that.

I appreciate what the Government have done in the Bill in terms of placing a legal duty on everyone, but I wonder why it places a legal duty on everyone but the national Government themselves and I ask the Government to think again on that.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

3rd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a real pleasure for me to see my first Bill through your Lordships’ House on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, with my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who I thank for his support. It has been helped enormously by the generosity of spirit and co-operative attitude of the Minister. I sincerely thank her and her officials for the briefings and advice that we have received throughout the Bill’s passage. I also thank her sincerely for the way in which she has responded to our questions and amendments, and her commitment to reflect on the various points as policies are taken forward by the Ministry of Defence.

In that regard, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and her colleagues, notably the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their collegiate approach, which has helped us all scrutinise the Bill more effectively. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Thanks to him, I now understand terms such as “concurrent jurisdiction”. Throughout the Bill, advice from my noble friends Lord West and Lord Reid was gratefully received, as was the tireless and impressive work of Dan Harris, our adviser. It was also a privilege to have my noble and learned friend Lord Morris and my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Robertson alongside me. Their expertise and experience is a huge asset to our country, as is the active involvement of many noble and gallant Lords, some present here this afternoon. We hope that the Government will further consider the amendments that we have passed back to the other place, which are intended not to undermine the Bill but merely to improve it, and that they will reflect and think again.

We are all united by admiration for our Armed Forces and the service they give to our country. We know that we depend on them to defend our democracy and values at home and across the world, with our allies. We know that those values are likely to be tested again and again over the coming years and decades. The Bill, soon to be an Act, is part of the contract we make as our duty of care for them and their families, and we as Her Majesty’s Official Opposition have been proud to support it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in thanking the Minister, and join her in thanking her officials for the time they have been willing to take to brief the opposition spokespeople here in the Lords, and to answer questions in private, in Grand Committee and in the Chamber. It has been an important process and helpful to have had detailed responses, particularly on some of the legislative aspects, where my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is expert and I am not. It has been very useful to have the legal input, and I am grateful for that.

Like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I pay tribute to the Armed Forces. The Bill is important, and it is particularly important at this time to be putting the Armed Forces covenant on a statutory footing. We have now left Afghanistan—Op Pitting has just taken place—and, for many of our service personnel and veterans, there will be questions about the end of Op Herrick and what we have managed to achieve. For some, there may be consequences with which, I hope, the Armed Forces covenant will help them deal.

I very much hope that the two amendments passed in your Lordships’ House will go through the other place without needing to come back for ping-pong. I suspect that may not happen but, pending that, I thank the Minister again and hope that the Bill is passed as quickly as possible, because we clearly need it on the statute book by the end of the year.

Army Restructuring: Future Soldier

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. In particular, I associate myself with the remarks she made about the return of our Armed Forces to Parliament yesterday.

It was the Government’s defence Command Paper, published only this year, which outlined a significant restructuring of the Army, including an overall reduction in troop numbers from 82,000 to 73,000 by 2025. This broke an election promise from the Prime Minister, and RUSI stated soon after that these cuts ended an era in which the UK could describe itself as a full-spectrum military power.

Today’s Statement confirms that the Army will be reorganised into a “leaner Army”, as the Secretary of State for Defence calls it, under four new administrative divisions of infantry. He said that numbers are reducing everywhere, but we must wait for a full breakdown online. It is welcome that the Government are responding to new threats of technology, cyber and hybrid warfare, but this should not be at the expense of other needed capabilities. Can the Minister reassure us that this is not the case? Can she reveal the impact on base closures to this Chamber now? Can she confirm that not one member of the Armed Forces will receive a redundancy package? Can she also explain what this Army restructuring means for European restructuring, our NATO commitments and global Britain?

We believe that, while our Armed Forces are highly respected worldwide for their professionalism and all-round excellence, numbers still matter. Our full-time forces are already nearly 10,000 below the strength that Ministers said in 2015 was needed to meet the threats that Britain faces. Can the Minister confirm the actual and final number for troop reduction and any timeline for that?

These cuts to Army personnel come at a time when the threats to the UK and our allies are growing and diversifying, especially if we consider various developments —for example, in Ukraine. Deeper cuts now could limit our forces’ capability and capacity to deploy overseas, support allies, maintain strong national defences and reinforce domestic resilience. Therefore, we believe that these reductions to the Army should be paused, pending a review, and reversed if necessary.

The procurement and delivery of armoured vehicles, which are vital to the protection of infantry on the ground, are also in disarray. The number of Challenger main battle tanks due to be upgraded has been reduced, the Warrior capability sustainment programme has been axed, and its replacement, Boxer, is unproven. Notwithstanding the remarks the Minister made in the Statement, can she give a further update to the Chamber on how these various programmes and their replacements are progressing? The £5.5 billion Ajax programme is more than four years late on its in-service date and has been beset by noise and excessive vibration problems, resulting in injured personnel. So far, just 14 have been delivered, at a cost of approximately £3.5 billion. Could the Minister give us an update on the current situation with Ajax?

Today’s Statement also comes at a time when Ministers are becoming increasingly reliant on troops to fix problems at home. There were 359 instances of civilian aid last year and 237 in the year to date. That is up from 120 or so in the four previous years. In Written Answers published just a few weeks ago, the Minister revealed that around 560 military personnel are currently deployed on supporting the NHS, 500 personnel are helping to supply fuel around the country, and 4,000 troops are on standby to help with Covid support. Can the Minister give us any update on how this restructuring may impact the support that the Army gives to the many emergency services around the country and on the various emergencies that occur?

Finally, change is always needed, but we seem to keep changing the changes. Is this the last time that we can expect there to be a major Command Paper or Statement changing things that were seen only a few years ago as essential for the defence and security of our nation? I finish by saying again how proud we all were to welcome our Armed Forces to Parliament yesterday. This Statement gives all of us an opportunity to mark that memorable occasion.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and am glad we have gone back to having Statements repeated, rather than them being assumed to have been read. I have just come straight from the debate on genocide, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton; I was trying to read the Statement during that debate, but it was such an important debate that it was quite difficult to read anything. It has been very helpful to hear the Minister, but this is also important to get a sense of the Chamber. When something is read out, you can see reactions.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I pay tribute to our Armed Forces. Sadly, I was not in Westminster yesterday, so was not able to help welcome back those from Op Pitting, but obviously the whole nation pays tribute to our Armed Forces, everything they have done in that operation, and the many things done in the 18 months to two years in which we have been dealing with Covid.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, we are now using our Armed Forces very extensively, yet we seem to think we can have them ever reducing in size. I am a bit worried about this idea of the “future soldier”; I am hoping there will be more than one of them and that this is not a Matchbox idea of an identikit soldier, but rather a strange, generic name meaning the 73,000 personnel that I think we will have as full-time regulars.

I found the Statement extremely confusing, and I do not think it was the way the Minister read it or my inability to read the statistics at short notice. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, we had a headline goal of 82,000 personnel, which was going to be reduced; at the moment, we are on only about 76,000 anyway. We are now told that another 500 soldiers means an increase to 73,000, but that is still fewer than we have at the moment, so will we see cuts or increases and is this anything more than hypothetical?

At one point, we were given the figure of over 100,000 personnel, including the reserves. Could the Minister clarify what assessment the Government have made about the actual number of personnel needed in an integrated force of regulars and reserves? What will the total target number be and is 500 actually an addition or not?

The second area where there is something a little misleading is the fact that one of the five points we are supposed to take away from this Statement is that there are benefits for the

“whole of our union, with an increased proportion of the Army based in each of the devolved nations”.

That sounds wonderful, but then you look at the detail and realise that that means a larger proportion of a smaller force, so that, with the exception of Wales, the devolved nations will have not actually more personnel serving but just a larger proportion. I am not sure that will feel like a real bonus in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Could the Minister explain how the devolved nations will actually benefit, in a tangible way?

Finally, on capabilities—sorry, it is not finally, I have two more points. On capabilities, the Statement says:

“We are resolving development issues with the, nonetheless technically capable, Ajax armoured reconnaissance vehicle.”


Can the Minister reassure us that this vehicle will ever come into service? Is it really fit for purpose?

My final point is that we have had the Armed Forces Bill going through this place. We are almost at the final stages, but we have talked a lot about AI. That is touched on in the report. Will there be enhanced training for our future soldiers in artificial intelligence and machine learning, and how will that be brought it into the reduced size of the Armed Forces?

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 24 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting this amendment, which seeks to establish a defence authority responsible for cultures and inappropriate behaviours outside the chain of command. This is a direct recommendation from both Wigston and the Defence Sub-Committee’s recent report into women in the Armed Forces.

I am sure one of the arguments we will hear from the Minister again is that we do not need an independent defence authority, as the Government established the diversity and inclusion directorate in April this year. But I remind the Minister of the conclusion of the Defence Sub-Committee’s report, which stated that:

“the Directorate’s mandate differs in key ways from the Authority recommended by the Wigston Review. For instance, the Directorate will not handle the most serious behavioural complaints outside of the Single Services, centrally.”

Therefore, there is a clear difference. The report was also clear that

“the MOD has not fulfilled the recommendation for a Defence Authority”

with the directorate. I would be grateful to know what the Minister says to that.

The report found that

“the Services are failing to help women achieve their full potential … Within the military culture of the Armed Forces and the MOD, it is still a man’s world … There is too much bullying, harassment and discrimination—including criminal behaviours like sexual assault and rape—affecting Service personnel.”

I know the Minister and all noble Lords will agree that this has to change and we need to do better. The debate is about how we do that.

The Minister will understand how much this is a real issue. We read in our newspapers and heard on the news recently:

“Army boss announces culture audit after defence secretary talks.”


This is a probing amendment, not something I will seek to divide the House on. Notwithstanding that, the amendment deals with a very important matter, which I know all of us will be concerned about. The news continued:

“The head of the British army has announced an independent audit of its culture amid concerns over bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination. Gen Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said the audit will ‘reinforce the best and weed out the worst’ It comes after Defence Secretary Ben Wallace met Army leaders earlier over concerns about culture and discipline.”


I am really pleased that the Defence Secretary and General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith have done that. The debate is whether an independent defence authority, established according to the recommendations of Wigston and the Defence Sub-Committee, would help deliver that and ensure that the changes that we all want occur quickly and make a real difference.

In closing, I ask the Minister whether we have yet been told the date on which the Government will publish their response to the Defence Sub-Committee’s report. I understand that it may be next week. Can the Minister confirm that? I gently say to the Minister that it would have been helpful for the passage of the Bill had we had the Government’s formal response to that report before the conclusions of our deliberations—with Third Reading next Monday.

As I said, this is a probing amendment. I know the Minister cares about these issues and wants change to occur. All I am saying is that the Army, the Defence Secretary and everyone agrees, but it is how we deliver it, whether we cannot get a little bit of a move on, and whether an independent defence authority—as recommended by the bodies I have mentioned—would help with respect to that.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have signed.

In the first group of amendments this evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out that she was the only female Peer speaking in that group. At that stage, I did not speak, not because I did not think it was important to speak on service justice but because we felt from these Benches that it was appropriate to have one person speaking, and that person was my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. He is rather more expert on the military justice side of things than I am. I would like to add my support to tackling the range of issues that are faced by women in the military.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out that this is a probing amendment, but it is an important amendment because the report that was done for the House of Commons Defence Sub-Committee, brought forward by Sarah Atherton, was a very revealing one. I know that the Minister is aware of the report, not just from iterations in this Chamber but because, at some point during the Summer Recess, I happened to turn on “Woman’s Hour”, and I heard none other than the Minister and Sarah Atherton MP talking about the report.

These are issues of concern not only within the Armed Forces and the Palace of Westminster; they are issues that have traction much more broadly. They are important issues and, while it might not be necessary to include this amendment in the Bill, it is vital that the Government take notice of the issues that have been raised by serving female personnel and veterans.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, there is a set of issues that needs to be thought about. Bullying and harassment have no place in the Armed Forces. Some of the issues that have been revealed, as mentioned in the previous group of amendments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, are actually very damaging to public understanding of the Armed Forces. We need to be very careful to make sure that, if discipline is not maintained and there are issues affecting people in the Armed Forces—particularly women—they are looked into. If the Minister is not able to accept the language of this amendment, we would be grateful if she would explain a little bit more about what the Ministry of Defence is doing to help bring about behavioural change.

Statements from the Secretary of State might be of interest, but the current Secretary of State seems to talk to the media an awful lot. Sometimes it feels as if he is rather shooting from the hip. It would be nice to know that some of these comments are actually based on practice and ways of effecting change. Can the Minister give us some comfort in this regard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will make a very brief comment based on what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lord Browne have just said. There was some debate in Committee about raising the age of recruitment, and there was disagreement about that. It is incumbent upon the Government to take very seriously the points that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Browne have made, about the allegations and reports there have been, whatever the rights and wrongs of that. Also important is the point raised in the amendment about the length of service and what is taken into account.

For those of us who, like me, do not support raising the age of recruitment, it is particularly incumbent upon us to ensure that reports and allegations of the sort we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Browne, alongside some of the other concerns raised, are taken very seriously by the Government. They should address them as quickly and urgently as possible and report the results of their deliberations into the public domain.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not quite support this amendment but will speak in rather the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. From the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, in Committee, I also spoke against raising the age of recruitment, but of course that is not what this amendment seeks to do.

The debate has focused on three issues: first, the age of recruitment, which is not formally the subject of this amendment; secondly, the question of the minimum term for service, which is, officially, what is in the amendment; and, thirdly, the issue of Harrogate, which has been discussed at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, suggested that everyone spoke in laudatory terms about Harrogate in Committee; while the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, spoke in laudatory terms, I think the rest of us were very much looking forward to the Minister facilitating a visit, so that we could understand what happened at Harrogate a little better—although I think the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, might have visited.

There is clearly a need to separate three different issues here, one of which is how the current facility works. The sorts of cases that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, mentioned clearly need to be looked into. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what the MoD is doing to investigate the sorts of cases that are currently hitting the headlines and reassure the House that appropriate action is being taken. That needs to be separate from whether or not we believe that the age of recruitment is actually right.

However, it is important to consider the age of recruitment and what happens to 16 and 17 year-olds when we look at what is in this amendment. It may be only a probing amendment, but it is nevertheless one where we need to look at what is actually understood by “service”. It is very clear that there is a difference in the language that is used by those who oppose recruitment at 16 and the arguments against child soldiers, for example, which seems to suggest that, somehow, 16 year- olds are being allowed to go off to the front line—they are not; you cannot go to the front line until you are 18, and then only if you have been trained.

What do the Government understand by “service”? Is it that 16 and 17 year-olds can be recruited and trained, but that somehow that does not count as service for the purposes of the minimum service requirement? If that is the case, could the Government make it very clear? If Harrogate, or whatever an appropriate equivalent might be, is about training, is it seen as an appropriate alternative to continuing education in school or a further education college, which, as some of us believe and as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, argued in Committee, can be very relevant for some 16 and 17 year-olds who want not to go back to mainstream education but to do something different? Clearly, if that is the case, what is happening for 16 and 17 year-olds needs to be appropriate.

All of us must surely agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that we need to craft a recruitment policy fit for the 21st century and not the 19th century. Could the Minister reassure us that what is available is fit for the 21st century, and that what is happening at Harrogate has been investigated and we do not have anything to worry about? Can she explain to us the Government’s understanding of service that is accrued from the age of 16 to 18, inclusive?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to support this amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has probably spent an hour, this evening and in aggregate, explaining to the Chamber the need for this amendment.

As the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones have pointed out, on 1 November, some of the issues raised about novel technologies and autonomy were raised; I am not sure the House was wholly persuaded by the answers the Minister was able to give on that occasion. I think it is essential that the Government think again about how they might respond to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and to this amendment, because we have heard how vital it is that we understand the danger that the world is in. We cannot just ignore it or say we might think about it at some future date because it is not a matter for today.

If we are keen to recruit for the 21st century, recruitment is not just about cannon fodder; it is about people who are able to understand the legal aspects of warfare and the moral issues we need to be thinking about. We need service personnel, but we also need—as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, so eloquently argued—politicians and officers who are able to make decisions. There are questions about autonomy that need to be understood and focused on now, and it is crucial that we talk with our partners in NATO and elsewhere. We cannot simply say we are not interested at the moment in debating and negotiating international agreements; we absolutely have to. The time to act on this is now; it not at some future date when the Government think they might have time. We need to do it today.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is one of these debates that takes place very late at night that should have a packed Chamber listening. It is not a criticism, but the importance of the debate is immense. I thought the introduction from my noble friend Lord Browne was tremendous—I really did. We went from a situation where we all thought “Hopefully we won’t be too long on this amendment” to everybody listening to what he had to say and then thinking they had important contributions to make.

Lots of noble Lords have made outstanding contributions, but this is a bit of a wake-up call, actually. This is happening. My noble friend Lord Kennedy mentioned that he was in a Home Office debate and they were talking about what the police were looking at and, no doubt, what Border Force and all sorts of other people are looking at. But in the sense of the military here, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, we are going to ask people to operate within a context and a legal framework. What will that be? Because we are going to order them to do things.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise as a Liberal Democrat to support this amendment and, like the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to apologise that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is not able to be present in Committee today. He asked an Oral Question last week, to which the Minister responded:

“UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement.”—[Official Report, 1/11/21; col. 995.]


I was not sure that the Chamber fully understood what “context-appropriate human involvement” was. It was a phrase that the Minister used many times. I wonder if she could elaborate this afternoon a little more on what she meant and whether now might not be the time to think a little more about AI, machine learning and some of the forward-looking issues. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, pointed out, this would be a forward-looking aspect to the Bill. It is surely time for us to think about that, because the ethical and moral questions of people being killed by autonomous weapons that have a life of their own are unconscionable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Craig, for tabling this incredibly important and forward-thinking amendment and the ensuing debates around it. As we have heard, Amendment 59 seeks to force the Government to conduct

“a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence … for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from overseas operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for the United Kingdom’s armed forces operating overseas, including … how international and domestic legal frameworks governing overseas operations need to be updated in response to novel technologies”.

As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, this was first debated during the passage of the overseas operations Bill and, just like then, it is about future-proofing this legislation as well as ensuring protection for our personnel from the increased risks when using new technology. I understand my noble friend Lord Browne’s concerns about the mismatch between the need to be future-focused when it comes to technology and emerging threats, and the legislation we have in front of us.

Technology is not only changing the kinds of threats we face but changing warfare and overseas operations in general. Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch said that

“we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country … The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 67.]

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how the Government view this and what changes they have in mind.

The Prime Minister was surely right, when giving his speech on the integrated review last year, when he said that technologies “will revolutionise warfare” and announced

“a new centre dedicated to artificial intelligence”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 489.]

and an RAF fighter system that will harness AI and drone technology. It sounds impressive—it is impressive—but, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, as military equipment gets upgraded, we do not know whether the Government necessarily plan to upgrade the legal frameworks for warfare and what this means for legal protections for our Armed Forces personnel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I did sit down; I apologise.

On Amendment 62, like other noble Lords, I can see no justification for saying that somebody recruited at 16 should be required to stay in for longer than people recruited at any other age. I really have finished now.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a bit nervous of standing up.

I will make some brief remarks, if noble Lords will bear with me. It is somewhat strange for me: my noble friend Lady Massey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I have spent years campaigning on children’s rights and on 100% of occasions have been exactly as one on all these issues. I therefore fully understand the proposal outlined in Amendment 61, but I have always been persuaded by the argument that has been put forward: for some young people in some situations, recruitment into the Army at 16 offers a way out of the situation in which they have found themselves. It is often a desperate situation—not for all the recruits at 16, but certainly for a number of them.

I was persuaded by this as much as anything. Most of the schools I taught in for 20 years before becoming a Member of Parliament and then joining your Lordships’ House were in the most deprived and desperate communities. One of the options available to those young people was the Armed Forces. Indeed, we used to use the uniformed organisations, admittedly not the Army, but certainly organisations such as the cadets, the Scouts and the Guides, if it was girls, to try to instil some structure into completely chaotic lives. I have always felt that, in some situations, recruitment at 16 gave some young people an opportunity that they otherwise would not have had. I have always been persuaded by that argument and certainly that is our position formally from the Front Bench.

I do not want to get into an “I have done this and other people have not” discussion but I have been to the college at Harrogate—not that you have to go to places like that to have a legitimate or honest opinion. I went there when I was shadow Secretary of State a number of years ago and it was fantastic. It was brilliant and the experience of the young people and the dedication of the Army personnel who were responsible for them was first rate. The young people talked openly about their experience there. You can be cynical about it and say that they were set up to do it and they would not say anything else because they would be worried about getting in trouble, but I did not feel that, to be honest. Maybe I was duped—who knows? However, I felt when I was there that those young people expressed a view that supported the fact that they were allowed to be recruited at 16.

I know that there are very deeply held views on both sides on this. They will cut across party lines, probably. As I have said, I am completely persuaded and always have been by that argument that it creates opportunity. That is the position that the Front Bench of Her Majesty’s Opposition have at present.

There are concerns and I think the Minister would say that some of the allegations that have come out need to be addressed. Some of the statistics from the report quoted by my noble friend Lady Massey are concerning. We need to understand the rights and wrongs of the bullying and of the sexual allegations. We need to get to the root of that. As Amendment 62 points out, maybe there is something there that needs to be looked at.

A very serious debate has taken place here and people have very deeply held views. It is a debate that has been going on for decades about whether it is right to recruit young people at that age because they are too young, or whether is it right to create an environment in which they can join at that age if they are properly supported, protected. They are looked after but they are given an opportunity that were it not available to them there would be significant problems in their lives. That opportunity should be made available to them, but that then puts an added responsibility on all of us to ensure that they are properly cared for and properly looked after as part of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I will particularly speak to Amendments 48 and 66A. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, pointed out in introducing Amendment 66A, it very much builds on those he sought very hard to bring forward on the overseas operations Bill. The suggestion at the time was that perhaps that Bill was not the right place for such an amendment.

The idea of a duty of care seems to be beneficial, and the amendment is laid out in very clear detail. I have a suspicion that the Minister might come back with a whole set of reasons why even this Bill is not the right place, and that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about unintended consequences might come with the suggestion that there will be scope for some sort of legal interpretation and that this might create all sorts of problems. However, does the MoD not have a duty of care to service personnel and their families? Should this not be very clearly stated? If the Minister does not accept that Amendment 66A as currently proposed would be a desirable addition to the Bill, could she undertake to think about an alternative amendment that could be brought back on Report?

Amendment 48, relating to service personnel and mental health, is important. As other Peers have pointed out, the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, are important in bringing personal insights. Often when we talk about legislation relating to the Armed Forces, we are a bit technical. We talk not necessarily about individuals but about generalities. It is clearly important to think about the individual because it is precisely the individual who matters in each of the three amendments in this group.

However, I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that Amendment 48 specifically refers to veterans affected by events in Afghanistan. There may be a case for saying that, on the face of a Bill, we should be a little more general rather than being quite so specific. If the Minister’s only objection to Amendment 48 happens to be something along the lines of not being able to talk specifically about people being affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, perhaps again she might suggest some alternatives. Very clearly, there are a huge number of serving personnel and veterans who have been affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, precisely because they served there on multiple occasions, so this case is very specific.

All these amendments enhance the Bill. I hope the Minister will see her way to accepting parts of at least some of them, even if she cannot accept all of them in full. If she cannot accept them, we will obviously bring some or all of them back on Report.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in the important group before us. There are clearly many issues around mental health support but I have an optimistic note. We heard contributions from very senior former military officers—not least the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, who moved the exceedingly important Amendment 48, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, who supported it—and former Secretaries of State for Defence talking about mental health in a way that would not have happened 20 or 25 years ago. That is significant progress and we should all be proud of it.

Perhaps that stigma we all worry about is starting to lift. Is it good enough and are we there yet? No, but my noble friend Lord Robertson spoke movingly about his experiences, shocking as they were. I am certain that those officers who served in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere across the world, could recount their own stories of horror. Others of us could recount horrors that have occurred in our own lives: the right reverend Prelate may have had very distressing things to deal with in talking to people during his ministry. Within the context of the Armed Forces Bill, though, mental health is now something that we can talk about and discuss. That is why this amendment is so important, although maybe there are problems with it; the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed some out.

We can almost see in the drafting of Amendment 48 the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. Yes, it refers to Afghanistan: proposed new subsection (1) talks about

“targeted support for serving Armed Forces personnel who have been affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal”

from Afghanistan, but before that it refers to

“additional mental health support for … Armed Forces personnel, including but not limited to”

that support. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, includes a recognition that Afghanistan may be on our minds, for obvious reasons, given the bravery of our service men and women there and the horror of what we have just witnessed, et cetera. But I suggest that, in drafting his amendment, he was very aware of the fact that there are people who have served, and are serving, in countless places across the world whose trauma could need additional support.

To be frank, the Minister may have some official statistics on this. I do not know the actual number of those affected, but it would be useful for the Committee to know from the Ministry of Defence its assessment of the level of need, if that is the right way of putting it, with respect to this provision. Perhaps I may tell her one thing that drives me absolutely insane: people know that I try to tell it as it is but, from the Government’s announcements over the last few months, I have no idea exactly what is happening to spending on mental health in terms of additional support for veterans or their families, both serving and in the future. There have been numerous announcements; I hope the Committee will bear with me if I refer to two or three.

At the end of August, the Government announced that Armed Forces veterans would benefit from extra support, including extra mental health services, thanks to a further £2.7 million in funding. Is that additional funding and what is it on top of? It would be helpful to know what the spending on mental health support was last year, is this year and will be next year. Resources are clearly an issue and it would be really good to know what the official level of spending is on mental health support for our serving personnel and veterans. What is it now and what is projected as we go forward?

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am generally supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. He very ably made the point why the time to act is now rather than waiting a further five years before something is done. I very much hope the Minister can respond positively to what I think is a very sensible amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I have nothing to add.

Ajax Armoured Cavalry Programme

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Coaker

Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Ajax is now a programme on an end-of-life watch. Clearly things have gone from bad to worse, with the Public Accounts Committee pursuing an inquiry, the National Audit Office accepting the need for an urgent investigation, and the Government’s own Major Projects Authority saying that delivery appears to be unachievable. Now the Government themselves in their own Statement say that it is not possible to determine a realistic timetable for the introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service. Some £3.5 billion of money has been spent so far, for the delivery of just 14 Ajax vehicles.

My first question to the Minister is: what is actually going on? Can the Minister now guarantee that the problems of noise, instability, inability to fire if moving—among others—will be fixed, and tell us what the timescale is, or is it just trials, trials, and more trials followed by evaluation with no end? If all of this goes wrong, who picks up the bill—the taxpayer or General Dynamics? With noise and vibration issues still not resolved, despite the Government being warned in 2018, the number of personnel needing assessment has doubled to 310. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 248 Army personnel tested so far needed medical treatment, and for what? Will the Minister commit to the health and safety director’s report being published this year?

With the chair of the Defence Select Committee himself recently describing in the other place the Ajax procurement plan as a “dog’s dinner,” can the Minister tell us what alternatives to Ajax are being looked at, since Warrior is being scrapped and replaced with Boxer, which has no turret? Is it the CV-90, or an upgraded Warrior, or a Boxer with a turret? It must have a gun, as the Minister will know, to protect dismounted troops on the battlefield. What is it going to be?

The reality is stark, with jobs at risk in South Wales as the Government will know, troop numbers being cut—the decision partly based on the delivery of all Ajax vehicles—but 575 out of the 589 have yet to be delivered. And yet the £5.5 billion ceiling, which the Government tell us is an absolute maximum, is fast approaching. The £3.5 billion was spent for 14, with 575 outstanding, but not a significant amount of the budget is left.

In closing, I ask the Minister: the Government’s plan A for our armoured fighting vehicles looks like failing, so where is the plan B, and when will we get it?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister in the other place said

“I have previously described Ajax as a troubled programme.” —[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/21; col. 487.]


I could not have put that better myself.

One of the changes since Covid is that Ministers are no longer required to read out Statements from the other place, which might be a great relief to the Minister concerned, but perhaps means that noble Lords do not always hear the detail which is enshrined in the Statements we are debating.

The devil very much is in the detail here. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has pointed out, a few details need to be explored in some depth. So far, £3.5 billion has been spent, and the Minister has said that the upper limit is still £5.5 billion. Defence procurement has long been a troubled area, with projects going overtime and overbudget. The Minister in the other place has said very clearly that this project will not go overbudget; it is very clearly going to go overtime. Can the Minister tell us whether she believes that the project is actually achievable at all?

The Minister in the other place said that the problems are not “irresolvable”, but how do we know? The problems are apparently electrical and mechanical. Do we know if there is a solution to them and, if so, what that solution might be? Has General Dynamics been given any timeline for resolving these problems, or is it just being left for it to come back at some vague date in the future to tell us there are going to be yet more trials? What assessment have the Government made of the gaps in our own capabilities if the Ajax programme is not delivered in a timely fashion—indeed, if it will not be delivered at all?

Beyond that, we have already heard that 310 people are deemed to be in need of urgent assessment. Is that the total number of people who have been involved in the trials, or are there more people? Do we have any sense of the duty of care we should be thinking about when we consider who we are asking to be part of these trials, particularly given that some of the concerns about noise appear to have arisen before the trials started? If the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, were here, he would probably jump up later to explain that, actually, during trials you have teething problems. That is fine, but in this case we knew there were problems before the trials started. Can the Minister give us some indication of when the Government knew of the problems? What action are the Government planning to take to ensure that the 310, or however many people have so far been involved in trials, are not put further at risk? This procurement project seems at the moment to be a failing project, and that is clearly to the great detriment of this country.