Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

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

I beg to move that the Grand Committee considers these regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 15 January. They form a key part of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, which strengthens independent oversight and support for our service personnel and their families.

Before turning to the detail of these regulations, I acknowledge the considered scrutiny that this House gave to the “family” definition during the passage of the Act. In particular, I thank those noble Lords who engaged so thoughtfully on the definition of “family”. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who is not in her place, for her scrutiny, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their contributions on clarity, bereaved families and the breadth of modern family structures. Their careful examination directly shaped the regulations before us today.

Noble Lords offered valuable insights, particularly on recognising kinship carers and other parental figures. The House rightly highlighted the importance of those who step in, whether grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or family friends, to provide stable, long-term care, who should be fully recognised within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Noble Lords also raised the issue around non-traditional family structures, as well as on legal clarity, financial dependency, household membership and the position of bereaved families. These contributions have been instrumental in shaping the regulations now before the Committee.

The Government listened closely to those debates. The draft regulations reflect the issues raised, providing a clear and inclusive definition of “relevant family member” that fits modern service life. It is the same definition brought to Committee in this House, with only one small legal adjustment. The purpose of these regulations is to give full effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act by setting out a clear and inclusive definition of “family member” for the commissioner’s welfare remit. The Act creates an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with strong statutory powers to investigate welfare issues and report directly to Parliament, strengthening transparency and support across defence. By replacing the ombudsman with a more proactive model, it delivers a long-standing commitment to improve the lived experience of service personnel and their families. These regulations enable that.

A clear and inclusive family definition is essential because the commissioner’s ability to act depends on who falls within their remit. We know that service life impacts not only serving personnel but those closest to them. Partners, children, parents, siblings, carers and others often shoulder the pressures that come with military service. It is therefore right that the commissioner’s remit reflects this wider network of support.

During the passage of the Act in this House, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the definition of “relevant family members” should be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposed definition. The Government consider that the family definition meets this higher level of parliamentary approval, which is reflected in the draft regulations before the Committee. Given that the definition is fundamental to the commissioner’s welfare role, it is right that both Houses have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve it directly.

At the same time, secondary legislation provides some flexibility to amend the definition in future without reopening primary legislation, ensuring that it can adapt as family structures evolve. This balanced approach strengthens parliamentary scrutiny while maintaining the ability to respond to social and demographic change.

The policy intention behind the definition is clear: to ensure that those most affected by service life are able to access the commissioner’s support. The definition therefore takes a broad and inclusive approach. It includes partners, including former partners and those in relationships akin to marriage, biological and stepchildren, adult children, siblings and stepsiblings, parents, stepparents, long-term foster carers, guardians and kinship carers. It also includes other relatives who are financially dependent on, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are included where they fall within one of these categories immediately prior to the serviceperson’s death. This reflects the wide range of relationships that form modern service families and responds directly to the issues raised during the Lords’ scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, including the role which was especially raised of kinship carers and the importance of ensuring that bereaved families remain supported.

It is important to be clear that this definition applies solely to the commissioner’s welfare remit. It does not expand the scope of the service complaints system, nor does it alter other Ministry of Defence definitions of family members. It is tailored specifically to the commissioner’s purpose.

These regulations are made under powers provided by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999 as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. This legislative framework gives the Secretary of State the authority to define relevant family members for the purpose of the commissioner’s functions, to make consequential amendments to related legislation and to establish transitional and savings provisions.

The Government have acted within that framework to produce a definition that is legally robust, operationally workable and reflects faithfully Parliament’s intent. These regulations are necessary to ensure that the commissioner can operate effectively from the moment the Act comes into force. Without a clear and comprehensive family definition, there would be significant uncertainty about who can raise concerns with the commissioner and who falls within their remit. Peers expressed strong interest in ensuring that the definition is inclusive and legally clear. During the passage of the Bill, issues such as financial dependency, household membership, the treatment of bereaved families and the position of kinship carers featured prominently. The draft regulations address each of these points directly.

These regulations also introduce essential consequential amendments to ensure a smooth transition from the Service Complaints Ombudsman to the Armed Forces Commissioner. This includes transferring functions and updating legislative references so that the system remains coherent and accessible. Transitional and savings provisions ensure that ongoing cases or applications are not disrupted. Families and serving personnel will receive clear guidance as the new system is introduced, helping them to understand their rights and how best to engage with the commissioner’s office.

In summary, these regulations provide the clarity, inclusivity and coherence required for the Armed Forces Commissioner to discharge their welfare functions effectively. They reflect the concerns, expertise and priorities expressed by this House, and they ensure that the commissioner’s remit aligns with the realities of modern service life. The Government believe that these regulations strengthen the support available to our service personnel and their families. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations, and I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I support, and for the way in which he did so.

In the interests of transparency, I should declare the interest that some Members of this Committee have already heard during the passage of the Bill through the House, which is that six months ago my daughter married a senior RAF officer. Therefore, I have a personal stake in the subject matter of the Act and the way in which it will be carried out by the Armed Forces Commissioner. I welcome the fact that it has the widest possible definition of family and family members to enable the commissioner to undertake her or his work.

There is just one question I want to ask, which I hope is not wrong, but it might be. Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is the United Kingdom”.


However, I take it that the provisions of these regulations will apply to service personnel wherever they are around the globe, not solely those based in the United Kingdom. Of course, at this very moment Armed Forces personnel are engaged in conflict in the Middle East, so I hope that is a question that is not out of order and can be answered in the affirmative.

Russian Ship “Yantar”

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

To be clear, I am not in any difficulty answering the question from the noble Lord, but I will not speculate at the Dispatch Box about what we would do if this or that happened. The noble Lord has much more experience in military matters than I do, so he will recognise how serious it would be if I misspoke in answer to his question. So I am not evading the question but, in the interest of the country, it is sometimes best to have these discussions in private.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, given what we know the “Yantar” has been engaged in, would the Minister be able to tell the House whether the Government are now actively considering some of the suggestions made in the recent report by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in relation to the possibility of a purpose-built vessel that would help fix undersea cables, were any activity to take place that resulted in them being severed?

Undersea Cables: National Security Threat

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest: I was a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy earlier this year when we agreed to hold an inquiry into this subject.

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

My Lords, the Government keep the threat to undersea cables connected to the UK under close review, working to deter and mitigate identified risks. My noble friend will appreciate the limits to what can be said publicly, but the MoD constantly monitors activity within UK waters. This includes patrols conducted by Royal Navy assets, maritime patrol aircraft and the multi-role ocean surveillance programme. Following the strategic defence review, the Royal Navy will play a new leading and co-ordinating role, alongside the private sector, in securing undersea pipelines, cables and maritime traffic.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The House knows better than it did that undersea cables—not to mention the land cables under the City of London—are part of our critical national infrastructure because of the vital importance of the data they carry. The Joint Committee’s report said that “security vulnerabilities abound”. It recommended that we develop a UK-flagged sovereign repair ship, which the Royal Navy should practise escorting. Should we develop a seabed warfare strategy and, if so, what are the Government doing about it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly should develop one, and we are developing one. My noble friend is right to highlight that. We are undertaking a number of actions including surveillance aircraft from Lossiemouth, the ship “Proteus” looking at how it protects underwater assets, and the Royal Navy ship “Stirling Castle” looking at how it might operate drones from its deck to secure underwater pipelines, data cables and so on. We are doing a lot, but my noble friend is right to point out the importance of this.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Although I do not agree with her on Amendment 2, let me just say that I think the fact that she spoke to both that amendment and Amendment 10 has provoked a very interesting and important debate. I will deal with some of the issues that she raised when I make the formal government response to it.

First, I want to respond more widely and openly to the various questions that have been raised. I very much agree with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. The Government are looking at ways to improve the recruitment process before the point of attestation through a review of recruitment and how it takes place, in order to try to improve the whole process, but that is separate to the whole point of the commissioner. None the less, the noble Baroness made an important point about how we could improve that experience for those who are applying to join our Armed Forces.

The noble Baroness spoke about kinship, and I will make some remarks about that in my formal remarks. Our belief is that the draft regulations she has received— I emphasise that they are a draft—are intended to be broadly drawn with respect to that. We have noted the comment the Delegated Legislation Committee made on how these draft regulations should be agreed using the affirmative process, rather than the negative process as is currently in the Bill. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and others, that we will come back and look at that on Report to reflect the views of the committee.

Our intention in the draft regulations is to ensure that anyone who is closely connected to a serviceperson and feels the impact of service life should be covered by the commissioner’s remit. We recognise that this could be a wide-ranging and diverse set of people. Before I forget, I will say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate that engaged people are covered by the commissioner.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

They are getting married in September.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know it will change in September, but engagement is covered. Trying to overly constrain this definition may risk suggesting that family is more of a traditional nuclear family, and it may not reflect differing circumstances, such as the bereaved or non-traditional family set ups. We have tried to reflect that in the draft regulations; again, I apologise for their being late to the Committee.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord about that to make sure that I do not inadvertently misinform the House. If he will allow me, I will write to him with a specific answer to that and place a copy in the Library.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend will probably know that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, of which I have been a member, is going to undertake a review of undersea cables and other areas of what we now call critical national infrastructure. Would he agree that, as a result of inquiries such as this into areas of defence that previously have not been considered in such great detail, our friends in the Treasury will have to acknowledge that modern defence threats will require novel Treasury solutions?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Whatever the Treasury may or may not think, and whatever the level of defence spending should or should not be, one of the important things coming out of the debates and discussions and questions from all parts of the House is that Ukraine has shown that the nature of warfare is changing, and the way we fought wars in the past is perhaps no longer appropriate. Of course, there is a need for mass and for traditional warfare. But the way in which the application of drones has changed the nature of warfare; the attacks on underwater cables that my noble friend pointed out; the threats to our homeland and to critical national infrastructure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to; and the data attacks and hybrid warfare that other noble Lords have referred to—all of these require us to discuss not only what the level of expenditure should be, but how we meet those challenges in a way that is relevant to the threats we face now, not those we faced in the past.

Major Defence Contracts

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble and gallant Lord that of course the defence industry will be an important partner for His Majesty’s Government. He will know that we are currently consulting on a new defence industrial strategy. That consultation finishes at the end of February and we will come forward with various proposals to deal with the defence industry and promote it in the future.

This gives me a chance to take the point he made, which I think most noble Lords will take. He made the point about the inability of the RAF to go to certain university campuses to recruit and the inability of certain defence industries to go to certain university campuses to promote, quite legitimately, their sales and defence jobs. That is an absolute disgrace. I hope the universities take that on board and do something about it.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the experience of the war in Ukraine has made it all the more important that we have an updated defence industrial strategy, and can he indicate when that will be brought forward to the House?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As many noble Lords have heard me say, the war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call not only for this country but for the alliances across the world. We need to be able to scale up our industry and do so quickly, and to reflect on the sovereign capability we need, so that we have that as well. It will require apprenticeships and investment in all areas of the country.

My noble friend also makes the point that we have to know what we wish to spend our money on. Whatever billions we end up spending, it will be important to spend money on the sorts of defence equipment and capabilities we need to meet the threats of the future, not those of the past.

Drones: RAF Bases

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent reports of drones flying over RAF bases in East Anglia.

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

The Ministry of Defence is aware of these reports and is working closely with the US visiting forces, Home Office police forces and other partners to respond to recent events. We will work with the civil authorities to prosecute those responsible. We take any safety issues seriously and maintain robust measures at Ministry of Defence sites, including counter-drone capabilities. My noble friend will understand that I am unable to comment further on the specific security procedures at our sites. This remains a live criminal investigation.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Answer that he was able to give. There have been additional sightings of unidentified drones over our aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. It may be that these flights are not a coincidence. Does my noble friend agree that these are matters of potentially serious concern, given that drones are now so ubiquitous and given what we know their role is in warfare? The House will remember that Gatwick Airport was completely closed a few years ago by unidentified drones. As a result of that, the RAF has acquired new equipment, known as ORCUS, designed to deter drones. Do our Armed Forces have enough of it? Can my noble friend reassure the House that the Government are doing all they can to work with our international partners, especially the Americans, to find out what is going on and how best to protect our bases?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. We are working with our international partners, including the United States. Of course, we are trying to ensure that we have all the equipment that is needed to tackle any of these attacks that we face. Similarly, with respect to the aircraft carrier, I can say that a civilian drone was observed in the vicinity of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” on 22 November, but it got no closer than 250 metres. I can reassure my noble friend that we take all of this seriously, and we will work closely to ensure the safety of all our sites.

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right that we need to remember our obligations to those who supported and helped us, and our international reputation. He is also right to point out that the review and the Statement have identified the need to do the right thing by the Triples. Many individuals, including the noble Lord, helped with respect to this, and I acknowledge all the contributions that people have made.

I will also say that 25% is a rounded and approximate figure, which came to light with the first 1,500 reviews of the approximately 2,000 people we regard as eligible. I am sure that people will have noted the noble Lord’s comment. I also thank him for everything he did during his time in service.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s repeat of the Statement. It raises issues of which we must not lose sight. Although he has already answered the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, by saying that interpreters are not covered by the Statement, I nevertheless know of a case where interpreters put their lives at risk just as much as anybody else. I have in mind the case of Mr Mirwais Adil, whose family was unable to be rescued at the time of Operation Pitting. I would like the advice of my noble friend as to whom to write to in order to raise an individual case of an interpreter and his family who have not been reunited.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The short answer is that, if I were my noble friend, I would write to me, and I will pass it on to the appropriate Minister and ensure that it is properly looked at. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, if noble Lords write to me on individual cases, I will ensure that, if neither I nor the appropriate Minister in the Ministry of Defence is dealing with it, it goes to the appropriate Minister to ensure that there is a proper response.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Viscount Stansgate

Report stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make one point about Clause 11, which in my view should not be in the Bill. I appreciate that the previous speaker has just given a very lawyerly defence of the Government’s view. I am not a lawyer, but I want to say this: I wonder why the Government want to be on the wrong side of history by including Clause 11 in the Bill. I look at Members around the Chamber and think to myself, “What on earth would you feel like if you were ever arrested, stopped and searched without suspicion by a police officer?” I would like noble Lords to bear that in mind when they come to vote, if we are going to vote on this. A lot has been made of the younger generation, and I personally believe that Clause 11 would damage relations in the way that has been outlined by many people making very able speeches. But your Lordships should ask yourselves: how would you feel if you were stopped and searched without any reasonable suspicion by a police officer?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 47 in my name, for which I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Just in case I forget, I say now that I want to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 47.

Before I do so, I want to say how much I sympathise and agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others have said about Amendment 46 and stop and search with suspicion. It is worth reflecting that many of us are grappling with a Bill with much of which we disagree, but we are at Report stage and difficult decisions and choices are before us about how we might improve the Bill—if the votes are won in your Lordships’ House—and send it back to the other place with the best possible chance of it not being overturned, thereby impacting on the legislation in a way which will protect, as many of us want to, the rights and freedoms that the people of this country have enjoyed for generations and which parts of the Bill seriously threaten to undermine. That is the choice that lies before us. That is the difficult choice I have in saying from the Labour Front Bench that we are focused on Clause 11 in particular. That does not mean that we agree with other aspects of the stop and search powers, but it means that we think that Clause 11 in particular is an affront to the democratic traditions of our country.

We have heard what it actually does. We have had a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, a former senior police officer of the Metropolitan Police, and others, telling us about stop and search without suspicion and the impact that it has on black and ethnic minority communities, particularly on the young. Will your Lordships seriously pass into law something that will make that fragile relationship between the police and those local communities even worse? Is that what we want to do? And what is it for: terrorism, serious gun crime, serious knife crime, or the threat of murder and riots on our streets? No, it is because some protests may take place somewhere, and we will have stop and search without suspicion to deal with it. Is that in any sense proportionate or a reasonable response to public disorder? Clearly, it is not.

I cannot believe that His Majesty’s Government are seeking to introduce into law stop and search without suspicion for protest-related offences. I do not believe the Government themselves would have believed it—they certainly would not have believed it in the time of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, with the Conservative ideology as it existed then. Margaret Thatcher would not have introduced it. She would have regarded it as an affront, even in the face of the poll tax riots and the miners’ strikes—although there were certain things that went on there. In the face of all that, she did not introduce that sort of legislation. I will be corrected by any member of that Government—there are a few here—as to whether that was the case. She understood that the right to protest was fundamental, however difficult that was for Governments. Yet the Conservatives of today believe it is perfectly reasonable to introduce this not for murder, terrorism or knife or gun crime, as I said, but for protest. Is that the Tory tradition that this Conservative Government want to lay out before the country? It cannot be. It is a totally disproportionate reaction to what is happening, but the consequences are serious and dramatic, and potentially catastrophic. As so many noble Lords have said, at a time when there is a fragility of confidence between the police and certain communities, it is like pouring petrol on the flames. It is just unbelievable.

However, it is not just that. In the debate last week I gave an example, and I will give another one, because that brings it home and makes it real. When your Lordships vote on leaving out Clause 11, consider this. If it is in the Bill, there is a fear about what happens when there are protests around Parliament—there will be protests; I do not know what they will be about. Let us say that people lock arms—disgraceful—so they have attached. The police are worried about it and so an inspector declares that, for 24 hours, it is an area that they are concerned about. That gives an additional power to the police to stop and search without suspicion. Your Lordships can be searched. I know you would think that was an affront, but that is the reality that many black and ethnic minority communities face every single day, sometimes—that is an exaggeration, but they face it in certain circumstances.