Strategic Defence Review 2025

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, this has been a highly informative and fascinating debate, wide-ranging in many ways, from the forensic speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Harlech on the reservist infrastructure. I echo the spirit of the House and praise the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for facilitating this debate. I also thank the other reviewers, General Sir Richard Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill. The review they have produced is clearly very thorough and thought-provoking. It also makes 62 recommendations to the Government, ranging from the “NATO first” policy to establishing an integrated force to expanding our space capabilities, as my noble friend Lady Goldie mentioned.

It is welcome that the Government have accepted all the recommendations, but this review is just the start. The reviewers have delivered their report and recommendations. The ball now lies firmly in the Government’s court. It is their actions on implementation, as mentioned by many noble Lords, that will be key to how the defence of our nation develops and meets the challenges of the future. It is to the practicalities and resource implications that I will therefore direct my focus.

In the Statement repeat in this House on the publication of the strategic defence review, my noble friend Lord Minto raised the issue of naval assets. The review mentions the term “amphibious” only three times. The Government scrapped HMS “Albion” and HMS “Bulwark” last year, meaning that currently we have only three Bay-class ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary that can, when called up, conduct such operations. This is an unprecedented capability gap and leaves us behind other NATO countries. France has three Mistral-class landing helicopter docks in addition to its “Charles de Gaulle” aircraft carrier, and Italy has three San Giorgio-class landing platform docks that are due to be replaced at the end of the decade, therefore Britain is currently falling behind both France and Italy. I understand why the Government took the decision to scrap “Bulwark” and “Albion”, but we are now faced with the fact that we do not possess these capabilities, and it seems we do not have a plan to replace them. The nature of naval warfare is changing, as the review acknowledges, but it is not outside the realms of possibility that we might need to possess the ability to launch complex amphibious operations in the future. Furthermore, the SDR states that the Royal Navy will need to move forward a so-called hybrid carrier airwing incorporating crewed fighters, unmanned systems and rotary.

Throughout, the review speaks of greater integration of UAVs. However, at the moment, the UK falls behind our peers in our adoption of drones. Last year, the Government scrapped the Watchkeeper drones used by the Army. In his Statement to the other place announcing that last year, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote:

“Following the retirement of Watchkeeper Mk 1, the Army will rapidly switch to a new advanced capability, drawing on the most recent operational lessons and technological developments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/24; col. 239WS.]


How will the Government rapidly switch to a new drone capability? Have they begun the procurement process for expanding our drone capabilities? They must purchase one-way attack drones and unmanned combat aircraft as a matter of urgency. Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine has demonstrated the rapidly changing war-fighting dynamic. As things stand, the UK is being left behind.

Furthermore, there is a significant issue with Typhoon. It was reported last year that production of Typhoon aircraft at the Warton factory was grinding to a halt due to a lack of orders. BAE reports that there are some orders in the works, but crucially, none of them from the MoD. This is concerning given that the RAF does not currently possess any Tranche 4 Typhoons. Germany, Italy, Qatar and Spain all have Tranche 4 fighters, but the UK does not. Again, this is an area where we are falling behind. A recent MoD press release stated that Typhoons are going to be the “backbone” of the RAF well into the next decade. If this is so, our current fleet of Typhoons will soon become outdated. The Eurofighter consortium has even released the Tranche 4 plus and Tranche 5 aircraft. Purchasing the latest Typhoons is crucial. If the factory in Warton does not receive new orders imminently, we risk the possibility of job losses at the site. Those incredibly skilled individuals will be central to our ability to build global combat air programme fighters in the future. We must maintain a sovereign manufacturing capability. New Typhoon orders would not only shore up the factory in Warton, thereby securing jobs and skills, but would ensure that the RAF can face the threats of the future.

My noble friend Lady Goldie mentioned the role of the space domain, as did other noble Lords. I will pick up on one point. Footnote 90 of the review notes that the previous Government established the National Space Council, recognising the importance of space to the future of our defence, but that it was not reconstituted after the 2024 election. It recommends that there should be a reinvigorated Cabinet sub-committee to set the strategic approach to space. Will the Government follow through on this and, if so, when? As always, this has been an invigorating debate on an important review, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, on her excellent maiden speech, particularly her relevance to the subject and her background as coming from an Army family.

I also reiterate the statement from my noble friend Lady Goldie that we on these Benches will approach the Bill as critical friends. We have heard many excellent speeches from around the House, and I am sure that the Minister, as is his custom, will pay particular attention to the concerns that have been expressed—which are guarded concerns, because, in general, the whole House supports the Bill.

All noble Lords wish to see the highest standards of welfare for our Armed Forces personnel. We owe them a constant debt of gratitude, and the least that we as parliamentarians can do is to ensure that they are treated with the respect they deserve. As has been noted by many noble Lords, including by my noble friend Lady Newlove, morale in the Armed Forces is not where we would like it to be. More must be done to make certain that their legitimate concerns are effectively addressed.

If implemented correctly, the new commissioner should pave the way for greater oversight and transparency. However, as we have heard, success depends on the detail. My noble friend Lady Goldie has eloquently and clearly set out the Opposition’s position on the Bill. I will not dwell on the points that she has made, so as not to detain the House much longer, but there are three issues I would like to focus on.

The commissioner, as noble Lords have highlighted, will need independence, resources and power. As was mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks, independence from the Ministry of Defence is crucial. Effective oversight of the service complaints system and service welfare matters occurs only if there is no intervention from vested interests. However, this does not mean that the commissioner should be entirely independent from Parliament. Just as the commissioner will hold the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces to account, Parliament must be able to hold the commissioner to account. As drafted, there is no scope for this in the Bill. It is an important omission given that, as other noble Lords have said, the policy is founded on the example of the German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Despite this, the commissioner we are presented with in the Bill is noticeably different from the German commissioner.

The German parliamentary commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, and nominations are made by the defence committee and parliamentary groups. The candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast is then duly elected and appointed by the president of the Bundestag. The remit of the German commissioner is established in Article 45b of Germany’s Basic Law, which states:

“A Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces shall be appointed to safeguard basic rights and”—


as an auxiliary organ to the Bundestag—

“to assist … in exercising parliamentary control”.

To do that, the commissioner may take action based on their own initiative and discretion, or at the direction of the Bundestag or the defence committee.

The German parliamentary commissioner is therefore entirely independent of the armed forces but also ensures that the German parliament exercises a high degree of oversight, guaranteeing the accountability of the armed forces. The German model has a greater degree of parliamentary involvement than the model presented in the Bill. It would not be unique to make this commissioner closer to Parliament. There is precedent in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I therefore ask the Minister why the Government have taken that decision and what the reasons are for not including a stronger role for Parliament.

My second point is on resource. We know that the commissioner will cost more than the current ombudsman. The Explanatory Notes mention an estimated cost of between £4.5 million and £5.5 million—compared to the current cost of approximately £1.8 million. Will that extra cost be funded by the Ministry of Defence, or will it come from a separate pot of funding? I can see that the Minister has noted my question and will deal with it in due course.

Thirdly, there are a number of vagueries in the Bill. Proposed new section 340IA states the commissioner will investigate “general service welfare matters”, but what that includes is not overly clear. If, when the Minister rises for his closing remarks, he could offer greater clarity on the type of issues that could be investigated, that could be of benefit to the whole House. As other noble Lords on all sides of the House have mentioned, it is also unclear what is meant by “relevant family members”. We know this will be left to secondary legislation. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:

“The Bill does not give an exact definition of family members; that will be included in secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and House of Lords stages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 116.]


I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, but it does not appear that this draft definition has yet been published by the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister tell the House when this draft might appear? As we enter Committee, it would be useful to have some indication from the Government of their intentions.

By addressing the issues that have been raised by noble Lords today, one hopes that implementation will be efficient and effective. As the Bill progresses, the Opposition will continue in the constructive manner that has been outlined today. We will not shy away from challenging the Government when necessary, as is the duty of the Opposition, and we will push for clarifications and changes that we believe are needed to ensure that our forces receive the treatment they deserve. Their sacrifices are an example to us all and we owe them nothing less than our best.

Ukraine

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this is an exceptionally important debate. I thank him for bringing it to the House and for his excellent speech, which we can agree with in totality. Before I start, I should say that I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, which we will hear later.

I reiterate what noble Lords said from the opposite side before the election: these Benches are fully behind the Government’s position on Ukraine. I paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, from a debate before the election, in saying that this House’s unity in that support is an important element of the United Kingdom’s position. The situation in Ukraine is concerning. Noble Lords agree, I am sure, that we must stand firm with Ukraine.

I join the Minister in sending condolences to the family and friends of Corporal Christopher Gill, who lost his life during a recent training exercise. He served this country for 13 years, and served it well.

We have seen some developments in the conflict in Ukraine. I share His Majesty’s Government’s concerns in relation to North Korea. Putin has called the UK’s support for Ukraine “escalatory action” numerous times but, this week, we have seen a real escalation in Russia’s illegal invasion. Let us be in no doubt: this agreement between Putin and Kim Jong-un is a threat to democracy in the West and is yet further proof, as the Minister said, that Ukraine is fighting not only in its own defence but in the defence of Europe.

Russia has already procured munitions and ballistic missiles from North Korea. The transfer of these weapons in the first place was not only completely unacceptable but a deliberate violation of the UN sanctions that Russia itself voted for. We know that the transfer of North Korean weapons, and now the threat of combat troops, is an act of desperation demonstrating weakness, not strength, on Putin’s part. We must not be deterred. We must do the right thing and continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine.

The previous Government took decisive action to help constrain the transfer of weapons between North Korea and Russia. We imposed sanctions on the arms-for-oil trade between Russia and North Korea, including asset freezes, travel bans and transport sanctions. In turn, the new Government have responded appropriately to this new threat. Can the Minister confirm what further steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to support Ukraine in the face of this new threat?

Given the need to continue providing further military capability to Ukraine, we welcome Monday’s announcement that the UK will contribute £2.26 billion to the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan scheme for Ukraine. The Conservative Government were a vocal advocate for mobilising frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. We strongly welcome the additional funding. Can the Minister tell the House when exactly those funds will be made available?

In conclusion, I am sure that many in this House will have been raised on stories of the last Great War in Europe. We vowed then never to let it happen again. We must stand strong with Ukraine. I encourage His Majesty’s Government to continue the great work done by the previous Conservative Government in supporting Ukraine.