UK Nuclear Deterrent

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches we wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s ironclad commitment to the nuclear deterrent and its modernisation. It is the backbone of our military deterrence capabilities and is so valuable to all our NATO allies. But we know that, historically, nuclear projects have eaten up enormous portions of the defence budget and—not unsurprisingly, due to the nature of the challenge—always tend towards overspending. With the raft of recommendations from the strategic defence review and the sheer number of projects that the Ministry of Defence will have to fund, is there not a possibility that the proposed increase in the defence budget could be consumed by the cost of the Dreadnought and nuclear warhead programmes? In light of this, can the Minister guarantee that there will be sufficient funds within the plans for the highly necessary renewal of the nuclear deterrent, as well as the equally necessary boost in what we now understand to be conventional capabilities?

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

My Lords, I first thank the noble Earl for the ironclad commitment that His Majesty’s Opposition have just given to the strategic nuclear deterrent. That is the most important point that has been made today, and I thank him for that. The co-operation between all of us on that has been a source of strength to this country for many decades and will continue.

On the question of funding, the Government make it absolutely clear they will fund the nuclear deterrent. On the Dreadnought successor programme to Vanguard, we have made commitments to the four submarines, and noble Lords have seen the Statement about the nuclear warhead programme. I remind the noble Earl that, in 2015, the last Government put a package out of £31 billion for the nuclear modernisation programme with a £10 billion contingency, and I can confirm that the budget is within those parameters.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Urgent Question asked in the other place came from the chair of the Defence Committee. It came because there was speculation in the press that the SDR would propose not just renewing the continuous at-sea deterrent, which from these Benches we also support, but a move to a second platform for nuclear deterrence; that appears not to be the case. How does the Minister think such speculation came about? Would it not have been better if, rather than floating the SDR to the press, it came first to the other place and your Lordships’ House and we could have avoided unnecessary speculation?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the issue of nuclear weapons and the point that the noble Baroness makes, I will read the following for the purpose of clarity because she makes an important point. Neither the UK nor NATO talks about nuclear weapons being tactical. Any use of nuclear weapons would fundamentally change the nature of a conflict. I can say that the UK continues to view its nuclear deterrent as a political tool rather than a war-fighting capability, and it will remain the case that none of the UK’s nuclear weapons is designed for tactical use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I was in command of the crew of a nuclear-armed Falcon on quick-reaction alert over a number of years, and I realise the cost of maintaining the V-Force on alert over many years as well. Will the Minister return to the first question as to whether the cost of maintaining new nuclear capability, which has been talked about, can be met with less than the 3% guaranteed for the defence budget?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

To be absolutely clear for the noble and gallant Lord, whatever the debate about the levels of funding for the defence budget, the nuclear deterrent will be funded both as it stands and for its renewal. That is a cast-iron guarantee from the Government.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to the nuclear deterrent, but does he agree that the problems we are facing now with the deterrent replacement are the failure to replace submarines in the 1990s by the Conservative Government, the delay from the coalition Government in ordering the replacement, and the movement of the actual finance for the replacement into the defence budget, whereas before it was always ring-fenced? Are not this Government trying now to play catch-up after the mistakes that were made in the past?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. We are trying to ensure that, whatever may have happened in the past, we move forward in a way which guarantees our strategic nuclear deterrent. That is the fundamental point that must ring out from this Chamber: there is unity of purpose across the Chamber that the strategic nuclear deterrent, particularly in the geopolitical times of today, will be maintained and renewed by this Government.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, does not the Minister crystallise in what he says the stupidity of the situation in which we find ourselves? The declaration that at all costs, at any cost, the nuclear deterrent will be retained, must mean, under a time of fiscal pressure, that the balance of the MoD’s programme—the conventional methodology for deterring attacks—is further undermined. Is this not a ridiculous situation, and should we not return to the time when the nuclear enterprise was funded completely separately from the conventional requirements of defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. Clearly, others will have heard the points that he made. All I am saying to this Chamber is that, at this geopolitical moment in history, it is particularly important that His Majesty’s Government, plus His Majesty’s Official Opposition and all parties, are united in saying to others that the nuclear deterrent will remain at the heart of our defence policy, whatever the debates about the budget.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is an independent nuclear deterrent, or is it tied in? Would it work if we did not have support from the United States? One of the problems that we have had in the past is that it has not been an independent nuclear deterrent; it has been dependent on support from others. I would like to have an independent deterrent.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I just say to the noble Lord that it is an independent nuclear deterrent. The person who decides whether, God forbid, that nuclear deterrent is ever used is the Prime Minister of our country. It is only the Prime Minister of our country who can determine whether, God forbid, that nuclear deterrent is used. That guarantees its independence.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that our nuclear weapons will be used only when our supreme national interest so requires, and in no other circumstance?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course it will be in the most extreme of circumstances that the nuclear deterrent would even be considered for use. I just say that the whole point of the nuclear deterrent—this is something I have said many times at the Dispatch Box—is to deter people. It is that whole concept that sometimes seems contradictory: that by preparing for war, you prevent war. The strategic nuclear deterrent is the most significant example of that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it has always been the case that the nuclear programme has been at the very limits of our technological, industrial, scientific and cost profiles. The speed at which we produced Blue Danube bombs, for example, was excruciatingly slow, and so was the Beard process beyond that, and the other weapons. Now we have a lot of pressure from civil nuclear as well. Does my noble friend agree that we have to have a really national endeavour among all departments to pull together so that we can get the training of scientists and everyone focusing on this particular issue, because otherwise we will find it very hard to deliver—certainly within the cost parameters, but very hard to deliver anyway?

Just as an aside, when I was in government, the Prime Minister asked me to go and check on the independence of our deterrent. I was allowed access to all sorts of things, and the answer is that it is independent. Clearly, over time, over 20 or 30 years, that becomes more difficult, because of maintenance of missiles, for example.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point with respect to the nuclear enterprise and the need for it to be a national endeavour. It is true of the defence nuclear enterprise, as it is true with many other aspects of defence, that the need for us to upskill, to have more apprentices and to have more of the systems available to us in order for us to be able to deliver the defence programmes and projects that we want is a challenge. Let me be clear that we will make sure that we have all the necessary skills and capabilities required to maintain our nuclear deterrent.

Strategic Defence Review

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I start where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, finished by suggesting that it would be extremely welcome for your Lordships’ House to have a full debate on the strategic defence review. It is a full, thorough and detailed review that merits detailed reading. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team have clearly put in a huge amount of work, and it would repay noble Lords and the Armed Forces if we were able to explore at least some of the 62 recommendations in detail.

The review gives many recommendations, some of which have been trailed but some have not, and which are sometimes much more complicated than we might imagine. There are commitments to our Armed Forces, to recruitment and retention and to increasing the number of the reserves. That is the headline, but the detail of the recommendations says that we should increase the size of the reserves “when funding allows”. That gets back to the fundamental question raised by the noble Earl: 2.5% is not going to take us far enough. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to enable us to implement the 62 recommendations. assuming that the other place and your Lordships’ House, after due scrutiny, agree with the Government that all 62 recommendations should be implemented?

There is clearly a need for a lot of detailed scrutiny because many issues are raised in the review, starting with the essential context that the world has changed a lot since the start of the post-Cold War era, and indeed since the start of the review. Many issues need to be thought about, some of which we have had the opportunity to think about over months and years while others have been floated recently. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out at Questions, the commitment to the nuclear deterrent is obviously important and welcome. I was expecting to see the noble Lord, Lord West, here to take up the discussions on the future of sea capabilities; the transformation of the carriers is presumably something on which he could run a Question for Short Debate by himself.

There are many detailed questions about capabilities and procurement but also about transitions—for example, the upgraded Typhoons. Are we sending back the existing Typhoons for an upgrade or procuring more of them and keeping the production of the Typhoon going, pending the introduction of Tempest? There are a lot of questions about procurement that are worth considering.

There are also questions not just about the headline figure of 2.5% of spending but about savings. On page 5, there is a suggestion that £6 billion of new savings will be found, and then there is talk of spending £11 billion. Does the £11 billion include the £6 billion that has just been found from savings and is now being recycled, or is the £11 billion new money? There are a lot of issues that would probably merit longer than the Minister will have for his response today.

There is one welcome point in terms of recruitment. It is very welcome that a little bit of recommendation 16 suggests that the medical requirements will differ from role to role, because that has clearly been part of the recruitment difficulty. That is very welcome, as are the commitments to improving accommodation and the defence industrial base. There are many more questions than I have time to ask and the Minister has time to answer, but we welcome the review and look forward to working with the Government over the next decade and beyond.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their contributions and their overall general welcome for the review. I turn to my noble friend Lord Robertson and say how fantastic the report is and how professionally he has conducted himself with the experience he has brought to bear on this.

The contribution that my noble friend, General Barrons and Fiona Hill have made is not only to the report but to the overall effectiveness of the security of our nation, the security of our allies and the pursuance of the goals that we all hold dear. That is something that, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, is shared across this House. Many congratulations to him for that.

I take on board the points that both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness made. It is not a matter for me in terms of a day’s debate or whatever, but I will ensure that that point is made to my noble friend Lord Kennedy, the Chief Whip. I am sure the usual channels can consider that so that we may get the opportunity to discuss this in more detail.

Before I deal with some of the detailed points that have been raised, I will say that what is really important about this debate, which is why perhaps we need longer, is that different Members of this House will have different points they will wish to make about the report and the review. There is a debate about funding but the overall direction of travel this sets out for us is something that this place and the country can get behind. We face the new geopolitical challenges of today, the state-on-state threat that we thought had gone. We are now in a new age. We need to reconfigure our Armed Forces in a way which meets that challenge. We need to look at homeland defence. We need to look at the reserves. We need to look at the new threats such as those to underwater cables and underwater technology. We need to look at the threats that cyber presents to us. We need to look at how we protect the critical national infrastructure of our country. We need to look at the alliances we can build, not only in Europe but across the globe.

There is one thing laid out in the report and the review which is really important as we discuss this. It sets out that, yes, this is a NATO-first policy—it sees Europe as the priority for the defence and security of our nation—but it also says it is not a NATO-only policy. It recognises the political and geopolitical contexts in other parts of the world where we have a responsibility as well. I just say to my noble friend Lord Robertson and those who have contributed to this report that I think the direction of travel is the really important thing for us to discuss, and there are many points that many of us could make.

To address some of those points, it is quite right for the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to point to AUKUS and the development of that—the commitment of up to 12 additional nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS development and the AUKUS treaty. Time and again I was asked in this House about the commitment to GCAP. GCAP is maintained in that.

On the munitions stockpile, time and again many of us have thought about the way in which Ukraine, which has been a wake-up call for us, has led to the situation where we have not had sufficient stockpiles. The report lays out £6 billion for that, of which £1.5 billion will contribute to six new munitions factories. I have already had discussions about who in private industry may work with that and others have had discussions as well. All of that is taking place.

On funding, there will be debates and no doubt question after question will be that it is not sufficient—the demand to have 3.5% at NATO. If some other noble Lords were here, they would be demanding 4%. What about the 5% that they have heard President Trump may want? All I can say is that the Government’s policy is well known in this House. It is 2.5% by April 2027, with the ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. All the things in the report from my noble friend Lord Robertson and others have been brought about with the understanding that that is the financial envelope within which that works.

On some of the other questions, we are committed to amphibious capabilities. The noble Earl will know that we have the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships which provide that at the moment. He will know that fleet support ships will be built in Belfast to help support that. He will also know that the new First Sea Lord, with his background, will ensure that there is no shortage of amphibious capability, which will be important as well.

The noble Earl talked about reform within the Ministry of Defence. He will know just alongside this that defence reform has seen the creation of a military arm headed by the CDS, who is now in charge of all the service chiefs; the department of state; the new national armaments directorate, which will try to deliver the procurement savings and the more effective delivery that the noble Earl quite rightly points out are needed; and the nuclear arm as well.

The use of AI is another area that the report mentioned, and the use of that with the research that will be available to it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether the noble Lord, Lord West, was here. I am sure he would welcome the carriers and the suggestion in the report, which I think is a really good one, that carriers are adapted to that hybrid-type platform which not only allows jets to take off but has all sorts of autonomous capability both above and below the sea to operate off that, with missiles able to be fired. I think that is a use of the carriers. If noble Lords remember, there was some discussion about all of those, so I think that is a really good suggestion.

On recruitment and retention, many noble Lords have talked about the need for more in the Army. They will have seen the Secretary of State’s point that our ambition is to increase the Army to 76,000. But we cannot, as it stands, get the number of regular soldiers that are budgeted for. We have just over 70,000—70,500, I think I am right in saying—when the target figure is 73,600. The recruitment and retention points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, points to are crucial if we are to deliver that. Some of the changes we have brought about—pay, accommodation, housing, childcare —seek to address that point. There are so many other issues around reserves and all that sort of thing which may come, quite rightly, from noble Lords, who will question how we are going to achieve those things.

I finish by saying that this House can unite around the fact that we have had an excellent report from my noble friend Lord Robertson, which sets out a direction of travel. There will be debate and discussion within that report as to what the correct balance is, what should be funded, what perhaps should be given a greater priority. We have accepted all those 62 recommendations. We are delighted with the way that the report sets out for us a sense of where this country can go in terms of establishing Armed Forces who fight the battles of today and the future and not those of the past. In that way, we can defend our democracy, defend our continent and stand up for our interests globally. As such, I think we should unite behind it.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is significant interest in this Statement. Can I urge brevity from both noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister in order to get in as many colleagues as possible?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join all previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that, since the end of national service, there has developed a worrying gap between the citizens and the military? One way of bridging that would be to ensure a fair regional distribution of the new jobs that will be created by this review. Will the Government commit to that and perhaps produce some map or plan showing that jobs will be created across the whole of the UK?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

On the first point about the need for us to reassert and highlight the link between the Armed Forces and the general population, I think my noble friend is right. I have some optimism about this, although I think the Government could reflect on how we do it. The report talks about greater use of the military in terms of education in our schools in the appropriate way. I think that might be one consideration. I do not know whether my noble friend agrees, but I thought that the VE Day celebrations—the increase in cadets and the numbers of young people out on our streets celebrating and commemorating the sacrifice of those in the Second World War—give us some optimism that that link can be re-established. Perhaps as politicians we should be more proactive in standing up for that, and not being embarrassed to call for that recognition.

On my noble friend’s second point, page 52 of my noble friend Lord Robertson’s report has a map that illustrates some of the ways in which the jobs and industries of defence will be spread across the nations and regions of the UK. My noble friend Lord Dodds, who sometimes thinks—as I do—that Northern Ireland is missed out, will be delighted to see that Northern Ireland is included. All the nations and regions are mentioned; these are just some illustrated examples. There are many more, and we should make sure that is a reality.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my registered interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I refer to the Statement:

“We will establish continuous submarine production through investments in Barrow and Derby that will enable us to produce a submarine every 18 months”.


That is a pretty ambitious timetable. Could the Minister say a little more on how we will co-ordinate this, not only in Barrow but across government, so that we can meet that timetable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Can I apologise? I always forget this, and if the standards people come after me, I am really sorry; I should have mentioned that my son-in-law is in the reserves. I apologise to the House for not stating again that my son-in-law is an active member of the reserves.

On the ability to produce the number of submarines the noble Baroness mentioned, she will know there has been huge investment in Barrow in order to be able to deliver. There is now dual-line production, which will mean the ability to produce more submarines at speed will be possible. That sort of adaption and need for investment shows the fact that, over a period of time, we have allowed the sovereign manufacturing capability of this country to develop the defence equipment it needs perhaps to not have the priority it deserves. One of the things my noble friend Lord Robertson’s report says is that we need to ensure we have a sovereign capability to produce the equipment and munitions we need. Submarines will be part of that.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make a contribution and ask a question. I have spent 10 months answering questions, so there is a slight difficulty involved in that. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether in future, to this House and the public outside, he will emphasise the fact that this was not a Labour defence review? It was designed specifically to be a strategic review that would incorporate other elements of the country. Not only did we consult as many people as we could—we got 8,000 submissions through our invitation—but I asked a former distinguished Conservative Minister for defence procurement, Sir Jeremy Quin, to be part of our team. Throughout the whole of that, he was of invaluable assistance.

This report is not simply about warships and missiles. It is about reforming the whole way in which we deliver defence. After all, defence expenditure is the premium we spend for an insurance policy, not only for the current generation but for generations to come. I hope that is something Ministers will be making clear to the outside world.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I think my noble friend has just demonstrated why the report has been such a success. There may be things that divide people in this Chamber. There may be debates to be had, and quite genuine disagreements. I have always said, and I have always tried to reflect as a Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, that that is a real privilege. It is predicated on the basis that I do not believe that anyone in this House wishes to undermine the defence and security of our nation. We all have that at the front of our minds. My noble friend is right to point out that the public should understand that. We believe that we have the interests of our country and of our alliances—of our friends and allies—at the forefront of our minds.

My noble friend’s remark about the fact that the right honourable Sir Jeremy Quin has been involved in the review is a good example of that cross-party support. I also know that, in my time in this office, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, through his responsibility as chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee, have contributed, along with many of my noble friends who have experience. That brings together a wealth of experience and talent that can only make any report better.

On the noble Lord’s last point, an important point needs to be made. It is not only about the amount of money that we spend; we have to be clearer about what we spend it on in order to meet the threats of the future. That is an important point that the report makes as well.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer. Page 70 recommends only a modest increase in the active reserve of 20%, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, pointed out. Finland’s reserve—albeit it uses a different intake model—consists of over 800,000 trained soldiers, and that is warfighting readiness. Will a defence readiness Bill be forthcoming and much more ambitious and robust in respect of the active reserve?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will make one suggestion to the noble Lord: perhaps he and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and others in this Chamber who have professional experience and expertise with respect to reserves, will set up a meeting with me about how we might more effectively reach the target of an increase of 20% by the 2030s. I would appreciate the experience and ideas that the noble Lord might have on that.

The defence readiness Bill will come after the Armed Forces Bill in the autumn. The concept of defence readiness is, again, that we face a new type of threat, not only potentially of missiles or state actors but of cyberattack and the disablement of critical national infrastructure. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises, but the Defence Secretary pointed out yesterday that the MoD has had 90,000 state actor threats in the last two years—that is an astonishing figure—and we have seen big business bodies affected by cyberattack. The defence readiness Bill will be about asking how we protect critical national infrastructure and what we need to do to prepare for something happening. Are we ready to defend ourselves, protect our population and ensure that things continue? The defence readiness Bill will help us understand that and develop the sorts of structures we need to do that. Of course, people will be at the heart of it. That Bill will come some time at the beginning of 2026.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, thanks are indeed due to my noble friend Lord Robertson and his team for this review, and to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the vigour with which they have addressed the challenge of redressing the balance in the priority we give to the defence of our nation. They ought to be congratulated. However, my experience of two comprehensive spending reviews has taught me that CSRs never fully meet the expectations of the Ministry of Defence. I speak from experience of a time in which we were spending more on defence, as a proportion of our GDP, than we are today. Having said that, can the Minister therefore give us an assurance that his department and the Treasury are looking at innovative mechanisms to supplement defence spending, potentially including peace bonds? There has to be a conversation with the British people about how we fund defence. The strategic defence review gives us an honest and clear basis for that conversation, but we have to be prepared to spend more and we have to be prepared and willing to spend more effectively. We have to use innovative mechanisms to raise the money to do so.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that, as this progresses, it may be that we have to look at innovative and different ways of funding. I am no expert on all these things, but I am not averse to looking at any novel or innovative ways in which funds may be raised.

There is a more general point to be made. The current threats mean that we have to ensure that our Armed Forces have the funds and resources that they need—I think people recognise that. Difficult decisions were made about funding the increase to 2.5%, and people accepted that because of the new threats that we face. We need to continue to make the point that there cannot be security for nations or countries without armed forces. You cannot do anything about poverty or refugees being moved and a whole range of other things unless you have security. Security delivers the stability that we need to live the lives that we want.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

I briefly add my congratulations to the authorship of this review. It is, in my view, the most considered, professional and comprehensive review that I have ever seen at close quarters. However, the spectre of fiscal pressure attends every chapter and every page. If this is not funded, it is not a review but a delusion. The reviews that I have known—as vice-chief, chief and all that—have fallen foul of the same problem: a delusional delivery through some alchemy of efficiency, technical superiority, lethality or a new design of battle. The Ministry of Defence will not be capable—it is not viable—of funding this by some internal alchemy of efficiency. As the previous speaker said, we need to find the money elsewhere. This country can easily afford the Armed Forces it needs. If it does not, it will be a laughing stock. What it cannot afford is 9 million people of working age drawing benefits.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for the warm welcome that he gave to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I know that the direction of travel that it sets out is supported by the noble and gallant Lord, and I thank him for that. He lays out the challenge for the Government. He knows what the Government’s position is with respect to funding. People will have heard his continuous campaigning and demand for additional resources. We are, as a Government, committed to ensuring that the recommendations of the report from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, are implemented, and we will do all that we can to see that that happens.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and generally offer my support for the review. Everything that we have talked about has to be underpinned by good logistical and operational support. The Minister will not be surprised that I immediately looked to find where the RFA sat within the report. I was pleased to find that page 106 acknowledges the critical role played by the RFA. Is the Minister and the MoD more widely concerned—notwithstanding my noble friend Lord Minto’s point about amphibious capabilities—that the RFA has only three Bay-class vessels, aged between 16 and 25 years old, and that the newest vessel, “Stirling Castle”, has been acquired by the Royal Navy due to lack of personnel? I do not really understand what the review means when it says that the Royal Navy will be

“using commercial vessels and burden-sharing with NATO Allies to augment the … RFA … Fleet … in non-contested environments”.

Does the Minister agree with the review and with me about the essential need to support the RFA, which underpins everything?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the point about the RFA, which is crucial. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the long-running dispute with respect to pay was resolved as part of our attempts to ensure that the RFA was properly supported and its personnel properly respected and given the pay that they deserve. On the issue of commercial vessels, it is about the innovative ways—that is part of the report—of seeing whether, in certain circumstances, commercial ships are required to support the RFA in its function to deliver the supplies that may be needed to support our warships. Obviously, you would do that in situations where it was safe to do so—but that would be augmenting the RFA, not replacing it. Those sorts of imaginative solutions to deal with some of the problems will give us the capacity and capability that we need.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his second very fine strategic defence review. He has done a service to all of us on that. I want to ask about a very specific point. In response to the changing nature of conflict, the review includes plans for several things, including a new digital warfighters group, the creation of a cyber EM command and the creation of a digital targeting web. I know that the Minister cannot be specific on timelines for that, but can he give some general indication, because it seems to me that that is a vital element of modernising our capability?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Some of the timelines will clearly need to be clarified. On the general point, all the things that my noble friend has mentioned are critical to move from the forces that we have to the integrated force that is essential—not the joint force but the integrated force. We need to make that happen as soon as we can.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the recruitment gap earlier. I had the privilege last week of spending the week with the Royal Gurkha Rifles, and I must say how impressed I was. We take only 250 Gurkha recruits every year, out of 12,500 keen applicants. I suggest that there is a potential opportunity there, and one that the Government might take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a good suggestion, and I will look at it and try to take it forward.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations, with a bit of a history with the Reserve Forces. I thank the Minister for his call yesterday, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team. My welcome of the SDR is caveated slightly on the apparent gulf between the ambition, which it is difficult to fault, and the funding, which is more concerning. There are a number of issues that I would like to debate, but I will pick just one for this evening. The SDR places a welcome emphasis on home defence and resilience, yet it also acknowledges that:

“A more substantive body of work is necessary to ensure the security and resilience of critical national infrastructure … and the essential services it delivers”.


The Minister mentioned just now that he would address the issue of timelines. I am asking him to include in that thinking about and telling us about the timelines for that important piece of work.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In a similar vein to my answer to my noble friend Lord Reid, some of these timelines will need to be discussed and worked out to ensure that they are deliverable. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that his point is well made; clearly, we need to get on with that task. There is an urgency to much of this, and we need to address that and ensure that we make much of this happen as soon as possible.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to the detailed and meaningful scrutiny of this Bill. Although it is, obviously, not possible for me to thank everyone who contributed to the Bill individually, which I hope Members will understand, there are a few specific thank-yous. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their co-operation and efforts to improve the Bill. I very much appreciated the constructive way in which His Majesty’s Opposition contributed. If she could pass that on to the noble Earl, I would be very grateful.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of the Liberal Democrats for her discussions and contributions, which were very much appreciated. I thank all Back-Benchers who contributed, my private office and officials, the Public Bill Office and various other officials of the House, the current ombudsman and the German commissioner, whose example we have used. I express my thanks and gratitude for everyone’s hard work.

Finally, as a number of noble Lords will know first-hand, serving in our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for their service and for working tirelessly to keep us safe. We owe our serving personnel and their families a commissioner with a single mission; namely, to improve service life. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his very kind remarks, and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank him for the constructive manner in which he has approached the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition have welcomed the Bill from the beginning, and it has been a privilege to participate in its passage through this House.

Not only will the creation of the commissioner strengthen the service complaints system by facilitating the investigation of wider welfare issues but I hope it will bolster the confidence of our Armed Forces personnel that this is a real voice of independence for them. Any steps we can take to improve the offering to our service men and women we should vigorously pursue.

In that regard, I endeavoured to bolster the Bill by introducing a new duty on the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints. I thank all noble Lords who supported my amendment on Report. I particularly appreciated the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, my noble friend Lord Wrottesley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and thank them for their words of support and encouragement and for delivering that support in a meaningful form in the Division Lobby. The resounding message your Lordships’ House sent to our Armed Forces personnel, especially service women who feel that their voices have not been heard, is that we are on your side. As this Bill now goes back to the other place, I entreat the Government to reflect carefully on how they address my amendment. This is not a time for ambivalence and uncertainty; it is a time for an unambiguous and positive message to our Armed Forces, and I hope the Government will accept, as this House overwhelmingly did, that the amendment enhances the Bill.

Finally, I thank Minister and all his officials for taking time to meet me and my noble friend Lord Minto. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has been exemplary throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that whoever the Government appoint as the new commissioner will live up to the task that has been set. It is a high bar, and much work has still to be done, but I look forward to continuing to scrutinise the Government’s efforts to improve the welfare and the lives of our Armed Forces personnel and I wish the Government well in the creation of this new office.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their short contributions. I have made one catastrophic error: I forgot to thank the Whips’ Office. I hastily put that on the record.

On a more serious note, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith in her tribute to Lord Etherton. I am sure that there will be another time for us all to reflect more broadly, but she is perfectly right to point out the sad loss of Lord Etherton to this House and the contribution that he made to LGBT as well as more generally on a whole range of things.

I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, once again, on the forthcoming wedding that is happening—not his, I hasten to add. I look forward to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is right to point out that the whole point of the commissioner, and the success of the role, will be on how much we can generate trust and confidence in people to come forward should they be subject to inappropriate behaviour. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will, of course, consider carefully how we respond to the amendment that was passed in your Lordships’ House. With those few brief comments, I thank everyone again.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That this House takes note of the 80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan.

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

My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate. Values of patriotism, family and community are sometimes regarded as old-fashioned, but this milestone 80th anniversary of VE Day reminds us that they are as relevant today as they ever have been. I have seen at many events up and down the country one thing standing out: so many children involved, as well as people from all walks of life, with pride in our country, what we stood for then and what we stand for now. We often talk of what divides us, but the struggles and fights of the past give us the foundations and provide us with the social glue that binds us and hold us together. Britain must defend international freedoms now as it did then, and that is worth remembering. It is something of which we can all truly be proud.

I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, who is not in his place but is I believe the only current parliamentarian to have served in World War II. I equally pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who is in the Channel Islands. What a great testimony he is to his grandfather in the work that he has continued. I also pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and his grandfather’s role in VJ Day and beyond. As with the noble Lord, Lord Soames, I think both grandfathers would be extremely proud of their grandsons.

VE Day, 8 May, is one of the most iconic days in our history. At 3 pm, the nation tuned in as the Prime Minister, the right honourable Winston Churchill—our great leader of our greatest generation, who steered Britain through the war and built the allied coalition that defeated fascism—took to the airwaves and informed the nation that, yesterday morning at 2.41 am, German officials had signed the Act of unconditional surrender of all German land, sea and air forces in Europe, declaring that day as Victory in Europe Day. Later, from a balcony in what is now His Majesty’s Treasury, draped with a union jack he addressed a sea of jubilant faces that filled every square inch of Parliament Square, Whitehall and the streets beyond. As Churchill held up a V for victory and people below him waved handkerchiefs, rattles and small union flags, small groups formed circles and danced, not unlike the pictures and footage we have seen this week of jubilant crowds and delighted children up and down the country, running around with flags in hand.

People rejoiced, having come through our nation’s darkest hour with courage, ingenuity and the Dunkirk spirit—through the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic, through punishing campaigns in north Africa and Italy, and through D-Day, Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge. People rejoiced, with gratitude for all those who had delivered that victory, far too many of whom were no longer alive to share in it—gratitude for the brave soldiers, the pilots in sheepskin jackets, the courageous sailors of the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy, the clever code breakers and intelligence officers, the ingenious engineers and industrialists, the firefighters, and all those who worked tirelessly on farms, in armament factories and in other crucial roles on the home front, including many millions of women, whose nation also needed them. They embraced a long-overdue opportunity and redefined their role in society for evermore.

On hilltops, people lit beacons as, in cities and towns across the country, friends, acquaintances and strangers, first united by a common enemy, were now united in joy. They came together to dance long into the night, celebrating the triumph of the allied forces over the axis powers and the triumph of hope over despair, of freedom over tyranny, and of democracy over dictatorship. Let that inspire us now as we face the challenges of today. This country will never step back from defending our freedoms and democracy. But Winston Churchill, in his own words, knew that we could allow ourselves, only a “brief period of rejoicing” and could

“not forget the toil and efforts that lie ahead”,

because Japan remained unsubdued. The conflict in the Far East, a far too often overlooked theatre of war where more than 50,000 British personnel were killed, would rage for a further four months. The contribution of so many of our Commonwealth friends and allies must not be forgotten. It raged until another allied endeavour, the Manhattan Project, brought the costly six-year conflict to a deadly and decisive end.

Today, we debate freely in the mother of all Parliaments, exercising the rights and freedoms secured by our parents, our grandparents and that generation then. If noble Lords will forgive my indulgence, this included Troop Sergeant Major Vernon Coaker, of 3 Commando—the uncle I never met. He stormed Sword Beach at 8.30 am on D-Day and helped to seize the critical bridges over the Caen canal and river. He cleared German forces out of the nearby village of Amfreville and was left in charge of his entire troop when his CO headed off to scout their next mission, only to return at 8.30 pm that evening to find Sergeant Major Coaker lying in the road near the post office, killed by an enemy mortar—killed alongside 4,441 allied casualties on D-Day alone.

Writing years later, his commanding officer, Captain Keith Douglas Ponsford, noted of my uncle: “We had lost a fine soldier, who had been in many 3 Commando operations, including the attack on Saint-Nazaire”. My family’s story, shared by so many others—no doubt including many in this Chamber, as well as across our country—is one that reminds us all of that sacrifice. I will never forget that grave in Ranville War Cemetery, near Caen, alongside many other graves, which states: “God bless Sergeant Vernon Coaker, killed on 6 June 1944, aged 23”.

Eighty years later, this generation has become the latest to come together to thank our greatest generation. On behalf of the Government, but I know also on behalf of all of us here, I thank all those up and down the country who have organised and been involved in the commemorations over recent days. In particular, I thank colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport and the MoD, members of our Armed Forces who have been out in all their splendour—what a great credit they are to our nation—the amazing staff of the Royal British Legion and other military charities and associations, and the organisers of street parties and events right across our nation.

Today, it is incumbent on us not only to reflect on and appreciate the millions of individual sacrifices that secured our freedoms, but to learn lessons about our security, solidarity and service that will serve us well in this dangerous era in which we live. On security, Neville Chamberlain quickly became shorthand for the folly of appeasement. Over time, more and more historians have convincingly pointed out that Britain was in no position to stand up to Hitler in September 1938. The lesson today, which needs to be fully understood and is accepted by many of us, at least, is that, if we want peace in our time and in the future, we can never again take our eye off the importance of deterrence, particularly as potential adversaries arm themselves to the teeth.

That appreciation underpins our review and, should President Trump be successful in his efforts to bring peace to Ukraine—we hope he will be—enhanced deterrence in Ukraine and across Europe and NATO will be the decisive factor in securing peace in Europe again and preventing further Russian aggression. As we celebrate VE Day, let us also remember the strength and courage of the Ukrainian people and all those who have supported them in resisting the illegal invasion of their territory.

The second lesson from the war that I want to touch upon is solidarity: the importance of solidarity with our allies, the importance of solidarity with those who serve—some here will know about that better than me—and the importance of the solidarity of our nation. The wartime platform given by Germany to Lord Haw-Haw illustrates the enduring power of propaganda. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us, in this Chamber and beyond, who love this country and believe in Britain to ensure that the British people are in no doubt: our solidarity is under ongoing, sustained attack from today’s propagandists and armies of bots, armed with infinite supplies of disinformation, under the command of adversaries like Russia and other states working against our interests. It should never take a war for us to speak out about such attacks and the fact that we will defend ourselves against them. Like previous Governments, we are alive to this threat, which is an existential one. Our review will guide us as we step up work to counter it.

The other lesson that I want to draw is about service: it is about the power of individual and collective service, and valuing those who serve. The relentless determination of that war generation, who gave their blood, toil, tears and sweat—and, indeed, their lives—over six long years, was summed up by Churchill when he said: “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts”. We must have that courage, will and determination, and, even many years after, we must listen to the words of Churchill as they ring down the ages. Our current Armed Forces are full of people who have these and other war-winning qualities in abundance. They are people who have stepped forward to serve, with the support of families who also sacrifice to facilitate the long deployments and frequent moves that service life can entail.

We all need to realise this threat today. Too few people who are going about their busy lives perhaps truly appreciate that, and this VE Day celebration gives us all the chance to understand those sacrifices made on our behalf. We are determined to change that, and we are working with the support of others to ensure that the Armed Forces covenant is fully implemented. We are, with the support of Parliament, appointing an Armed Forces Commissioner as an independent champion tasked with improving service life. This is also why commemoration is so important. We must remind each generation of the sacrifices made in the past for our freedoms—sacrifices that are still being made today by members of our Armed Forces and the families who support them.

The end of World War II marked the beginning of a new chapter, a chapter written by the men and women who turned our darkest hour into one of our finest hours; men and women who had witnessed the absolute worst of humanity—as my noble friend Lord Dubs can no doubt tell us about—and the worst of what people can do to each other, but were determined to use their hard-won freedoms to build a better future. They were the architects of the United Nations, of NATO and of greater European co-operation, while at home, they built homes for heroes, the NHS and the welfare state. They built global institutions and improved lives in Britain, in an attempt to ensure that the sacrifices of that generation would be honoured, never forgotten, never repeated. Today, we come together to remember and honour the proud legacy of our greatest generation and recommit to upholding it. Is it not that recommitment, that determination, that pride, that gives us the hope and belief that this great nation is once more the standard-bearer for freedom and democracy?

Just think of it: what a tribute that is to those who have served in our service. It moves us all. As we put down the flags, banners and slogans, let us once again remind ourselves that we will never put down our values; we will always stand up for those values. That is what makes this country great. On days like this, it reminds us of what unites us.

I am very proud to move this Motion today, and I know it is supported by everyone across the House. What a great country we are, and what a brilliant celebration we have had over the past weeks. Communities have come together, standing up for those things that bring us together—notwithstanding some of the debates and arguments that take place. Think of our reputation across the world as the pictures of the King saluting the troops and others as they came down the Mall were shown, of the public cheering and of the various events across our nation, which have shown that the great nation we are still exists. I beg to move.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I thank all noble Lords who have come to the Report stage of the Bill and thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, again for the support of His Majesty’s Opposition—I know that there is general support across the House as well. Notwithstanding that, there have been some interesting and important discussions around the application and clarifications.

Let me deal first with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in relation to the reserves. The answer is yes, they are able to submit a complaint, as long as it is related to their ongoing service. There is no time limit for that, but they cannot be veterans. I hope that helps. Obviously, there will be particular circumstances, but I think that clarifies in general terms the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was making around reserves.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

It does, apart from the clarification of what defines a veteran, on the basis that when a regular member of the Armed Forces leaves, they still have a reserve liability. We like to call them veterans, but they become part of the regular reserve and, subsequently, the recall reserve, so these things are complicated.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

They certainly are, but I hope that there is some clarification from what I said to the noble Lord. No doubt that conversation will continue.

More generally, on the point that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made on recruitment, the Government have been very clear about trying to improve the recruitment and retention process, and various changes have been made. We honoured all the Armed Forces pay review board recommendations. We have made some changes to childcare arrangements to try to improve those, and some of the recruitment processes have been changed—to have a new direct entry route into cyber, for example. There is the change of contract as well. We are trying to take on board some of the criticisms and challenges there have been to address the more general point about recruitment, but also retention. Let us see where the figures get to over the next period, because we all want to see recruitment into our Armed Forces—and, indeed, retention—improve.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her Amendments 1 and 6—I know that she has the support of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for Amendment 6. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s genuine and well-founded concerns about the experience of those applying to join the military. During Committee, we discussed the importance of a recruitment process that is fit for purpose, as I outlined to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and easy to navigate—a process that will enable as many people as possible to join their preferred service in a timely fashion and provide sufficient protections for those going through it. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, noted the number of candidates. The figure I have is that up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope would obviously vastly increase the workload of the commissioner. I note the noble Baroness’s revised amendments, which attempt to narrow the numbers by defining at what point in the process an applicant would come under the commissioner’s scope. When we discussed this, the noble Baroness made it clear, as she has in the Chamber today, that she wanted to understand how the process works and what people can do if they are unhappy with how they are treated. I shall now make some remarks that I hope address some of her concerns.

The Navy, Army and RAF have different requirements and processes for recruitment. These differ depending on whether the candidate is joining as an enlisted person or as an officer. Each service has a clear complaints process for candidates. All complaints are dealt with by a qualified officer, with any medical complaints being sent to trained medical staff. To further reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, there are protections in place to ensure the welfare of candidates completing Armed Forces selection or assessment activities on defence establishments. The Armed Forces have in place appropriate safeguarding measures which are regularly reviewed and updated as appropriate in support of these activities. These measures cover, but are not limited to, staff selection, training, background checks, candidate accommodation—a point raised by the noble Baroness and by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—and the conduct of activities.

I absolutely agree that we must look after those going through the application process. However, these processes are already in place and the commissioner would not be the right avenue to replace them. I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Baroness now has the necessary reassurance. Important as they are, I ask her not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. As I said in my opening remarks, Amendment 1 was, in many ways, intended as a probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for pointing out the slightly sloppy redrafting of the amendment since Committee and that the last line should not have been there. I am happy at this stage to withdraw Amendment 1. Amendment 6 is consequential, so I shall not be moving it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out “340IA(8)” and insert “340IA(3A)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 4.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 2, I will speak to government Amendments 7, 9 and 11 and to Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. They all focus on the importance of the definition of “relevant family members” in the context of the Bill. Before explaining the Government’s amendments, I will address Amendment 12 and explain why the Government have decided not to include it in the Bill but rather to create an affirmative delegated power, so that the definition may be brought forward in secondary legislation.

The definition of “family members” and their access to the commissioner has been at the forefront of the Government’s mind throughout. It has always been our intention to future-proof our inclusion of family members. Including the definition in secondary legislation allows it to be updated quickly, to account for changes in society, without needing to create new primary legislation. Our intent is to encompass all family units and not pre-judge this by having a full definition in the Bill—though I have to say that the definition that the noble Baroness seeks to put in the Bill is very good, as it is our definition. However, as I have made clear, the definition can be changed at some future point.

As noble Lords will be aware, the draft regulations covering the definition of “family members” for the purposes of this Bill have been distributed to all interested Peers for consideration. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has thoroughly scrutinised this power in its report. These government amendments fully implement the committee’s only recommendation, by changing the regulation-making power in the Bill to define relevant family members from the negative to the affirmative procedure. The proposed amendments would ensure that there is a debate on the Government’s definition of a “relevant family member” in both Houses when the secondary legislation is brought forward, which, based on the discussions so far, I am sure would be welcomed by noble Lords.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the importance placed on the definition of “family members” in the Bill and the opportunity that the Government are trying to give to debate this further in due course. On this basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment that seeks to place the definition in the Bill.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I firmly support the Government in these amendments. There has been a tendency in the Bill to combine in one’s mind the specific complaints that the ombudsman used to deal with and the more general approach which the Bill is encouraging the commissioner to have. I think one wants to keep those two issues clear in one’s mind.

The other point, which I made in Committee, is that the Bill will get added to the Armed Forces Act 2006. Those not familiar with the Act should know that it has close to 400 sections, 17 schedules and goodness knows how many pages—more than 500. Every page of this Bill, when it is enacted, will get added to that. It makes absolute sense that, when we are trying to identify a range of individuals who may have access to the commissioner, it should be in secondary legislation and not on the face of the Armed Forces Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the case for the Government’s amendments. We on these Benches are pleased that they have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that regulations to define the term “relevant family member” should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

At Second Reading, the Minister said:

“it matters that this Bill represents the first time that the families of service personnel will have a mechanism by which they can raise issues about how their life as a relative of a member of the Armed Forces impacts their welfare”.—[Official Report, 3/3/25; col. 302.]

This demonstrates that the Government clearly envisage a significant role for the family members of service personnel. It therefore always seemed slightly bizarre that not only were family members not defined in the Bill but the regulations that determined who will be included would not permit parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have now rectified that issue with these amendments and have published the draft regulations. Having looked over those, I do not have any objection to the proposed definition of “relevant family member”, and it appears to do a thorough job in capturing the complexities and, at times, vagaries of relationships in service life.

Amendment 12 from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, inserts the content of those draft regulations into the Bill itself, so that the primary legislation contains a definition of “relevant family member”. It is a good principle that, wherever possible, as much detail should lie in primary legislation rather than be left to delegated powers. Having listened to the Minister, and given the deployment of the affirmative procedure for the delegated powers, I am on this occasion satisfied with the Government’s response.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for their support. I do not want to restart the debate about defining a relevant family member, because that would be an interesting but long and complicated debate.

I start with a couple of points, hoping not to generate the debate that I just said I hope we do not have. Are engaged couples included? My noble friend Lord Stansgate declared his interest with respect to that. He asked the same question in Committee; I am glad that it is still the same question now, just a few weeks later, on Report. The answer to my noble friend is, yes, that is our intention. We look forward to debating further the other points that noble Lords have raised when we come to the secondary legislation.

I will speak in general terms on the point the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised—again, this debate will take place when the secondary legislation comes forward —concerning why we do not simply use the covenant definition. It states:

“section 343B(4) Armed Forces Act 2006 … provides … the definition of ‘relevant family member’ … for the Armed Forces Covenant. The principles under the Covenant and the remit of the Commissioner will operate in a similar policy space (the welfare/ effect of service on service persons and their families)”.

However, they are separate policy backed by different legislation for different purposes. For example, the commissioner’s scope is solely for current service personnel and their families, while the covenant’s remit, as the noble Baroness knows, will also include veterans and their families. In a sense, we are trying to ensure that the definitions we use are fit for the different policy objectives they have.

With those few remarks, I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of the amendments we have put forward and I restate the importance we placed on fulfilling the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the delegated power for the regulation be made affirmative. That is an important change we have made and offers both Houses of Parliament, including your Lordships’, an effective and important opportunity to debate the contents of the “relevant family member” definition without compromising our ability to reflect changes in society in the future. With that, I hope that noble Lords will support the Government’s amendments.

Amendment 2 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for such an interesting and illuminating debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for answering some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on the government Benches on what difference a whistleblowing function would have compared with other complaints that might be brought to the Armed Forces commissioner.

We have heard from across the House, including from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Wrottesley, on the importance of the whistleblowing function that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has proposed putting in the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assiduous attention in talking to those of us who have been involved at various stages of this Bill and for seeking to find ways of responding to the amendments that we have been bringing forward. I look forward to hearing what he is able to say to the House today. In particular, the anonymity aspect is important. Unless the Minister is able to bring something forward that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, feels able to support, these Benches will be supporting Amendments 3 and 5.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and for the ongoing discussions we have had in Committee, outside of it and now back here on Report.

Let us be clear about this: there is no difference in our policy objectives. Nobody wants to read about the things the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, outlined, or about the sexism and other behaviours that we see in the Armed Forces. There is no difference between any of us on that. There is nobody here who supports that. We all want that to be exposed and we all want people to feel able to come forward, through the complaints procedure or through the new body we are setting up.

People say that we still see these things happening today, and of course that is true. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that, when the First Sea Lord went to a recent Defence Select Committee, he spoke about the number of Navy personnel who had been dismissed from the service using the legislation that the previous Government brought in. They quite commendably and rightly brought that in to deal with some of the appalling and unacceptable behaviour.

Noble Lords asked whether that legislation goes far enough and whether more needs to be done. Of course more needs to be done, which is why we have an Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. We understand that the legislation is still not sufficient and that more needs to be done. Therefore, we are bringing forward this Bill.

I understand perfectly that the intention behind the amendments is for people to feel able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions from their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with that—who is going to disagree with that? There is nobody who would disagree with that. We all want people to trust the process and the commissioner, and feel confident that their issue will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences from coming forward.

What is proposed in the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward, quite commendably, and in the arguments that have been made, is—as my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry have said in their remarks—available to those who come forward now. As the Bill is currently drafted, the various policy intentions are being met. Let me go through some of the technical reasons again, because they are important.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the difference between an individual complaint and whistleblowing, and I accept that there is a difference. Is there anything in the Bill to stop a whistleblower going to the commissioner and the commissioner undertaking an investigation in one of their thematic reviews?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is not. My noble friend is quite right to point that out.

The term whistleblower is not a universally recognised term in law. That may be irrelevant to us in considering the debate, but it is of relevance to us as a legislature. There is some limited precedence for its use, there is no single meaning, and it requires additional context to explain what the term means in each case. The amendment seeks to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but it would not create any additional protections for those people, because, as I have said, the commissioner can already investigate everything that the amendment lists—as my noble friend Lord Beamish has pointed this out—whether it involves a whistleblowing-type situation to expose a general service issue or a personal issue that somebody wants to raise individually. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matters that they choose. Anyone can raise such an issue with the commissioner, including the class of person defined in the amendments.

Once established, the Armed Forces commissioner and their office will automatically be bound by data protection legislation. This means that, for all individuals who contact the commissioner, the information and details they provide will be subject to stringent protections under the existing legislation. That includes the principle of protecting the integrity and confidentiality of their personal data.

None the less, as noble Lords know, to try to address the continuing concerns, the Government considered what more they might do. In considering this amendment, noble Lords should remember that the holy grail of all this is anonymity. People will not have trust and confidence in a system if they do not believe that, if they wish it, there is anonymity; they will be frightened of the consequences, whether of whistleblowing or of raising an issue on a personal level.

We are looking at this and, in addition to the substantial protections afforded by data protection legislation, we undertake to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that would go further in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner to preserve the anonymity of individuals who make complaints. This will prevent a complainant’s details coming into the hands of the Secretary of State or the general public without the consent of the complainant, but it will not interfere with the commissioner’s ability to use the information in connection with an investigation. In other words, the Government have conceded that anonymity is an issue and commit to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading that will put that in the Bill, to ensure that anonymity is protected in legislation.

I say again, because it is so important, that trust and confidence are everything. Who will come forward—whatever the legislation says—without trust and confidence in that system? At the heart of that is anonymity. That is the legislative proposal that we are seeking to bring forward at Third Reading, should we be in a position procedurally to do so.

There is a further issue that is not legislative— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised it. The Government commit to update our current “raising a concern” policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. This update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under this policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. This will include provisions relating to anonymity and confidentiality, ensuring that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I ask the Minister for clarification. All those things will be in a policy document, as I understand it. Can he explain to me the legal standing of a policy document? That would be so helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The legal standing works with respect to the way whistleblowing policy works. If the noble Baroness would like to have a look, she will see that armed services personnel are not covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act now. The “raising a concern” policy is how the Ministry of Defence ensures that whistleblowers are protected. Unless the noble Baroness feels that there needs to be an amendment to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to include Armed Forces personnel within its remit, the Government are saying that we can quickly look at the “raising a concern” policy document, which exists with respect to the Ministry of Defence, and by doing so can ensure that whistleblowers have the confidence to come forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a most useful debate, and I hope it has been helpful. I thank all who contributed, whatever their point of view, not least those who felt able to support my amendments. I thank the Minister for his continued engagement, and I know his sincere desire to explore the possibility of a point of mutual agreement.

It was clear that some contributors considered my amendments to have merit, and that there were questions from other contributors. I will deal with the questioners first. I express my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, for their kind remarks. I very much appreciated the vein in which they made their observations and asked their questions.

In essence, a theme ran through the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, not to mention the Minister. The theme I picked up on was: the powers are already there. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said that this is not a game-changer. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, asked whether I could help the House to understand better what the amendments achieve on top of the existing routes. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that the commissioner has the powers, so nothing additional has been created by the amendments—that was very much the tone of the Minister’s response.

My response to that is twofold. It really depends on the lens through which we look at all this. We can look at it through the lens of parliamentarians and technical legal draftspersons and we can say, “No, you don’t need these amendments because everything that we need is already in there”. I would tend to advocate looking at this through the lens of service personnel—not least servicewomen—which is why I am emphatic that it is not a question of not being able to have any more routes because we already have some. It is a question of reassurance to our Armed Forces, particularly our servicewomen, that we are providing routes the best way we can, because we want to give notice that we care about them and do the best we can for them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that what really matters is that there is confidence about the investigation part—I will come to her useful distinction between a complaint and whistleblowing in a moment. But, looking at it through the lens of what service personnel may feel, I go back to the original argument I adduced in my opening speech: we have to give something simple that is easy to understand. There may be a number of routes that people can currently follow, but, if you say that one route is that the commissioner can investigate whistleblowing complaints, that certainly sends out a signal to an awful lot of people in our Armed Forces. They get that and they understand it. They want a simple point of access; they know they can do that in confidence, the process is trustworthy and the investigation will be robust.

The Minister said that more needs to be done, which is why we have the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—I entirely agree with that. My response would be: I want more to be done too. I want to improve the Bill in law—not by way of policy but in law, hence my amendments. The Minister kindly indicated that the Government will, at Third Reading, introduce their own amendment to deal with the question of anonymity. I welcome that and, depending on the text of it, I am sure that this side of the House will be able to support it. But is that a sufficient substitute for what I want to achieve? No, I regret that it is not.

I will deal with the other contributions, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She is an acknowledged expert: her reputation goes before her, and I think we all know that she is a woman you would not readily tangle with. I will not tangle with her; I will listen to her. I am grateful for her support. I noted her distinction: a complaint seeks redress, whereas whistle- blowing is not necessarily looking for personal redress but is rather looking for investigation and action—whistleblowing is an empowering function. Her contribution was powerful, particularly when she explained how she perceived these amendments as improving morale for our service personnel in a simple manner.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made a very helpful contribution, when he referred to a safety valve. From his experiences as a chaplain, he referred to the fear that people have of reporting, which he feels is assuaged by a whistleblowing function, which is something that I have always intrinsically felt. He also pointed out that the comparable model of the German armed forces commissioner has that function.

The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said very simply that there needs to be a way of challenging when something has gone wrong in the system, which is exactly what I am trying to achieve with these amendments.

My noble friend Lord Wrottesley, whose support I welcome, talked about strengthening protections, and I think that that is at the heart of all this. We have a variety of routes. I said earlier that, if we felt that there was only one way in which to do something, we would not be having an Armed Forces commissioner. We would be saying that our vastly improved service complaints system was brilliant, so let us leave it at that—we can tweak it and do bits and pieces as and when we require. I think that we all accept that that is absolutely not an argument for not having an Armed Forces commissioner. However, if you accept that, I think that you should also accept that there is more than one way in which to provide conduits and access for our service personnel.

I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her contribution and the support of her Benches in associating herself with the powerful comments from her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

I have done my best to address the main points that arose in the debate. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and his personal endeavours to keep—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want to mislead anyone. On the Third Reading point and the Government bringing an amendment back, obviously the noble Baroness is going to divide the House—and then it will have to be brought back another way. I could not bring those amendments back at Third Reading, if we were defeated. It would need to be changed elsewhere. I just wanted to make that clear so that I did not mislead anyone.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I understand the technical point that the Minister is making, and I appreciate his desire to clarify that to the House. I understand the position, but it does not detract from my desire to try to do something substantive here. I thank him for his courtesy and his personal endeavours, as he has kept me fully informed of the Government’s thinking, which I appreciate.

I am not going to prolong the discussion, as I think that we have now reached a crystallisation point, which is that the Government believe in their way and I believe in my way and, encouraged by the support that I have received, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we visited the issue of the Armed Forces covenant during our deliberations in Committee. During that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, raised the importance of the covenant and how vital it is that the commissioner be fully able to investigate covenant issues relating to the welfare of service personnel and their families. I was grateful, as I think were all noble Lords present, for the Minister’s response. It was welcome to receive clarification that the commissioner will be able to investigate such matters.

As I noted in Committee, the duty to have regard to the principles of the covenant was established in statute by the Armed Forces Act 2021. That was a significant step forward and we have seen much progress since then. I also note the Government’s intention to embed the covenant fully into law, which is indeed a welcome step. Again, I think it is already a given that the commissioner should have due regard to the covenant, and the comments from the Minister have given me the certainty that they will indeed do so.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for the comments that he has made. I also thank the noble Baroness for bringing the important topic of the Armed Forces covenant to our attention and for the valuable engagement that we have had ahead of this debate.

As we discussed in Committee, and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, this amendment would place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. I will say again for the record that this Government are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. The covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve; those who have served in the past; and their families, including the bereaved. Our election manifesto included a commitment to place it fully into law, which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, referenced, and which we will do.

However, as noble Lords are aware, and I will stress again, the covenant applies to both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. The Government believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the welfare matters affecting our serving community, and that is where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make a real impact. As I have stated before, it will of course be perfectly proper that the commissioner considers covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families—I would imagine that these issues will be within the remit of the commissioner to investigate.

With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and others that, as the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to specify this in the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am thankful to the noble Lords for responding to this small amendment. Of course, it may be possible that the whistleblower will be able to bring matters that could link to the Armed Forces covenant, if the amendment that has just been agreed is kept in the other place. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

7: Clause 4, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
“(3A) “Relevant family members” means such descriptions of persons connected with a person subject to service law as may be specified.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of clause 4 provide for regulations which specify the meaning of “relevant family members” for the purposes of the Commissioner’s work to be subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises an important point. The welfare of service personnel who are aged under 18 is a matter that all noble Lords wish to guarantee. I personally have fond memories of training junior leaders. They were, despite their age, some of the keenest, most determined and, at times, most fearless individuals, certainly in relation to trying out new skills, that I had the honour of serving with.

I think it right, therefore, that the Government give serious consideration to the treatment of young people recruited into the Armed Forces. They are part of the future of our Armed Forces, and it is in all our interests to provide an environment that allows them both to thrive and to flourish. When we face recruitment and retention issues, as has been discussed already, we cannot have a situation in which young people are deterred from joining up or encouraged to leave prematurely. I would be grateful if the Minister would update the House on efforts His Majesty’s Government are taking to deal with the concerns of young people serving in our Armed Forces.

The amendment from the noble Baroness also mentions the children of service personnel. They are impacted in a unique way by their parents’ service, and this can easily get forgotten or overlooked. They often have to move home when the military requires their family to relocate, which can be to different and disparate parts of the country, or indeed overseas. Moving so frequently is by no means an easy thing to ask of anyone, let alone a child. Leaving friends behind, losing a sense of normality and becoming accustomed to an entirely new way of living would be challenging for even the most adventurous of us. I mentioned in Committee that 62% of those who left the Armed Forces reported family concerns as one of their core reasons for leaving. We must address this issue head-on if we are to deal with the crisis of retention.

In direct response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, which mentions the Children’s Commissioner, I say that there must be clear delineation of responsibility for the welfare of service personnel. The Armed Forces commissioner must be responsible for investigations regarding general service welfare matters from service personnel, regardless of age. The Children’s Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner are two very distinct roles, and for good reasons. To conflate the two could risk confusion over responsibility. If a person under 18 has an issue regarding their welfare, as part of their military service, they should go to the Armed Forces commissioner only.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for the discussion on this important matter. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her views on the Bill and I acknowledge her concerns about the protection of young soldiers, which is something we all wish to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out.

We anticipate that the commissioner will wish to work closely with several organisations, committees and groups. As the commissioner will be an independent body, it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they choose to exercise their powers, and it will be for both parties to decide how best to work together effectively. It is likely, however, that the commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements with various groups, organisations and committees, including the Children’s Commissioners from each nation in the UK. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the two roles are distinct but—while respecting the difference between them—it is important that the Children’s Commissioner works, where appropriate, with the Armed Forces commissioner.

I reassure noble Lords that my officials, who are focused on the successful implementation of the commissioner, have already visited AFC Harrogate to understand the unique needs of our young soldiers, and are engaging with other interested groups who are both internal and external to the MoD. I reiterate that the Government are very supportive of the recruitment of young people under 18, while also recognising that it brings with it particular responsibilities which we wish to ensure are properly considered.

I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness and, with that, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I will make a very brief comment. We are the only army in Europe that recruits at 16, even though we do not put them in the front line; that is worth putting on the record. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, referred to the people he has seen in passing out parades and I totally agree with him. You will meet many people who joined the Army at 16 and say it was the making of them. The people you do not meet are the ones who joined the Army at 16 and it was the breaking of them: those who did not stand up to the culture they had to get to, to be the right sort of person to be a soldier.

It is good that we have had this debate and highlighted an issue for the commissioner to think about. I am very encouraged by the Minister’s last remarks in that regard and I am glad that we are not going to vote on it. I just wanted to make those points.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

9: Clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 31 to 33
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment of clause 4, page 3, line 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It was very helpful for the noble Baroness to repeat what was said by the Government on this particular issue. My concern most generally is that the chain of command is respected, and if you were to introduce arrangements which reduced the authority of the chain of command, that would be unsatisfactory.

The only other issue on this is if the inquiry that the commissioner was making involved the commanding officer himself or herself. How would that be dealt with? It needs to be quite clear that there are arrangements, and what the noble Baroness read out covers that, but I should just like to be absolutely certain that, if the commanding officer himself or herself is part of the inquiry of the commissioner, then that can be dealt with.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for reading out the letter that I sent. I have placed a copy in the Library, and I will just check that this has happened, to make sure that is available to everyone. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his remarks. The letter covers the points that he has raised as well.

It would be helpful for further clarification just to read a couple of remarks into the record, which will help the deliberations of all of us on Report. I thank the noble Baroness and other noble Lords for the conversations we have had about the no-notice power of the commissioner and the authority of the commanding officer of a site. We will make sure that commanding officers and others are aware of what they are able to do under the letter and under the Bill.

As highlighted in the letter I sent on 15 April, to fulfil their investigatory function, the commissioner will have wide-ranging powers including access to certain defence sites. The commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of intent to visit those sites, unless—and for sites in the UK only—it is considered that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power. This matters, as it will help to ensure that malpractice cannot be covered up, for example—

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, on a purely technical matter, the Minister referred to a letter of 15 April; I think it is the letter of 23 April.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her brilliant observation. It says “15 April” on here, but I have just been reliably informed by pigeon post that it was 23 April—so thank you very much.

I cannot remember where I got to now—I will start again on that paragraph. As highlighted in the letter I sent on 23 April, to fulfil their investigatory function the commissioner will have wide-ranging powers, including access to certain defence sites. The commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of intent to visit those sites, unless—and for sites in the UK only—it is considered that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising that power. This matters, as it will help to ensure that malpractice cannot be covered up, for example by painting over mouldy accommodation or ensuring certain personnel are off the premises.

The Secretary of State’s power to restrict access is available in a particular case or more generally. We therefore anticipate that, in practice, the Secretary of State could provide the commissioner and heads of establishment with information in advance regarding specific sites, or even parts of sites, activities or broader criteria to which they will be preventing or restricting access. In addition to the military, the Secretary of State will consult with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to ensure all matters which infringe upon national security interests are assessed.

This mechanism will be broad enough to cover instances where, for example, a specific classified event is happening at a site that did not have any restricted areas. In these instances, should the commissioner wish to visit without notice, the head of establishment will still be able to prevent the commissioner from entering either all or part of the site. Although the Bill provides that this power resides with the Secretary of State, the application of broader criteria provided by the Secretary of State in relation to these matters will also function to allow heads of establishment to assess concerns relating to national security or personal safety and restrict access on those grounds.

In practice, heads of establishment and relevant security staff will therefore have the authority to conduct their own due diligence in line with these concerns, including delaying access while inquiries are made. Should disagreements arise, either party would be able to escalate this to the office of the Secretary of State.

With those comments, I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and on those grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister and am satisfied that there are not too many letters flying around—there is only one. I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, and I beg leave of the House to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

11: Clause 4, page 6, line 5, leave out “340IA(4)(e)” and insert “340IA(3A) or (4)(e)”
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment of clause 4, page 3, line 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for his Amendment 13, which addresses the highly significant matter of the appointment process and the independence of the commissioner.

My noble friend Lord Courtown, in winding for the Official Opposition at Second Reading, raised the differences between the proposed commissioner and the German armed forces commissioner, as we have heard today. One of the main differences is the method of appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, rightly raised. The German commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, with nominations coming from the different party groups. That role establishes a significant role for the German Parliament in the appointment process.

The commissioner here shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and not elected by Parliament. The Government have indicated that their successful candidate will appear, I believe, before the Defence Select Committee in the other place. I have two questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the person they appoint remains entirely independent? Secondly, would the Minister be amenable to the commissioner also undergoing pre-appointment scrutiny before the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House too?

On Amendment 14, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on financing what we all agree is a most positive initiative.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate, including my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. Their questions will be answered as I go through my remarks. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for his views on the Bill and his engagement on the subject to date. As he knows from the discussions he has had with me and the Minister for the Armed Forces, I understand and fully appreciate his concerns and views about the scrutiny of the commissioner’s appointment and the importance of properly funding the commissioner.

We are confident there will be the right balance of independent scrutiny in place, in line with other, similar public appointments. Parliament will have a clear and important role in the process. The public appointments process and the rigorous pre-appointment scrutiny will be the mechanism to address any concerns that the House of Commons Defence Select Committee may have about a candidate. We will be able fully to take account of the Select Committee’s views before making the recommendation to His Majesty.

Furthermore, as was clarified in Committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee will be involved in the recruitment process and will consider the candidate before their appointment. The Secretary of State will then carefully consider the view of the chair of the Defence Select Committee. I can confirm that we have also discussed this issue with the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee, and make it clear—in answer to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Beamish in his amendment—that, should the IRDC wish to provide a view on the appointment to the HCDC, it would be very welcome to do so.

As with the House of Commons Defence Committee’s opinion, any views provided by the International Relations and Defence Committee will be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State. However, I hope that the confirmation that the mechanism exists to feed in views from this place, should Parliament wish to do so, will alleviate the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Beamish. His amendment has caused us to further consider how the IRDC may be involved. Because the Executive cannot dictate to Parliament, I emphasise that it is if that Select Committee wishes and chooses to do so.

On Amendment 14, I fully agree that it is crucial that the commissioner has the tools, including the financial assistance, they need. The Bill has been designed to ensure that this is the case. I again thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for taking the time to meet with me and the Minister for the Armed Forces to discuss this matter. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Beamish and others that this Government—I would like to clearly state and put this on the record—will commit to providing sufficient funding to the office of the commissioner.

Noble Lords have asked about a future Government; it is difficult to commit future Governments to particular policies, but I would assume and expect that, even if the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was the Secretary of State for Defence, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was back in office, all of us, including myself, would ensure that the commissioner’s office was properly funded. I believe that would be the case. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Beamish is particularly important because it forces us to put on record that the funding of the commissioner’s office is crucial and fundamental to the successful delivery of this important reform.

If the commissioner feels that their funding is insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, the Bill has been designed to ensure that they will have the opportunity to raise this in their annual reports. The Secretary of State in the other place and the Minister for Defence here—whoever that is—would find it more than a little uncomfortable to have to defend themselves against the charge that an Armed Forces commissioner, regarded as a crucial reform, believes that they have been insufficiently funded to undertake the requirements legally expected of them.

With that, I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for Amendments 13 and 14. I hope that I have been able to provide him and other noble Lords with the necessary reassurance. On those grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I will take that as a win. I look forward to the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House—I have been involved in the process. As I said when moving the amendment, for the campaigners, it is not to be underestimated that the individual selected has at least had the experience and been scrutinised by somebody other than the Secretary of State before the nomination. I welcome that. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

15: Schedule 2, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“21A In section 340N—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “the communication” insert “(“P”)”; (ii) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for “his or her” substitute “P’s”;(iii) in paragraph (b), for “the person” substitute “P”;(iv) in the words after paragraph (b), for “officer” substitute “person”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for “officer”, in each place, substitute “person”;(ii) for “by the person” substitute “by P”;(c) in subsection (3)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “officer” substitute “person”;(ii) in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for “the person” substitute “P”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision that is consequential on clause 3.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 15 makes a provision that is consequential on Clause 3. As your Lordships are aware following our discussions in Committee, Clause 3 amends Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006, to specify that a specified “person” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than for that function having to be carried out by a specified “officer”. An admissibility decision is an administrative decision on whether to accept or exclude a complaint from the service complaints system. The future Armed Forces commissioner will retain the power to review admissibility decisions and make a final decision about whether the complaint should be accepted into the system.

To offer some reassurance that what we are discussing is simply an administrative decision which does not require the dedicated attention of an officer, I outline the factors considered part of these decisions: whether the complaint has been made within the prescribed time limits; whether the complainant is currently serving, which includes both regular and reserve personnel; whether the complaint is a duplicate or repeat complaint; and whether the subject matter of the complaint relates to a service matter or not. There are some limited subject matter exclusions relating, for example, to matters already subject to legal proceedings or operational decisions in combat. We do not consider that this administrative decision requires military expertise—hence the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill, which allows a suitably qualified “person”, rather than an “officer”, to make that decision.

The Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations 2015 set out in more detail what a specified “person” would be for these purposes, as they currently do for a specified “officer”. The regulations will be brought forward in due course and will continue to preclude the specified “person” from being anyone who is the subject of, or in any way implicated in, the statement of complaints. Thus, the effect of Clause 3 is to allow certain civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the Armed Forces is admissible in the service complaints system.

However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate “officer” in the single services. Therefore, we also need the language in Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act to be updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is not any inconsistency in the legislation. This was an oversight in our initial drafting and is what my amendment to Schedule 2 seeks to address.

This amendment would ensure that, in cases where the Armed Forces commissioner may refer complaints into the service complaints system, the references in the legislation are consistent with the fact that civilians will now be able to make admissibility decisions by virtue of Clause 3 of the Bill. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Very briefly, given the time, I thank the noble Baroness for that. I am pleased that the conversations and discussions that we have had have clarified this.

I am not sure of the answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—I am not even totally sure I fully understood what she was asking about what I had said. If she will allow me, I will write to her, and put a copy of that letter in the Library, if that is convenient and satisfactory to her. With that, I commend my amendment to the House.

Amendment 15 agreed.

LGBT Veterans: Financial Recognition Scheme

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I wonder if I might digress slightly. There are times when we answer Questions at the Dispatch Box that are about issues of real social change that has been brought about. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, who is not in his place—

[Noble Lords]

He is!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I beg his pardon. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who I know is not well. If it had not been for his report, we would not be where we are today. Sometimes, we should stop and reflect on what many people in this Chamber have achieved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, are brilliant examples of that.

The financial recognition scheme was launched on 13 December 2024 and, as of 28 April, 1,471 people had registered an interest in applying, with 990 applications submitted. I am pleased to confirm that the first dismissed or discharged payments of £50,000 each were sent on 2 April to eight applicants who are terminally ill or have health challenges. Regarding impact payments, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has been appointed as the independent panel chair, and we expect to announce the remaining members shortly.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, is it not imperative that we never forget the many brave members of our armed services whose careers were destroyed and whose lives were broken before the year 2000, simply because they were LGBT? Is not the financial recognition scheme of the greatest importance, as a result of work begun under the last Government and completed by this one? Following the Minister’s remarks, is it not essential that payment is made as rapidly, effectively and generously as possible to LGBT veterans, since so many are now old and frail, and often in financial hardship as a result of the state’s wrongdoing years ago?

I join the Minister in paying tribute to the work from which all this derives—namely, the superb and comprehensive report two years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who, sadly, cannot be in his place among us today.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I fully support everything that the noble Lord said in a very moving way. As I said at the beginning, there are times when what we are all trying to do—in this Chamber, across this Parliament and beyond—is right a historic wrong. The noble Lord is right to point out that this was a slur on our country and a disgrace, but all we can do now is try to make sure that we put it right. He is quite right to say that, in order to do that, we need to work as quickly as possible. That is why we have started with those applicants who are unwell, and we are working through the applications as quickly as possible.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we deliver best and we do our best by working together, and this is an example. I congratulate the Government and the previous Government on adopting all the recommendations of the Etherton report. I will ask the Minister, who is my friend and a stalwart advocate and supporter, two questions. What were the technical reasons just before Easter that resulted in the promised 18-week update for applicants being delayed? This has caused serious concerns. Finally, he has probably already addressed this, but how many applications have been received and acknowledged as well as processed?

I hope the House will join me in placing on record the huge debt of gratitude that we, and so many others, owe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. We will deeply miss him and his exemplary commitment to public service, which has benefited so many.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and join him in his remarks about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.

Both the previous Government and this Government have tried, and are trying, to right this historical wrong as quickly as possible. I tried to give an answer to the noble Lord’s specific question in my opening remarks. As I say, as of 28 April, 1,471 people had registered an interest in applying, with 990 applications submitted.

On the point that the noble Lord makes about the 18-week update, I do not know the full details of the technological problem, but it is a technology problem that we are seeking to put right, which has meant that the point about the update appears on the website. I reassure him and those who listen to and read our deliberations that that does not mean that the process is in any way held up. It is a technological glitch that we are seeking to put right as quickly as possible, give the hurt that it causes.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord for the fantastic amount of work that they have done in getting this on the agenda.

Following conversations with female veterans, I have two short questions for the Minister. For those who served before the 1960s or 1970s, there are fears that their records may have been lost or destroyed. How are they to have their claim substantiated? Are paper copies of claim forms now available for those who may not be computer literate?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will take away that question about female veterans. However, let me read out—although I do not normally do this—one important thing that may help. My briefing tells me that the financial recognition scheme is a sophisticated scheme that ensures that all eligible applicants—including, obviously, females—will receive appropriate financial recognition despite potential limitations in documentation. The scheme operates under a reverse burden-of-proof basis, meaning that, unless the MoD has any contradicting evidence, the testimony of the veteran will be accepted. I think that is a crucial point to make to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a vital condition attaching to payments under this scheme that they are exempt from income tax and, for DWP purposes, are to be disregarded in the calculation of means-tested benefits. According to Fighting With Pride, some veterans who, happily, have started receiving the payments, have reported that their benefits have been stopped on receipt of the funds. Will the Minister undertake as a matter of urgency to engage with his ministerial colleagues in DWP to ensure that that improper action ceases immediately?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I certainly will take that up. As the noble Baroness has said, these payments are exempt from income tax and from benefits. I am disturbed to hear from her that that does not appear to have happened in certain cases. My officials will read this, but I shall certainly take that back to the MoD and follow it up. If I write to the noble Baroness with a reassurance about what has or has not happened and put a copy in the Library, I think that will be helpful.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his generous comments on all those concerned. In relation to the closing date for applications, which is given as December 2026, are the Government making efforts to publicise the availability of the funds and the need to make applications by December 2026? If not, could the Minister please go away and look at this and consider ways in which to ensure that all potential applicants are aware of their right to do so?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are looking at how we publicise the scheme, but of course we can always do more. Let us reflect on the noble Lord’s question and see whether there is more that can be done to publicise the scheme. I reassure people, including anybody who may be seeking to apply for this, that it is important to recognise that the application does not have to have been agreed by then. An application can be made right up to the last day, but it is important that it is made by then. I will certainly take away the point about publicity and see whether more can be done.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, this is not the only compensation scheme where there appears to be delays in payments. It is happening with the infected blood scheme and with the Post Office compensation. It appears that, sometimes, Ministers’ instructions are not being carried out by civil servants as quickly as they ought to be. Can the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to see whether there is something that can be done to make sure that all compensation payments are paid more quickly?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really good point, but this scheme is not a compensation scheme; it is a scheme to recognise the hurt that was caused to people in the period from 1967 to 2000. Notwithstanding that, it is an important point that needs to be made. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, we will certainly do all we can to ensure that these payments are made as quickly as possible. That is really important, and it is the least that the state can do in recognition of the horror that many people had to go through.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to delivering a thriving shipbuilding sector across the UK, supporting companies and skilled jobs across the whole supply chain—from full vessel builds through to design, repair systems and integration. The Ministry of Defence and the wider Government continue to support the sector through a 30-year pipeline of shipbuilding projects, and we are closely considering shipbuilding as part of our long-term industrial strategy development.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In 2017, Sir John Parker produced the national shipbuilding strategy, which was a good vision for the future of shipbuilding in the UK. It was refreshed in 2022 by the previous Government, who, ironically, six months later awarded a contract to the Spanish state-owned shipbuilder Navantia. Today, we have tenders for ships for Trinity House and Border Force, the concern being that they will go to foreign yards. Also of concern is that the National Shipbuilding Office, in its latest bulletin, talks about UK content not UK build. Why is shipbuilding not part of the national growth strategy? Those ships should be built in the UK.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Certainly, the shipbuilding strategy is part of the industrial strategy going forward, but my noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of shipbuilding to our country and to growth. I will continue to say at this Dispatch Box that the manufacturing industry of this country needs to be rebuilt, and part of that rebuilding has to be ship- building. We look not only to the Ministry of Defence but to departments across government to do as much as they can to ensure that British ships are built in British yards. That is an important principle that they should adhere to if they possibly can.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, we are awaiting the strategic defence review and, I believe, a defence industrial strategy. Will national shipbuilding be part of that and if so, when can we expect those documents and some real progress?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We will see those documents in due course. Of course shipbuilding is going to be a part of future defence growth strategies. These are really important points, and I say again—because we are going to have to reiterate this—that this Government, the next Government and the Government after that are going to have to rebuild the ability of this country to build ships in shipyards in different parts of the country. That cannot be changed overnight: those shipyards will have to be rebuilt, and the apprentices trained. That is fundamental, and fundamental too to our national security going forward is sovereign capability; that is everything.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in pursuit of the Minister’s laudable objectives, when will our successor shipbuilding tsar be appointed and what shipbuilding orders has the National Shipbuilding Office been involved in since July last year?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The shipbuilding tsar will be appointed as soon as possible—I cannot give the noble Baroness a date. The National Shipbuilding Office has been involved in a number of projects, not least, as I mentioned yesterday, the five Type 31s being built in Rosyth and the eight Type 26s being built on the Clyde. The National Shipbuilding Office has also been ensuring that the various departments across government recognise that they also have a responsibility to ensure that the ships they want are built as far as possible in British yards.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome much of what the Minister has said, but turning to the commercial side of shipping, the Parker report drew attention to the potential of and importance of commercial shipbuilding in growing skills and capacity throughout the land. As has been noted, very little has happened from the NSO on that. I do not blame it because I know that a great deal of effort has been made by some of the officials; indeed, there are people in the Gallery today who put tremendous effort into this. Can the Minister try to unfreeze funds for export credit guarantees for merchant ships where there is potential, we have orders and people want to build here? Also, have the Government decided where they want to locate the National Shipbuilding Office? Which ministry will it be attached to? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The National Shipbuilding Office is based in the MoD but works across government. There is a review of the export guarantee, the fundamental point of which is that, where we have exports and ships that need to be built, there is access to finance. We are not satisfied with how that is working at present, and the review is going on to see if we can do better.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, a shipbuilding strategy is meaningless unless there are not just orders for ships, but a drumbeat of orders. I spent 15 years on the Opposition Benches pointing out to the then Government that we needed to get some orders going and get them in quickly, so that there was a programme of build; otherwise the Navy would be decimated—which it has been. There is now a threat to the continuous at-sea deterrence, for the same reason. Will the Minister speak to the right honourable John Healey and the Treasury? We must have a sequence of orders, a drumbeat of orders, or we will not get the shipyards and SMEs to recruit people, invest and get apprenticeships. It will be meaningless unless we manage to do this.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government are seeking to do exactly what my noble friend points out. The important point he makes is the necessity for a drumbeat: you cannot build a ship in one place and then, three years later, go back and try to build another ship; you have to have a continuous programme. The shipbuilding pipeline that has been outlined was partly intended to address that. We are already starting to see the MoD place orders for ships. I have mentioned Rosyth and the Clyde, and other shipbuilding orders are being made at various shipyards across the country. I say to my noble friend that I will be one of those advocating to make sure that, as far as possible, orders for ships required in the UK are built at British yards. I take the point he is really making, which is about the need for more ships.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, there has been a huge growth in world cruising over recent years. Can the Minister tell us why we as a country have totally failed to participate in the construction of cruise liners?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have to say that I am not an expert on cruise liners, but the noble Lord makes a serious point: why are we not involved in cruise liners and in various other shipbuilding projects? The answer is that we have allowed ourselves, as a country with a proud manufacturing history, to see many of these industries as the industries of the past. What we have seen happening recently has been a wake-up call for our country that these are not the industries of the past. They are the industries of now, and maybe we will see cruise liners built again in this country.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord West, will the Minister come back to the House with a proportionate number for the increased scale-up of naval procurement for this country’s defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If I have understood the noble Baroness’s question correctly, figures have been published on that. If we are talking about Royal Navy ships, as I have already outlined, eight Type 26s are being built —started, to be fair, under the previous Government, of which she was a supporter—by BAE on the Clyde, and five Type 31s are being built at Rosyth by Babcock. Those are the starting points of real improvement and of increases in the number of ships being built. Of course, we need to do more, and we will try to do so.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the supply chain, which can be incredibly important for companies in areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber, and crucial for growth. Too often they have complained that the process of tendering and finding out what is available has been incredibly difficult. Does the MoD have a clear strategy to address the problems previously faced by small supply chain companies, so that they can benefit from the orders that are placed?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. Part of what I and the Government are trying to do is to ensure that the increase in defence spending is felt across the regions and nations of this country, whether it be the Yorkshire and Humber region and other regions of England, or Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But my noble friend is also right to point out that this cannot be just the huge primes; it has to be small and medium-sized industry as well. We have many such programmes and projects within the MoD that seek to ensure that smaller and medium-sized enterprises benefit. I want to know, not why we do not have another project to encourage small and medium-sized businesses, but why, over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, we have had project after project trying to generate more activity and support for such businesses. The truth is that we have not managed to achieve what we wanted. So I will go back to the MoD and say, “Why will the projects that we’re now introducing work, when they perhaps haven’t worked as well as they might have done in the past?”

Defence Spending: Scotland

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Curran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact in Scotland of increased defence spending.

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

Scotland plays a vital role in the defence of the United Kingdom from strategic Ministry of Defence sites such as His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde and RAF Lossiemouth. The new defence industrial strategy seeks fully to harness the potential of these spending increases across Scotland and the United Kingdom, using defence procurement and investment actively to generate wealth, boost export potential and increase and create high-quality jobs.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I know that he is in high standing in the defence sector in Scotland. Will he consider the establishment of a specific, proactive programme of employment within deprived communities to ensure that the benefits of increased investment in the defence industry are shared by all of Scotland?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that suggestion, which I will certainly ask the Ministry of Defence to consider. The increase in defence spending gives us a huge opportunity not only to protect our country better but to generate jobs and increase wealth across the regions and nations of this country. The idea of trying to ensure that deprived communities, particularly in Scotland but across the whole of the UK, benefit from that is something any Government should take seriously, and I certainly will take that back to the MoD.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, it is worth recording that Scotland has around 35,000 defence jobs and 11,000 people in the forces. We are building seven warships, and we have naval and RAF bases. Will the Government consider, in the new defence era, extending the engagement of the entire industrial complex of Scotland, including offshore oil and gas, the energy sector, IT and cyber, to ensure a proliferation of investment right across the economy and not just within the specialised defence sector? On recruitment, would it be worth considering reviving some of our traditional historic defence regiments, such as the Gordon Highlanders?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will take on board any ideas about how we improve recruitment, and that is one. The broader point that the noble Lord makes about defence investment is very important. Of course, we will continue to invest in the various sites I have mentioned. The noble Lord made a point about the involvement of the whole of business and the community in the new warfare and the new battleground of the future, so of course it will involve the oil industry and the business sectors because they are defending critical national infrastructure—the energy sources for our country. All those things become crucial not only in Scotland but across the whole of the UK. To deliver that, we need a whole society, whole community, whole business effort, which is what the new defence industrial strategy that we will be publishing soon will take on board.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, defence spending in Northern Ireland lagged far behind the UK average for many years. In the new era of increased national defence spending, what does the Minister believe he can do, alongside colleagues from other government departments, to boost Northern Ireland’s contribution to the defence sector and in so doing potentially create many thousands of much-needed highly skilled jobs?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Northern Ireland, as with the whole of the UK, including Scotland, will benefit from the increases in defence spending. Just one example of that is the huge new contract given to Thales in Belfast, which will generate a huge number of jobs. When you add not only direct employment at Thales but also the small and medium-sized businesses that will benefit from that, Northern Ireland will benefit from that increase in defence spending as well as other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, what role does the Minister see Scotland continuing to play in the UK’s ability to monitor and respond to threats in the North Atlantic and the Arctic region?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Scotland is crucial to the defence of the United Kingdom, but beyond that is the importance of the role that the bases in Scotland play in the defence of, for example, the Arctic and the Greenland Gap. One example of that is RAF Lossiemouth, which is a crucial RAF base for the Ministry of Defence and for the defence of our country. The aircraft based there, such as the Typhoons and the various intelligence aircraft that are there to gather information, are crucial to us. RAF Lossiemouth, along with other such facilities in Scotland, are crucial to the defence of our country.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Just as we heard in the last Question, the SNP Government are prepared to accept nuclear-generated electricity—as long as it is generated in England or Wales. They have also done a U-turn on the independent nuclear deterrent—as long as it is moved down to England. Is there any depth of cynicism to which the SNP Government will not go?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend is probably more able to comment on the SNP and the SNP Government than I am, but his question is serious and important. It gives us an opportunity to say that the base on Faslane—the nuclear deterrent provided there —is fundamental to the defence of our country. I note that even a former leader of the SNP is now talking about the need to maintain that nuclear deterrent, even if it were to be based in England.

Although the SNP has questioned the continuation of the independent nuclear deterrent, that did not stop it changing its policy in 2012 on being a member of NATO. I remind the SNP, as well as this House, all of Scotland and the whole of the UK, that NATO is of course a nuclear alliance. That provides protection for Scotland, and for the rest of the UK and our allies.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

With reference to the last question, the Scottish National Party is not represented in this Chamber so I am sure it will not mind me speaking about it. Whatever the views of the SNP Government or, indeed, any Administration, on a particular conflict, is it not vital that all parts of this United Kingdom get behind our defence sector? You can consider yourself pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, but to be pro-Scotland you have to back defence jobs in all parts of the UK, including north of the border.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right and makes a very good point. There are some 25,000 to 26,000 defence-related jobs across Scotland and that will increase, I would suggest, with the increased expenditure that we will see. There are RAF, Army and naval bases across Scotland as well, but the important point to make is that the defence of the UK requires the integrated union that we have. That is what people in Scotland and the rest of the country support. The defence of those values is important; it is as important to the people of Scotland, whatever their political persuasion, as it is to the rest of the UK. The noble Lord is right to remind us that the defence of the UK, whether it is Scotland or elsewhere, is of importance to us all.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am always happy to talk about the SNP. Because of the SNP, Scotland is now the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, with many recruiters having to offer compensatory packages to attract high-calibre personnel to Scotland. Have the Government consulted with our Scottish industry partners on what effect these higher levels of taxation are having on them?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will check to see whether we have specifically consulted about the levels of taxation, but we will consult with Scottish industry and the broader UK industry about how we ensure that we get the defence industry we need. One of the present challenges is that we need to rebuild our defence industry—to rebuild our steel industry, for example, to ensure that we have the domestic sovereign capability to do the things we will need to do in the event of conflict.

I would say to the noble Baroness, who knows Scotland far better than I do, that shipbuilding efforts on the Clyde as well as Rosyth are seeing huge numbers of ships, with eight Type 26 frigates and five Type 31 frigates being built there. Scotland and Scottish industry should be proud of the way they are contributing to the defence of our country. The Scottish defence industry, as well as the wider UK defence industry, plays a huge role in that.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the Royal Navy’s shipbuilding in Scotland is very much dependent on other UK yards for fabrication and block work, for example, so a vibrant shipbuilding industry throughout the UK is important. Does the Minister therefore agree that it is disappointing that the Scottish Government have just awarded the ferry contract to Turkey—work that could have been done in the UK to support UK shipbuilding nationally?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point. We would all agree that this Government need to ensure that, as far as possible, the increases in defence spending benefit UK industry, British industry, and that is what we are seeking to do. We are doing that with the steel industry, and we want to see shipbuilding benefiting from the increases in defence spending. That requires a whole UK Government effort, not only at government level but with all the devolved Governments across the UK working together to ensure that we benefit from this increase in spending.

As I say, the crucial point, which has been brought home to us all, is the ability of this country to rebuild manufacturing, whether it be shipbuilding, steel or other industries, to ensure that we have the sovereign capability we need should we face a crisis. Frankly, this has been a wake-up call that may have come too late for this conflict, but for future conflicts we will ensure that we have capability now rather than at some distant point in the future.

Future Defence Capability

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cryer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s future defence capability following the recently announced increases in defence spending.

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

My Lords, the strategic defence review is well under way and has been considering all aspects of defence, including the capabilities required by UK defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities of the 21st century. The recently announced accelerated programme to increase defence spending is considered a critical step in realising the review's ambition to transform our Armed Forces for this new era. The review will place NATO first and strengthen our alliances and partnerships while making defence central to the security, economic growth and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. Can he say something about the preparedness of the Armed Forces in all their guises when it comes to the threat from one of the most evil and fascistic regimes in the world? I am talking about the regime in Iran and its proxies who spread their poison and terror across the globe, bearing in mind that one of those proxies was responsible for the most deadly massacre of Jewish people since 1945?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an extremely important point about Iran and its proxies. We will continue to work with our international partners to hold Iran to account for its destabilising activity, the things that it has done in the Middle East and, indeed, the threats it poses on UK soil. To do that, the increased defence spending that we have announced today will help us to deal with this very real threat. Let Iran make no mistake: we will both deter and respond to any threat that it or its proxies pose to us. I thank my noble friend again for his question.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s focus on defence and the further clarification of intended funding, as evident from the Chancellor’s Statement this morning, are welcome. While further detail about the additional funding and the phasing of the route to 2.5% by 2027 is needed, it is equally important to understand what liabilities may fall on defence; otherwise, we cannot make sense of the overall picture. Can the Minister say whether the cost of the Chagos deal is going to paid for by defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Chagos deal is extremely important for our own security and that of the US. When the deal is finalised, it will be put before Parliament with the costings and then Parliament can debate it. The future of the base at Diego Garcia, which is crucial to us and our allies, is secured, and that is the important point of any deal that is finalised.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said the ministry will put “NATO first”. NATO, through SACEUR, has defined the force structure it believes necessary if the alliance is to deter Russian aggression. It has also set out the contribution it wishes the UK to make to that force structure. What action has the Ministry of Defence taken to cost NATO’s request, and how does it compare to our currently available military capabilities?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding is that discussions have taken place between ourselves and NATO and SACEUR about the capabilities that they would expect from us. We are currently looking at both the cost and our ability to provide the capabilities. It is my understanding that those negotiations are still under way. If that is incorrect, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, in the context of additional defence funding, what is now the Government’s dominant policy consideration about how that funding should be spent? Is it to make good our deterrent capability against Russia, or to make good the potential deficit caused by the abandonment of European security guarantees by the United States of America?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. The fundamental thrust of the Government’s policy is the “NATO first” policy, which obviously deals with the threat from Russia but also our security. We have seen that not only our own country but many countries across Europe are now stepping up their defence spending to provide the security assistance that may be needed, in the short term with respect to Ukraine and in the longer term across the whole of Europe. The important point is that the “NATO first” policy does not mean “NATO only”; it means that we will also accept the responsibilities we have elsewhere. The defence review seeks to balance that and see what capabilities we will need to do so.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government now agree with the opinion that President Macron has held for some years, that the European arm of NATO must be made stronger and credible, and eventually an equal partner with the US in the NATO alliance? It will take at least until the 2030s for us to achieve that desirable aim. Meanwhile, we are being excluded from the arrangements in Europe for defence procurement, and we are not fully aligned with them. No one voted for Brexit because they wanted us to cease to have defence and security alliances with our European neighbours. Will the Government press hard for the closest possible integration of our defence policy with that of our European allies, so we can tell the Americans there really is a self-sufficient, credible European armed alliance?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, the US-UK relationship is absolutely fundamental to the future security of Europe and across the globe, and we look to maintain it. As far as Europe is concerned, we are looking to reset the EU-UK relationship in terms of defence and security, and work is ongoing. Specifically with respect to industry, of course we are looking for greater collaboration and co-operation across Europe with respect to a European defence industrial strategy, and those negotiations continue. In many respects, both at European and bilateral levels, we are seeing increased co-operation, and that is essential for our European security and to demonstrate to the Americans that Europe is taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the special transatlantic relationship is laudable, but if from the other side of the Atlantic the relationship is not seen as so important, what are His Majesty’s Government proposing to do to ensure that we in the United Kingdom have the military and security capabilities that we need? The Vice-President and others in the United States do not seem to be taking the UK very seriously at the moment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will deal with that in two parts. First, we are increasing UK defence spending, as many other countries across Europe are doing, recognising the increased threats but also the need for us all to demonstrate to the Americans that we are doing what we should with respect to our various responsibilities, both in Europe and beyond. Secondly, whatever the noise around the UK and the US, and what the US President and those associated with him are or are not saying, I cannot stress enough how important it is that the US and UK stand together, work together and tackle common challenges together. There may be a lot of noise, but let the noise from this Chamber be that we see the US-UK relationship as absolutely fundamental, and we will do all that we can to maintain it.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the announcement by the Minister’s right honourable friend the Chancellor today around a new defence growth board, which she says will maximise the benefits from every pound of taxpayers’ money. Given that is the case, will he take the opportunity to say that that supply chain should go right across the United Kingdom, and—of course, I would say, would I not—with that to include Northern Ireland with its very good defence firms?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed, that is the whole point of the growth agenda. The noble Baroness may have had the opportunity to read the Chancellor’s speech earlier today, which specifically talked about the defence industry, the growth agenda and the importance of that going across the whole of the UK. She has been an advocate, as many noble Lords have been, for Northern Ireland industry, and the £1.6 billion-worth of money to Thales in Belfast and also the drone capacity and capability of Spirit in Northern Ireland are examples. I also know that all of the Northern Ireland representatives with the Government there are seeking to ensure that it is not only big business that benefits but that small and medium-sized businesses benefit as well.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our armed services, I am afraid, are in a parlous state—it is no good pretending otherwise. They have been seriously hollowed out and they are nowhere near the capabilities that our nation thought they would have. Thank goodness we are now putting some money into defence, but there is a need to think in the short-term as well as the long-term. Are we making sure that we put money in rapidly to the areas that need to be resolved quickly, in case we are at war within the next couple of years, as well as just looking ahead to the way we would like to structure our forces for the future? This is what the SDR was going to do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Before I answer the question directly, I thought that my noble friend was going to welcome the statement in the Chancellor’s speech that the Portsmouth naval base was to be renovated and improved, but there we go. And we are going to try to provide ships there, as well.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As for the serious point—although that was serious—that my noble friend makes, of course there are short-term efforts that we need to make. In terms of service personnel, we have made significant changes already with respect to pay, childcare and recruitment and retention, so we are trying to deal with some immediate personnel challenges and put those right. Investment is something that sometimes takes a little bit longer, but my noble friend might have also recognised in the Chancellor’s speech a fund that will be made available to look at how new and other industrial technologies can be used to invest in a way that speeds up delivery from industry to the front line. That is a challenge for all of us. Ukraine has shown that, and at the end of the day, we will have to learn from it but do it quickly.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this set of amendments, really to provide some balance, because I feel that we should hear both sides of the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in introducing these amendments, said that the commissioner should not be visiting without the Secretary of State being aware, and I entirely agree with that. Obviously, the Secretary of State is the person with political responsibility, who needs to know what is going on and whether the commissioner has identified a potential problem. However, not being aware is not the same as having seven days’ notice. There is a very large gap between those two things.

What we have just heard from the noble and gallant Lord about the commanding officer having the right to deny access is, I am aware, not directly in line with these amendments. However, on day one in Committee we talked about how the ombudsman, as structured, has not worked and has not had sufficient powers. We have to be careful to make sure that we are not putting a commissioner in the same position here. We have to be realistic: there may be a systemic issue, such as those we talked about on the previous day in Committee, and a concern about the treatment of female service people. We might hope that a commander would always want that issue to be exposed and understood, but we cannot guarantee that, and it is really important that we do not disempower the commissioner with changes to this Bill before they are even created and put in place.

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

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, back to her place today; I know she was busy elsewhere in the House of Lords on our first day. It is welcome to see her here. Both she and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked about the opportunity to discuss the points that have been made, and we can of course meet between Committee and Report to do so. I can promise the meeting, but I cannot promise the outcome. To be frank, as noble Lords will know, that is how we in this House conduct business, improve legislation and achieve the objective that we all want: the commissioner being effective and having the appropriate powers to do the task they undertake.

As noble Lords know, I like to make some general remarks before making formal points; I hope that is helpful to the Committee. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the balance between the powers of the Secretary of State and of the commissioner, and I will say something about that. We have tried very hard to balance those powers. I also hear the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the importance of national security. There may be elements of a particular base that one would expect the commissioner to be precluded from visiting for national security reasons, even if it is not the whole base; there is also the role of the commanding officer to consider.

On the question of intention, if we take the example of a normal decision of the commissioner to visit a base, the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord will see that there is a requirement in the Bill for the commissioner to notify the Secretary of State that they are visiting a particular base:

“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of the proposal within such period before exercising the power as the Commissioner considers appropriate”.


The noble Baroness’s amendment would require that that happen at least seven days before the commissioner intends to exercise the power. The expectation would be that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer that such a visit was to take place.

However, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, under the Bill a confidential list will be drawn up saying where the Secretary of State believes it inappropriate for the commissioner to visit because of national security reasons. That will be shared with the commissioner, although it will remain confidential. But we will take up the point made by the noble and gallant Lord about how that will work with a base only a small part of which may be subject to national security concerns.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

The Minister said that, ordinarily, the commissioner will give notice to the Secretary of State. But equally—this comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—we know that, in order to be truly effective, in some circumstances the Armed Forces commissioner will need to give little or no notice. That is fine because that helps the effectiveness of the commissioner, but a commanding officer is then exposed to the possibility of the commissioner wanting access to a site to which he or she should not properly be allowed access, because of national security. So, in proposing that the commanding officer have a backstop ability to deny access, we are seeking to improve the power and authority of the commissioner, because that then reduces the need for undue notice on their behalf.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand that, and I will come to the “no notice” point in a moment. I was simply pointing out to the Committee that, as the Bill stands, new Section 340IB(3) states:

“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice”.


The expectation is that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer; however, sites can be excluded on national security grounds because a list will have been drawn up. But new Section 340IB(4) states:

“Subsection (3) does not apply, so far as relating to service premises in the United Kingdom”—


this goes to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made—

“if the Commissioner considers that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power”.

As I say, in all this there is a balance to be struck between notifying the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State notifying the commissioner; the ability, however, to have “no notice” visits; and alongside that protecting national security and indeed personal safety. The noble and gallant Lord made the important point that you might want to protect an entire base or facility, and perhaps everyone would be more open to understanding why that base is excluded. But he also pointed out that it may be a question of protecting just part of the base, and even a commanding officer might not know some of the things going on there. So he raises an issue which we will need to come back to between Committee and Report, because it is important and we need to consider it.

I hope that, in addressing the issues and pointing out the various pathways to a visit by the commissioner—or not—I have shown that we are trying to balance the various demands in order to make the commissioner’s visits effective, to maintain national security, and to give no notice where appropriate, while being fair to the bases being visited. I have tried to answer noble Lords’ specific questions, and I hope that those remarks are helpful.

I will just read the formal points into the record, because I think that is helpful. On Amendments 13, 14 and 15 and the commissioner’s power of access to service premises, I thank again the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful consideration of this issue, and indeed I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

As we have just seen, one of the challenges when drafting the Bill was ensuring that the correct balance was struck between the independence and power of the Armed Forces commissioner on one hand, and the power of the Secretary of State, notably to protect the interests of national security and the safety of individuals, on the other.

Although the commissioner has the power to enter service premises and prepare independent reports and recommendations, this is balanced with the Secretary of State’s ability to prevent the exercise of these powers in the interests of national security and personal safety, thus ensuring proper and responsible regard to delicate security issues surrounding defence premises. We believe that the Bill achieves this balance, and that to provide more prescriptive restrictions, such as the ones contained in the proposed amendments, may risk offsetting it.

We must also remember that much of the commissioner’s remit as set out in Clause 4 is solely focused on the general welfare of service persons and their families. The exercise of these powers can only be in pursuit of this issue. It is important that we keep that in mind when considering the role of the Secretary of State in restricting their powers.

In its current form, the Bill grants the commissioner discretion as to how much notice to give service premises ahead of the commissioner’s proposed visit. This could be within seven days, as the noble Baroness suggests, or indeed longer, and we anticipate that that will be the case for the vast majority of the time.

Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to notify the commanding officer of each service premises that the commissioner has given notice of a proposed visit could risk creating a substantial administrative burden on the Secretary of State. It could also prove to be complex, given the multitude of service premises and personnel involved. This additional requirement could frustrate and delay the commissioner, making it harder for them to fulfil one of the most crucial elements of their role: to meet with our Armed Forces and their families in a timely way and to understand the realities of service life. However, we would expect the Secretary of State’s office to inform the relevant commanding officer when they are informed of an impending visit, as I mentioned to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

Further, in its current form, the Bill deliberately provides that it is up to the judgment of the commissioner as to when giving notice would defeat the object of exercising their power of entry to service premises. Removing this and replacing it with two prescriptive circumstances when the commissioner would be able to conduct no-notice visits risks inadvertently precluding circumstances when no-notice visits would be appropriate. Furthermore, to place a legal obligation on the commissioner to inform the Secretary of State of all instances where and reasons for which they have exercised their discretion not to give notice of planned entry to a service premise would, again, add an administrative burden and could significantly infringe upon their independence.

However, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern that it would appear difficult for the Secretary of State to prevent the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of new Section 340IB, proposed by Clause 4(2) of the Bill, on national security grounds should the commissioner decide that a no-notice visit was appropriate. I assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with partners in defence and across government to understand areas where the Secretary of State—and, where appropriate, the Foreign or Home Secretary—may wish pre-emptively to exercise the restriction power. For example, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, access to certain parts of sites or the ability to take documents from certain terminals may be restricted. Given its sensitive nature, any such list will be a classified document; however, the sites in question and the commissioner would be aware of this in advance.

We will continue to engage with the relevant agencies during implementation. This will be accompanied by a communication and engagement campaign across defence to ensure that sites and personnel are aware of the commissioner and their remit. However, should the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, find it useful, I would welcome meetings with them to discuss this and other matters of national security in relation to the commissioner; that is an open invite to other noble Lords, should they also wish to attend.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time, a debate of brevity has actually been one of substance. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their contributions; I am also grateful to the Minister for his customary willingness to engage.

What has emerged is a concern—I detect that there is some sympathy with it—that the Bill has not quite got the balance right. However, I think that it is possible to find a workable solution. As I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it occurred to me that, if we are all trying to be too clever—I simply tried to follow and work with the grain of how the Bill’s draftsmen approached these provisions—he may have a more elegant solution. The simplest thing may be to ask whether the Secretary of State really must be brought into this, because what matters is that national security is not compromised.

I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation to meet before Report and would like to avail myself of that opportunity. I would be very surprised if we cannot find some pragmatic way to improve the Bill. It may be that, despite the noble and gallant Lord’s reservations about it, the list could well be a starting point in terms of reassurance that there are certain places that the commissioner will not be getting into.

If we go back to the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we dislocate at our peril the commanding officer of a base who has overall responsibility in law for the security and safety of that base, that might be a worthwhile starting point, from which you then turn the process around. If the commissioner says, “I’m coming”, the commander of the base says, “Not tomorrow, but you can come on Thursday”, and the commissioner says, “No, I want to come tomorrow”, at that point perhaps the Secretary of State can be brought in. But it seems to me that the critical practical issues are: what is going on in a location at a particular time, and could national security be compromised?

I am absolutely satisfied that there is an intelligent solution to be found. I would welcome the opportunity of a further discussion with the Minister, which I think colleagues who have contributed to the debate would find extremely helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I will speak briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

The German armed forces commissioner and her activities—on whose role, to a large degree, this new UK version is based—are covered by a country-wide whistleblowing Act, which was passed, I think, about three years ago. Looking at the example of Jaysley Beck, and trying to disentangle the long and unfortunate history of the way she was treated almost from the time she joined the Army Foundation College, would identify a whole series of points at which the whistle could have been blown in some way, shape or form but, for whatever reason, was not. This is not a case of a single occasion that was missed; there were multiple occasions involving a wide range of people, many of whom were old enough and senior enough to know better, and who, for whatever reason, did not take action.

There are elements of human behaviour and psychology at play, including the way in which an organisation—which has huge pride in its history—reacts when it sees that the way it likes the outside world to believe it behaves, and how it holds its values, is not in fact the case. It is not always straightforward to work out exactly how to deal with that and how to flag up what is going on without being seen to be disloyal and without, in some way, being seen to be disrupting the organisation. Even if you feel that some of the values being demonstrated by the actual behaviour are wrong, they are almost trumped by the other values that one feels are more important, which are probably those that are discussed. The values that have gone wrong are the ones that are not being discussed or flagged up. That seems to be a root cause of why people are not coming forward and not talking.

This is an important area. If the new Armed Forces commissioner is not the office that will look after this, who on earth will be? Who will defend the young girls like Jaysley Beck of the future—and, probably, of today? We need to get this right. I think that we would all welcome detailed discussions between now and Report, probably involving outside organisations that have been talking to some of the people who have suffered and who have not found ways of telling the chain of command or the outside world, in a way that was heard, what was going on. We really need to use the occasion of this Bill to try to get this right.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what an important amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has brought forward. It has enabled the noble Baroness, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to make the comments they have.

Let us start with the whole point of the commissioner. Obviously, we intend that the commissioner will have the power to investigate all the various issues and matters that noble Lords have brought forward in this Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, “I am not going to give up”. I say to her that she should not give up; nobody should give up. She was forthright on this matter when she was a Minister, as was the noble Earl, Lord Minto—indeed, as is every noble Lord in this Committee. When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had the very senior responsibilities he had in the military, he, like all of us, was trying to tackle this behaviour whereby some are tarnishing the reputation of the whole of our Armed Forces, which utterly unacceptable.

I say to the noble Baroness that, as she will see as I make my remarks, some progress has been made as a result of the policies the previous Government pursued. As noble Lords know, I am a proud Labour politician, but I also admit where progress has previously been made. Is it good enough? Is it satisfactory? Of course not, as we have seen from Gunner Beck’s awful circumstances.

The demands made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, and the noble and gallant Lord—indeed, by every single person in this Committee and beyond—have started to change the culture, which is ultimately what this is about. Will these things stop? I wish I could wave a magic wand and stop every case of bullying, sexism and misogyny, but what I do know is that, if the role of the commissioner is passed as it is now, it will, along with the other reforms that have taken place, help us deliver what we want to do.

I absolutely take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about training new recruits and how we protect and develop them. I know there has been controversy about Harrogate, but it has taken really powerful action to try to deal with that. There have been other instances that we can all refer to. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: this is about trying to generate confidence in people so that they feel they can come forward.

There is also the countercultural point that people sometimes do not come forward not only because they are frightened but because that would somehow break the code—the unwritten rules. It is a nonsense. I used to teach, and you get this in schools, where people will not grass up others, even though they think what they did was wrong, because it somehow breaks a social norm. It is ridiculous and unacceptable, but each and every one of us knows that it is there. The real challenge for institutions, whether schools, offices or the Armed Forces, is how to generate that desire and will to come forward in what are sometimes difficult circumstances, because there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour.

Let me turn to the amendment on whistleblowing. I assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence already has a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required. What is required is asking, “How do you get people to use it? How do you get people to come forward? How do you get people to have that confidence?” The noble Baroness, the noble Lord and others who went before them introduced lots of different hotlines, confidential arrangements and changes, but the things that we do not want to happen are still happening. It is about driving things through to bring about that change.

As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, as a consequence of what has happened—noble Lords will know this if they have read the Defence Select Committee’s evidence from last week, and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, spoke about it in public, so it is out there—21 people have been discharged from Royal Navy service after a whistleblower flagged misconduct and inappropriate behaviour on board submarines. I repeat: the First Sea Lord said that, as a result of whistleblower policies currently in place, 21 people were dismissed from the Submarine Service.

Is that a solution? Is that the end of the problem? Does that mean that nothing terrible is happening or will happen? Of course not, but it shows that we must drive people to have the confidence to use the various procedures and systems that are in place. Otherwise, you can change anything, but, if people do not have the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about, they will not use it and will not come forward. So, as I say, this shows that demonstrable action is being, and will be, taken against those who have transgressed when people are willing to come forward.

The term “whistleblowing” can cover a range of issues much wider than general service welfare matters. The Government’s intention is to focus the commissioner’s remit on service welfare matters. However, I can further reassure your Lordships that nothing in the Bill precludes anyone from raising a general service welfare issue with the commissioner anonymously; nor does it prevent the commissioner acting on that information.

On maintaining anonymity, for all general service welfare matters raised with the commissioner, there is no obligation imposed by the Bill to disclose the identity of any individuals. Indeed, all defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under the Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy. I hope that what I have said about anonymity, whistleblowing and some of the things that are starting to change means that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment, but, again, I would be happy to discuss any of this with her—indeed, with any noble Lord—because it is so important.

It seems to me that the real challenge for us is around how we can give people, whether they are recruits or people who have been serving for a considerable period of time, the confidence and willingness to come forward and use the measures that are there. Knowing that they can do that both anonymously and in a way in which they will be treated with respect, seems to me the crucial part because, if that does not change, we can change the system but it will not actually deliver the result that we would all want. We are united in our desire to do something about that.

I look forward to the noble Baroness—along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—continuing to demand better of the system because that is what we all want to achieve and what we all want to happen. What is still happening is unacceptable; we want, and are determined, to do something about that. We think that the commissioner will help in this regard.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, again, this has been a short but very substantial debate. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their contributions—and, indeed, the Minister for his response. What is really encouraging is the unanimity of view that we can keep doing better. I am grateful to the Minister for his observations about the previous Government. From my engagement with him when he was the opposition spokesman on defence, I know how encouraging and supportive he was as we tried to bring forward much-needed change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I will try to be as brief as possible. I had thanked the Minister for his kind remarks about the previous Government. It is the case that incredible progress has been made.

As I listened to the contributions, I was struck by two things. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, gave a realistic assessment of what we are dealing with on the ground at the moment. I said in my introductory remarks that we have to change culture, attitudes and behaviour, and that we will need more training—all of that—but, as we speak, there is probably a terrified young woman somewhere on an Armed Forces base who has been treated inappropriately and does not know what to do. I do not think that we can provide too many ventilation shafts, conduits or means for that young person, whoever they may be, to know that they can speak to someone and that they will be listened to in confidence. If that person is the Armed Forces commissioner and one of his or her responsibilities in the Bill is whistleblowing, that is fine. It seems to me that we cannot do too much to reassure our Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I just want to reinforce the noble Baroness’s point about speaking in confidence. We need to get this point about anonymity across to people. Something that, I hope, comes across from the noble Baroness’s amendment, my response and the comments of others in the Committee is that people can do this in confidence or anonymously if they wish to come forward. That is a really important point.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. All I shall say in conclusion is that there is an opportunity here to provide another vent, shaft or conduit, which could provide immediate help to someone—we know not where—who, at this moment, is feeling insecure and uncertain as to what to do. If we pass a Bill creating an Armed Forces commissioner and enabling them to deal with whistleblowing, it is a public, tangible representation by the MoD of its willingness and desire to do its level best.

In the circumstances, I would very much appreciate discussing this further with the Minister, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much. I did not have any written notes, so I shall do my best to continue seamlessly.

I think I was commenting on the way in which the public and Parliament know what the commissioner is doing, and there are a couple of elements in this amendment that are particularly relevant. The general point is that, if the commissioner is holding an inquiry on a particular subject, that may indeed take quite a significant period of time. There are issues that are being resolved that do not necessarily deserve a stand-alone report on a particular subject—but do we have a sense of what issues are being addressed and how the commissioner is working? In particular, we can look at proposed new Section 340OA(1)(c) in this amendment, on

“the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required”.

It is important that Parliament and the public have a sense that the commissioner has a vehicle by which they can say, “X number of extra issues have been raised with me, but I only have the resources to do this number of things”.

So it is useful at this stage perhaps to regard this as a probing amendment. I am very interested in whether the Minister can comment on Clause 4(3) on page 5, which I referred to. It talks about an investigation and a report, but how are we going to know what the commissioner is doing in a general sense and get a general picture of their work? How do Parliament and the public know that? I think that is what this amendment seeks to address.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for introducing these amendments. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, here and note her apologies but also her sterling efforts to get here despite the broken rail. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for stepping in.

The noble Earl is right to point out the challenges on recruitment and retention, and the Government are taking a number of steps to try to deal with those outside the remit of the Bill. We can go through all those, on pay, how the childcare arrangements have changed and the change to the recruiting system—there will be a new system from 2027 that will bring the three services together. All those sorts of changes are trying to improve the recruitment process. On the retention aspects of it, we hope and expect that the general welfare investigations and work that the commissioner does may help to address some of the other points that the noble Earl made with respect to their impact.

But I take the point from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup: of course the commissioner can look at recruitment and retention if she or he believes them to be of a general welfare concern. Whether they do or not is an open debate, but we are taking other measures outside this Bill to deal with that issue, and we hope that we can address that in the way we want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, to return to my remarks, I had thanked the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for their contributions to the debate. I welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her arrival and congratulated her on her perseverance. I was just in the process of making a couple of remarks about the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made in speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

I will deal with this further in my formal remarks, but the most important thing I can say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, is: look closely at Clause 4(4), which deals with the annual report to which the amendment specifically refers. Public awareness of that, its presentation before Parliament and so on are important, but thematic reports are allowed or contained within the legislation under Clause 4(3), and these again would be laid before Parliament. It is important for us to record that the Bill provides not only for annual reports—they speak for themselves, and they can contain all sorts of recommendations and refer to the thematic reports that the commissioner may or may not have made during the year—but specifically for a number of thematic reports on whatever they choose. It is important to recognise those two different avenues by which various information can be conveyed to Parliament about the commissioner’s work, which is why I referred to that.

I thank the noble Baronesses for their amendments and for highlighting the importance of improving retention in the Armed Forces. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his helpful introduction.

As I mentioned previously, we know that forces personnel have cited the impact of service life on their families and personal life as the leading factor influencing their decision to leave the service. That is the very reason we have brought forward this Bill: if, by shining a light on welfare matters that affect the quality of service life, we can get after those matters, it should follow that fewer of our personnel will feel compelled to leave for those reasons.

As I have said before, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to preclude the commissioner from dedicating one or more thematic investigations, and therefore reports, to retention, if they consider it to be a general service welfare matter. In addition, if retention is relevant to their findings or recommendations for another investigation that they have carried out, there is also nothing to preclude the commissioner from including it in that report as well. However, it is vital to ensure the independence of the commissioner and it should be for them to exercise their discretion and autonomy in deciding on the exact content of their thematic reports.

I turn to Amendment 18, regarding the commissioner’s annual report. The Government’s intention with the establishment of the Armed Forces commissioner role is to increase transparency and accountability. The annual report will be an independent report to Parliament on the state of welfare in the forces and what we must or should do to improve our offer to those who serve.

The existing legislation for the Service Complaints Ombudsman sets out their functions and requirements. This includes the production of an annual report, which must contain anything that the current ombudsman thinks appropriate to the exercise of their functions for that year. Clause 2 of the Bill transfers the functions of the ombudsman to the commissioner and Clause 4(4), as I already mentioned, makes the necessary tweaks to their existing annual reporting requirements to ensure that they also include the commissioner’s new functions under the Bill. The commissioner therefore still has to produce an annual report, and it must be laid before Parliament.

In the other place, the Secretary of State stated his intention that a debate on that report becomes a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each year. I hope that this promise to make the annual report a key part of parliamentary business is one of the ways of demonstrating how seriously both the Secretary of State and I already take the findings of the commissioner.

The commissioner will be in a unique and unprecedented position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our Armed Forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and the public a range of issues faced by service personnel. To overly define what should be in the scope of the annual report may undermine their independence.

The Secretary of State will remove any material in a report that they consider is against the interests of national security or that might jeopardise someone’s personal safety. There will be stringent safeguards as part of this review process to ensure that the Secretary of State’s remit for redactions is limited to these categories. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will have only 30 sitting days from receipt to lay thematic reports before Parliament. A 30-day limit for an annual report that could be hundreds of pages long may be challenging, if we are to provide the appropriate level of national security and personal safety checks necessary in this context. The report, however, will be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable.

By convention, it is common practice for the Government to respond to the recommendations of independent commissioners or ombudsmen, but I note the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to see this more clearly spelled out in legislation. With regards to a response being required within three calendar months, I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that the Government respond in a timely manner; however, this may prove to be an unrealistic timeframe. The recommendations would be unknown and likely to require a substantive amount of consideration by the department. The three-month deadline is likely to lead only to a very high-level response, rather than to the more considered response that we would like.

I hope this provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. On these grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hay of Ballyore, which I have signed. My noble friend apologises for his absence, as he is attending his son’s wedding this week.

This is an important Bill, and one that I broadly support, as it will give greater support to serving personnel and their families. However, I believe that it is only right and proper that veterans who have devoted their lives bravely to supporting their country should be afforded the same protection as serving personnel and their families.

It seems strange to me that, while the independent Armed Forces commissioner will have statutory powers throughout the United Kingdom, the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such statutory powers. They are employed on only a part-time basis, with limited staff. Having said that, I have to say that all the veterans’ commissioners, within their remit, deliver an excellent service to veterans.

The proposed new clause is about how we engage in a meaningful way in our veterans’ needs and develop a close relationship between the veterans’ commissioners and the Armed Forces commissioner, as many of the issues they face may be of a similar nature and cross-cutting. Today, our Armed Forces veterans continue to need support for housing, employment and vital public services such as improved healthcare. Amendment 20 would have the effect of making provisions for the commissioner to hold regular meetings with the veterans’ commissioners across the country, where they could discuss specific matters pertaining to their area of the United Kingdom. This would allow the commissioner to be well briefed on the needs of each region.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved Administrations, so the Armed Forces covenant, for example, may be administered in slightly different ways. It is important that the Armed Forces commissioner is aware of these difficulties. In Northern Ireland, the implementation of the covenant is solely the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and their agencies.

Unlike in Scotland and Wales, local councils in Northern Ireland have no role in the provision of housing, health, adult social care or children’s services, which fall to the various agencies. In many parts of England, Scotland and Wales, members of the Armed Forces who have urgent housing needs are given high priority and are not required to show a local connection to be offered suitable accommodation. However, in Northern Ireland, social housing is provided solely on a points basis, regulated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is prevented by legislation from giving priority to Armed Forces personnel. The lack of a local connection will result in fewer points being awarded to them and, as a result, the applicant will not reach the required quota for the allocation of social housing.

This is only one illustration of the differences that exist between regions. The Armed Forces commissioner would benefit greatly by having meetings with the three veterans’ commissioners, at least once a year, to be made fully aware of the diversity between the nations. It is also essential that the Armed Forces commissioner is in close contact with the assemblies and their connected agencies. It is therefore important that there is co-ordination throughout the United Kingdom and that the commissioner is made fully aware of the problems that are specific to the veterans of the different areas.

Unfortunately, in the Bill as it stands, the Armed Forces commissioner has no remit to represent veterans. The proposed new clause in Amendment 20 would permit engagement between the Armed Forces commissioner and the veterans’ commissioners and would go some way to delivering an effective service for our serving personnel and their families. The primary aim of the amendment is to co-ordinate to address the needs of serving personnel and veterans right across the United Kingdom and it would go some way to improving the service afforded to both.

Finally, can the Minister say whether the veterans’ commissioners have been consulted on this Bill? If so, have they expressed any opinion about holding meetings with the Armed Forces commissioner? Do the three veterans’ commissioners hold joint meetings between themselves to understand the difficulties that they may have? Can the Minister assure me that the Veterans Minister will have a major role in co-ordinating all this?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, my general remarks will answer the various questions posed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I thank both for the way they introduced their amendments and the very important points they raised, which are worthy of consideration.

Amendments 19 and 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the Armed Forces commissioner’s interaction with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. The Service Police Complaints Commissioner has a duty to secure, maintain and review arrangements for the procedures that deal with complaints, conduct matters, and death and serious injury matters. It is independent from the service police and the MoD.

I bring noble Lords’ attention to the fact that there is no overlap between the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner. Indeed, they both have an entirely different focus: the Armed Forces commissioner is focused on the general service welfare of our Armed Forces and their families; the Service Police Complaints Commissioner provides oversight of the service police complaints process to raise standards in service policing and secure trust and confidence in the service police complaints system. The SPCC’s role is similar to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is the police complaints watchdog for England and Wales. It is responsible for investigating the most serious complaints and conduct matters involving the police and sets the standards by which the police should handle complaints.

Turning to engagement between the commissioners, as the Armed Forces commissioner and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner are both independent, it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they choose to exercise their powers to work together effectively. It is likely that the commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements with various groups, organisations and committees, including—importantly for the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto—the Service Police Complaints Commissioner.

Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent—as per the noble Baroness’s Amendment 19—would likely prove to be unrealistic. With an office of this scale and importance, it will likely take time for the commissioner to develop the necessary processes and to undertake the breadth of engagement outlined previously. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness—as well as the noble Earl—without needing to specify details of engagement in the Bill. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment at the appropriate time.

Before I continue, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to the Committee’s proceedings. Her knowledge and experience as Victims’ Commissioner are welcome, so we are very pleased to see her here.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for introducing Amendment 20, after Clause 5 and on veterans’ commissioners. It is in his name, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, and we completely understand why he is not present with us. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, sought a requirement for the Armed Forces commissioner to engage with the veterans’ commissioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Harlech for tabling Amendments 21A and 21B, which seek to ensure that the commissioner prioritises the interests of the reserves appropriately. My noble friend has brought some excellent expertise to this issue as a serving reserve officer himself. The importance of the reserves within the overall Armed Forces is undeniable; their critical role is both admired and valued by all.

As the Minister will no doubt tell us, reserves will have recourse to the commissioner because they are subject to service law when in training and on active duty. That said, my noble friend is seeking to make a broader point that the commissioner should consider the interests and experiences of the reserves equally to those of regular personnel. We support him in his desire to ensure that our reserve units are prioritised appropriately.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for tabling these amendments, which allow us to discuss the issue of reserves. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, yes, reserves are covered and are within scope of the Bill when they are subject to service law. I have made that point on a number of occasions, but I say it again so that we are absolutely clear of the fact and have no misunderstanding.

I need to declare an interest as, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, my son-in-law is an active reservist. I have to be careful about that because, as noble Lords can imagine, he is not without an opinion about certain things—nor indeed is the rest of the family—so I put that on the record. He was active in Iraq. My noble friend pointed out the service of reservists in these campaigns, and my son-in-law was one of them. We all know people who are, were or will be reserves.

The Bill does not cover cadets, as the noble Baroness pointed out, although they are of course a major policy issue, as well as a major source of pride for us all. We hope that they both develop and expand. I will respond to a few of the points made before I make my formal reply.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Having read the Bill, I know that the Minister is right: the reservists are covered while they are under service law. But what about individuals who are not on active service but who, for example, are affected by mental health problems or injuries they have sustained, and find it difficult to get redress for those things, which are a result of their service? How would that be covered? Would the commissioner be able to look at those individuals, who might not be active at the time but are still reservists? I can give examples of individuals like that who have sat at home for long periods of time, who are not active but were ignored by the system.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The answer to that is yes. I say to my noble friend, as I would to any noble Lord, that if there are instances of anything like that, he should bring them to my attention. I cannot always promise an answer, but I will always ensure that things are looked into. If my noble friend has something he wants me to look at, of course I will do so.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am sorry to press the point. My noble friend the Minister said, “Yes”, but can he clarify that? This is important. The Bill says that they are covered by service law. If an individual, for example, has been on operations, has mental health problems, and has been detached from his unit for a while and is trying to get help, he is not technically covered by service law in those situations. Would he or she still be able to go to the commissioner and say, “Wait, we are not getting treatment or support in the way that we deserve”?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding is that, in that situation, the issue arose as a consequence of service law. If that is wrong, I will clarify the position in a letter, and I will copy in all noble Lords in the Committee. My understanding is that, because the issue arose when they were subject to service law, the commissioner could therefore still look at it.

It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his own service. He mentioned Mr Davey, whom I acknowledge as well. There will be many other people whom we all know and who deserve congratulations and respect for their service. I ask the noble Lord to pass on the thanks of all noble Lords in this Committee to his unit, which, as he pointed out, has done particularly well. I also thank him for his speech and the various points he made in it, which were very good. The importance of what he said is not only shown in the answers he receives; it is in the fact that people will have heard his comments and the opinions he expressed. That also influences opinion in a way that is not always obvious, so he should take great credit for that. It is self-evident that we must consider the needs of reservists, but that is not always said as loudly and clearly as it should be, so the noble Lord taking the opportunity to do so when speaking to his amendments is extremely important.

My noble friend Lord Beamish outlined, in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the importance of reservists and the even greater role that, potentially, they may be asked to play in future. We will see what happens with that. My noble friend pointing out the importance of reservists is extremely welcome.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, for the point he made about our dialogue and interaction on reservists and when they would be subject to service law. On the engagement point and the comments that he read out, we are actively considering how we would do that. I imagine that that would be through surveys and visits and by talking to individual reservists and their units about their needs, requirements and concerns. It is not necessarily for me to lay out to the commissioner exactly how to do that, but that is how I would expect a commissioner to work to ensure that the views and opinions of reservists were gleaned.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out the importance of veterans, the centrality of their commitment and their importance to the regulars, with whom they often train and serve side by side. He will know of that importance better than most of us, from his own military background and experience. He, too, was right to point out the importance of reservists.

I have already answered the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on whether reservists are included in the scope of the Bill.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on the Armed Forces commissioner’s consideration of and consultation with reserves. As I said, our Armed Forces reserves play a vital role in supporting our national security, and we recognise their dedication and value their work and well-being, showing them the same high regard as our regular service personnel. The contribution, skills and commitment of our reserves are essential to our operational strength, and I believe that every Member of the Committee would agree with that. As I said before, I hope that the noble Lord can pass that on to his friends and colleagues.

It is for that reason that reserves are within the scope of the new commissioner. As with regular members of the Armed Forces, members of the reserves will be able to contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service, and have those issues considered. That was the point I made to my noble friend Lord Beamish: they can contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service. That goes to the point that my noble friend rightly raised.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

23: Schedule 2, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“21A In section 340N—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “the communication” insert “(“P”)”;(ii) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for “his or her” substitute “P’s”;(iii) in paragraph (b), for “the person” substitute “P”;(iv) in the words after paragraph (b), for “officer” substitute “person”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for “officer”, in each place, substitute “person”;(ii) for “by the person” substitute “by P”;(c) in subsection (3)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “officer” substitute “person”; (ii) in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for “the person” substitute “P”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision that is consequential on clause 3.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we see Amendment 23 as a minor and technical amendment, in that it makes provision that is consequential to Clause 3. The purpose of Clause 3 is to ensure that the admissibility decisions—decisions about whether a service complaint is admissible and can be progressed in the first instance—can be made by civilians as well as officers. Clause 3 does this by amending Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than it having to take up officers’ time in every case. We intend that decisions will be made by suitably qualified and trained civil servants. Given that these decisions are procedural in nature, this feels appropriate and is the only minor amendment that we have made to the service complaints system in the Bill.

However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate officer in the single services. The commissioner will absorb these functions from the ombudsman and will therefore be able to refer complaints into the system as well. In drafting the Bill, it was an oversight that we did not include this necessary consequential amendment as a result of Clause 3 to ensure that this change was reflected consistently across the legislation.

I say to the noble Baroness and others that the provision was already considered in Clause 3 during the Bill’s passage, and it does not exclude the military. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I shall make a couple of points before getting started. The principle of this was accepted when the Committee accepted Clause 3. This change or clarification makes this a technical amendment to make sure that the legislation is consistent with a clause that we have already passed. That is why we talk about it being a technical amendment. It is something that is often done in government legislation, whereby an in-principle change is made but sometimes, when it is fully considered, a drafting error appears or it becomes apparent that there was another piece of legislation that should have been referred to—and this is what was found with respect to this issue.

Amendment 23 was brought forward not to change the principle or re-establish any new thoughts but simply to ensure that there is legislative consistency across government with respect to Clause 3, which the Committee had already passed. That was why we proposed it as a minor and technical amendment. I would not have brought forward something to this Committee that was a substantial policy change. The noble Baroness is quite right that that should be discussed in the main Chamber, and I absolutely accept that.

Service complaints are never made directly to the commissioner; first, they have to go through the service complaints procedure. The Service Complaints Ombudsman function has been taken on board by the Armed Forces commissioner, but they will not address service complaints; in fact, if there is a service complaint, they will send them back for an admissibility decision. So the service complaints procedure is not impacted in that sense; the Service Complaints Ombudsman function is impacted on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. This amendment concerns an area of technical expertise that is way beyond my ken—although, when I was a Minister, Gibraltar was raised on numerous occasions in relation to legislation. I am not an expert, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to what seemed to be very significant comments from the noble Lord.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish for his outstanding realisation that he was moving the amendment and for swiftly jumping to his feet to put forward some very important points.

Given that this matter is legal and technical, I shall read out the legal points, because some very important points are contained within them. The relevant piece that we are looking at is the extent points in Clause 6; that is what we are referring to. Although it is very technical and legal, is quite an important part of the Bill.

Amendment 24 relates to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling it and my noble friend Lord Beamish for introducing it. It seeks to include Gibraltar alongside the other British Overseas Territories in the permissive extent clause of the Bill. While I understand that the noble Lord may be concerned about the exclusion of Gibraltar, I shall give him some reassurance.

My colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar towards the end of last year. He was very welcoming of the Bill and confirmed that he is content to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on Armed Forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters.

I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who has responsibility for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for his recent letter to the MoD on these matters, in which he praised the approach of the department and expressed a desire to promote this across government.

I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Beamish that although the Bill will not extend to Gibraltar, it will still apply to UK service persons subject to service law, and their families, wherever they are in the world. Members of a British Overseas Territories force, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, are subject to service law when undertaking any duty or training with UK Armed Forces. That also applies to other overseas territories, as my noble friend mentioned, provided they are subject to service law. It will also apply to UK Armed Forces premises worldwide, provided they fall within the required parameters set out in the Bill. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my noble friend, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that answer. The only thing I will add about Gibraltar is that things move very slowly. Having been the MoD Minister responsible for Gibraltar, I know that things do not move quickly. The Armed Forces Act 2011 was not signed into Gibraltar law until 2018. If the chief Minister has given a commitment that this will take less time than it took to enact the Armed Forces Act 2011, then, with that and my noble friend’s explanation, it has been worth having this debate. We have had it for every single Armed Forces Bill—certainly that I have been involved in. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who owes me a large drink for moving his amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.