Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

I guess I am thinking of some personal relationships that I have known of, which are not necessarily military. Sometimes marriages or civil partnerships break down, but that person still retains a close relationship with the person whom they have divorced or from whom they have split. We can imagine situations that are still very reasonable; they are all still part of a family, in a direct way. I wanted to put that on the record. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to respond now, but I wanted to raise my concern about that word “immediately” in those draft regulations and whether it is something that we need to think about.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 8 and 9 in this group, in the name of my noble friends Lord Minto and Lady Goldie and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am really grateful, as I am sure a lot of members of the Committee are, to the Royal British Legion for its briefing on this. I speak as someone who was privileged to lead the legion’s public affairs team when we persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—David Cameron as he then was, the Prime Minister—to enshrine the covenant’s principles in law. I am particularly proud to have played a small part in that. I also very much welcome the consensus that now exists, both in this Committee and, I believe, across the House, on the commitment to ensuring that the principles of the covenant are honoured.

I wonder whether we can simply consider these amendments to be, as I think they are, self-explanatory and logical. The issues they relate to are the provision and operation of the continuity of education allowance and tuition for children with SEND, which, as my noble friend Lord Minto mentioned, is so important and is related to an issue on which your Lordships’ House voted so overwhelmingly to ask the Government to think again—specifically in relation to non-domestic rating and private schools—only yesterday. These are important and crucial welfare issues, and they should be explicitly included within the provisions of the Bill, as should provisions for pensions and death-in-service benefits to serving and former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants.

I hope very much that the Minister will listen to the Committee—and also to the legion, as the voice of the Armed Forces family—and accept Amendments 8 and 9 in this group.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the reflections that he has offered the Committee. I rise to support Amendments 8 and 9. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for outlining their thinking around this issue because it goes to the heart of how we as a nation care for and see the well-being of our Armed Forces and their families, as part of the whole package that we offer to them.

As I think noble Lords know, I speak as the father of a member of the Armed Forces. It is often said that a parent is only as happy as their least happy child. On one level, I can imagine that it is also true that a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces is only as happy as their least happy family member. So there is a pastoral duty here—one that is supported by many in the Armed Forces, including welfare organisations and our military chaplains—but both these amendments would help us really state the pastoral support that we as a nation feel is important for not only our Armed Forces personnel but their children, their families and their dependants.

As has already been said by other noble Lords, continuity of education is vital for a family that may often move around a lot during the career of service personnel, when one or both of the parents may be on deployment. We must not forget the small number of wonderful state boarding schools that offer important support for service families.

Moving on to tied accommodation, as somebody who has lived in tied accommodation all my professional life—most of it much more modest than what I live in at the moment—I know that the maintenance of tied accommodation and responsiveness to its condition and repairs has an impact on the state of morale of a family, and I am pleased to see that that is also mentioned, as are special education needs. Such needs are an issue not only when forces families move between different places and between different local authorities; this is also about CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services. Often, the waiting list is two to three years. Moving out of an area has a profound impact on families in terms of getting crucial support for young people who are often in a very difficult state and who need support as soon as possible.

On Amendment 9, the reality is that many Armed Forces families live with, right at the back of their minds, an ongoing sense of, “Will I get a knock in the middle of the night?” The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has already spoken about the injustice of what is being built in here. We significantly need the Minister to look at this—I urge him to do so—so that that injustice is removed. If you go to the National Memorial Arboretum, there is an incredible memorial right in the centre where the names of those who have lost their lives are carved into the Portland stone, and then there is a part of the wall that is totally flat and bare; it is very moving to move your hand along it and on to that flat stone awaiting, God forbid, future names.

We owe to the Armed Forces and their families a sense of care if there is a need for a death in duty payment. So I am really grateful for the way in which the Minister has engaged around the Bill and engaged us in a really thoughtful discussion and debate about it. I look forward to hearing his comments.

Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I start by echoing the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for our hereditary colleague and my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I thank him and his committee for producing such an excellent report, and I wonder if anyone has ever thought of such a painfully prescient title.

The report’s recommendations are surely all the more pertinent precisely because they have been overtaken by events. Their validity, even poignancy, is being borne out as we speak. Indeed, I am not sure that I have ever spoken in a debate in which I have been so keen to be proved wrong and for my fears to turn out to be groundless. The ground, as others have said, is shifting beneath our feet. Even though I agree with it, I fear that recommendation 2, particularly that the Government should articulate how much money will be available to UK defence, has to be seen in the highly fluid context where there is a risk that it means it sets a limit and creates two risks: first, that it signals to the mass murderer Putin that there is a point beyond which we shall not go and thus risks emboldening him, and, secondly, that it fails to take into account the rapidly shifting dynamic of what was, until a few weeks ago, a secure transatlantic relationship for, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, suggested, spending will be crucial to retaining US support.

Recommendation 8 highlights the importance of

“understanding the human aspects of war”,

the

“failed assessment of Putin’s will to fight”

and the need for the UK and NATO to

“focus on developing a better understanding of Putin’s strategy and intentions”.

Central to that, I suggest, is recognition that Putin is a professional liar. As a former KGB operative, as we have already heard, it was in his job description. It would also appear to be, regrettably, in his DNA. I am not suggesting that we do not appreciate that, but I am not sure that the bromance between Putin and Trump indicates that the US President does. Trump is no fool, but I share the fear of other noble Lords that he is being played for a fool by a master of the art.

The committee is right to mention in conclusion 9 the

“human aspects that determine the outcome of wars”

and the relationship to “deterrence, defence and de-escalation” because they have huge ramifications for the future of NATO and global security. This is especially important because as the renowned journalist Bob Woodward implies in his excellent book War such vital considerations seem to be playing second, if not third, fiddle to Trump’s very human desire, even determination, to exact revenge on Volodymyr Zelensky for failing to do his bidding nine years ago. The consequence seems to be a personal vendetta that rivals that of only one other man: Putin. In only such a scenario do I begin to find it possible to understand how the supposed leader of the free world can betray an ally fighting for its life, literally on the front line of freedom. Conclusion 31 surely contains perhaps the most poignant understatement of the entire report that:

“The war in Ukraine has thrown the role of alliances at a time of war into the spotlight”.


How true that is when one considers the grotesque spectacle of the supposed leader of the free world treating Ukraine almost as a vanquished enemy whose resources are to be seized as reparations for a war that it did not start and which it is determined to end.

I finish by thanking His Majesty’s Government and the Prime Minister for acting on the basis of the report’s conclusion 61:

“Developments in Ukraine are relevant to UK national security and, in particular, the protection of its critical national infrastructure”.


This of course includes the NHS.

My question to the Minister is: can the two words “trust” and “Trump” belong in the same sentence? Can we rely on a previously steadfast ally? I desperately want to be proved wrong, but the jury is out. It is beyond doubt that Ukraine is proving to be a wake-up call to a far greater degree than most of us could possibly have imagined.

Defence Spending

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Trenchard on securing this debate and his powerful opening remarks. I completely agree with other noble Lords that making rapid progress in laying out the road map to spending at least 2.5% of GDP could not be more important.

The Budget states that the Government

“will set a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence at a future fiscal event”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/2024; col. 822.]

I think this misses the point. The point is Putin. He has to be the starting point because, ultimately, it is not a future fiscal event that is going to determine UK defence spending—it is a future military event, orchestrated by Putin and his allies.

So the question is: how committed are we to ensuring that that military event is not a third world war? As noble Lords have said, it surely depends on the extent to which we are prepared to invest now in defence and deterrence as a means of averting war.

I do not question the sincerity of the Minister here and the Secretary of State in the other place, John Healey, but I fear that yesterday’s Budget will be interpreted by Putin as confirmation that we intend to continue living in a never-never land. That is reinforced by this sentence in the policy paper on the Budget:

“This underlines the government’s commitment to strengthening the Armed Forces and protecting national security during a period of geopolitical instability”.


I must say, I sense the hidden hand of Sir Humphrey in such an understated, anodyne turn of phrase. I am not sure that it quite captures the urgency of the situations in Ukraine, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Iran—the terrorist puppet master—Georgia, Taiwan and North Korea. The list is long, and it is red hot.

As the excellent report from the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call, makes clear, any increase in defence spending

“should be seen in the context of decades-long defence cuts and recent inflationary pressures on the defence budget”.

However, one thing is clear: it would be unfair to accuse the Chancellor of producing a Budget for defence—including, as my noble friend Lord Attlee alluded to, the defence of items of expenditure such as the NHS, which focus groups say are so important to them, bearing in mind Putin’s fondness for targeting maternity hospitals and other crucial civilian infrastructure. Sadly, yesterday’s Budget was a vital missed opportunity, because it was in no way a wake-up call for Vladimir Putin. In fact, I suspect that he is laughing at us—laughing at our increased indebtedness and our reduced readiness for war.

I conclude with one question for the Minister, who will know that the economic and financial dialogue between the UK and China was paused after the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. Since more than 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine come from China, can the Minister assure the Committee that the UK will not seek to deepen trade relations with China, which is making not only the continuation of conflict in Ukraine possible but a third world war far more likely?

Ukraine

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for allowing me to speak from the Cross Benches while my leg is misbehaving.

I was recently asked by a member of the public, “When are we going to stop giving all this money to Ukraine? Surely we should be spending it on things that matter, like the NHS”. I naturally agreed that the NHS matters—of course it does—but I also said, as my noble friend Lord Banner’s family sadly knows at first hand, that one of the first places that Putin bombed was a maternity hospital. There is no reason to think that St Thomas’, for example, would not be in his sights. What better way to terrorise the British people and make them realise the price of standing up for Ukraine than to bomb a landmark hospital across the river from where we are sitting today?

Does any noble Lord seriously think that that could not happen and that Putin is not capable of such an outrage? Indeed, why would bombing St Thomas’ be any more outrageous than the crimes that his forces have already committed? If ever we need to be educated in Putin’s macabre mindset, we need only remember what his soldiers did in Bucha. As my noble friend Lord Robathan implied, the British public cannot assume that his bloodlust will not be visited on us, even if only by drones, cyberwarfare and missiles rather than by soldiers.

Yet, as the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House has warned, we are underprepared, including as a society. Everyone said “Protect the NHS” during the Covid pandemic, but does the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman —agree that investing in the NHS is academic if we have not also invested adequately in the military means to defend it and our other civilian infrastructure? Can she reassure the House that this is being factored into determining the relative priorities of defence versus health and other domestic spending?

Surely the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, in his powerful maiden speech, are right when they warn that too many western policymakers still delude themselves that a compromise with Putin is possible. Indeed, I agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, reminded us, that following such a futile approach, as we did in 1938, will simply postpone and magnify the pain, as we deluded ourselves that Hitler could be appeased.

Effective deterrence may be expensive, but it is an awful lot cheaper, both financially and in human costs, than war. Yet, despite the horrors visited on Ukraine and the awful scenes from the Middle East following Hamas’s barbaric invasion of Israel from unoccupied Gaza only 12 months ago, I sense that too few outside your Lordships’ House and the other place can compute the devastation that awaits us should Ukraine be defeated. As the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker —said, Putin must be seen to lose for that devastation to be avoided.

Reports suggest that the goalposts on government debt are going to be moved in a few days’ time. I worry that the net result will be that, just when we need to reduce debt and prepare for war—so as not to have to fight one—our economy will become even more vulnerable to global life shocks. I hope sincerely that the extra £50 billion window that is being reported in the press will benefit defence.

I conclude with one further question for the Minister —the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—to answer when she replies. She will know that the economic and financial dialogue between the UK and China was paused after the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. Since repression there is now so much worse and since more than 60% of the components used to prosecute Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine come from China, can she reassure the House that the UK will not seek to deepen trade relations with China? Not only is China making possible the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine but its illegal sanction- busting involvement is making a third world war far more likely.

Ukraine

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack and a real privilege to contribute to a debate on such a critical issue of our time.

I confess that although—like all noble Lords, I sense—I was horrified by what unfolded on our screens on 24 February last year, I was originally cautious on Ukraine. Of course we should support Ukraine, I thought, but in moderation, in solidarity, careful not to provoke the Russian bear for fear of the consequences. I no longer hold that position. Others have referred to the torture, the rape and the sheer brutality. In light of the overwhelming evidence of the calculated barbarity that informs Russia’s criminal war strategy, I no longer believe that the position I held is still tenable. As other noble Lords have said, only one side can win, and that needs to be Ukraine. I therefore believe now that the West needs to do everything possible to help Ukraine to win as quickly as possible.

My noble friend Lord Soames, in his powerful maiden speech, reminded us of the “terrible lessons” of history, which of course his grandfather played such a prominent part in shaping, to the benefit of the world. For me, this situation—Russia’s aggression in Ukraine—threatens us as much as did Hitler’s marching into the Rhineland only 87 years ago, swallowing up independent Austria two years later and occupying first the Sudetenland and then the rest of what was Czechoslovakia within a matter of months—and all without a military response until it was too late.

With the luxury of hindsight, we now know that this was a drumroll for another criminal war of aggression. Surely it teaches us both that we need to invest at scale in our Armed Forces, as my noble friend Lord Soames said, and that we do not have the luxury of waiting for hindsight, especially in the much faster-paced world that we live in. In his memorable address yesterday, to which other noble Lords have referred, President Zelensky spoke about the need to defeat the fear of war in order to enjoy peace. As we all know, he thanked us in advance for planes to help secure that peace.

My question to my noble friend the Minister is this: since the Prime Minister has made the welcome commitment that we should train Ukrainian pilots, exactly how far in advance of those pilots actually being able to use that training was President Zelensky thanking us? We talk about ruling nothing out in the long term, but can my noble friend tell the House how long term is long term when Ukraine is being reduced to rubble now, in the short term? I do not know what the Russian is for long term, but I doubt it is a word that Putin uses much in connection with his battle plans in Ukraine.

If, as anticipated, Russia launches a new offensive within the next few days, possibly the next few weeks, how much worse does it need to get—how many of the new tanks that the West is supplying need to be destroyed by enemy fire—before we say, “Actually, let’s commit now to supply the planes to protect them from attack from the air”? Training needs to come first, of course. No one is disputing that, but surely now is also the time to assure the Ukrainians that once the training is completed the planes will be made available, and quickly. President Zelensky told the press conference that some of his pilots have already been training for two and a half years of the three years required.

I appreciate that I am not the only one wondering, if Putin triumphs in Ukraine, how long it will be before the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic and others, including us, are threatened directly as well. I know that the noble Lords, Lord McDonald of Salford and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who is no longer in his place, referred to our front line. If the front line were to shift beyond Ukraine, which it could well do if the Russians actually get their act together, how long is long term then?

We can still avoid the scenario where we come under direct threat, but I believe we can do so only if we act now to give Ukraine what President Zelensky said it needs now. We can tell ourselves that we are the ones doing the protecting and that we can afford the luxury of thinking long term. But what if the reality is different and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said, their fight is our fight? What if Ukraine is actually protecting us and time is not on our side?

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Shinkwin Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shinkwin (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I feel privileged to give my maiden speech, in this Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Bill, on an issue dear to my heart. I know, both from what we have already heard today and from my experience of campaigning with many of your Lordships, that it is an issue of real importance to your Lordships as well that we honour the Armed Forces covenant. This Bill gives each of us an opportunity to renew our personal commitment to honouring that covenant—the sacred bond of trust between the people of this United Kingdom and those who put their lives on the line to defend the democratic freedoms we all too often take for granted.

I mention privilege for several reasons. Some people dismiss your Lordships’ House as a place of privilege, outdated and irrelevant. All I can say is that that is not my experience. When I think of privilege, I reflect on having witnessed your Lordships’ House in action long before I became a Member of it, and seeing a body which I respect precisely because it is relevant, engaged with the issues of the day and making a material difference to people’s lives.

When I was head of public affairs at the organisation which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, was so kind to mention, I recall that I always stressed to the members of the team that I was honoured to manage that we should measure our performance in tangible outcomes of direct benefit to the Armed Forces family. The work of this House passes that test. At the legion, it was my privilege to work on several covenant issues with many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, whom I was honoured to have introduce me to your Lordships’ House, together with my old university tutor, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. This work ensured not only that the principles of the Armed Forces covenant were enshrined in law but also the survival of the position of chief coroner, in the face of an understandable and continued drive to reduce the deficit.

I met with the chief coroner shortly before my introduction. We discussed his work, and we looked at the results. It is obvious to me that he is making a considerable, positive impact, especially for bereaved Armed Forces families, for whom experiencing the pain and grief that go with a military inquest is such a regular experience. It is also obvious to me that he is only able to make that difference because of your Lordships’ House.

In concert with Members of the other place—including Andrew Percy, Philip Hollobone, Rob Flello, the right honourable Jim Murphy and Greg Mulholland, to name but a few—it was your Lordships’ House which persuaded the coalition Government, to their credit, to take the position of chief coroner out of the Public Bodies Bill and thereby protect it from abolition. That would never have happened without the concerted efforts of your Lordships’ House—surely an example of the tangible and enduring difference this House is making to people’s lives.

Each of us has made our own journey to this House; mine has been less spectacular than most but perhaps more extraordinary than some. Twenty years ago almost to the day, I began a rather less enjoyable part of my journey here when I was taken down to an operating theatre for life-saving neurosurgery. The 12-hour operation was so dangerous and complex that my remarkable surgeon, Miss Anne Moore, could not give me odds on my survival. So if sometimes I appear dazed to any of your Lordships or the doorkeepers, clerks and other staff, who have all been so kind to me, there is a good reason: it is because I am. I doubt I will ever get over the shock of going from near death to learning to speak again over a period of several years and now to speaking in your Lordships’ House, and being able to thank your Lordships directly for the help you have given me and, through the work of charities such as the Royal British Legion and INQUEST, in which I was privileged to play a part, the whole Armed Forces family.

My journey here may have involved a rather unpredictable route, but the ultimate destination is all the more wonderful for that. In fact, a hugely traumatic and painful experience has been transformed into an immense honour and blessing. For that, I thank my family, my friends, the God who never left me, no matter how bad things got, and I also thank the most influential woman ever created, His Holy Mother, whose feast day as Our Lady of Lourdes is celebrated today.

In conclusion, there can be no responsibility greater than providing for the defence of the realm, no duty or indeed privilege more significant than honouring the covenant we make with those in the Armed Forces who sacrifice everything for us. I look forward to working in your Lordships’ House to ensure that this and future Armed Forces legislation builds on the important steps that the Government and Parliament together have already taken to honour that covenant.