Ukraine and Russia

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In my response to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, I think I said that, for 21 days in July, ships were escorted by the Royal Navy. We see our ships deployed not only in the channel but elsewhere. We had the carrier in the north Atlantic to ensure that shipping was protected. We have relationships, alliances and agreements with countries across the whole of Europe and beyond. In that way, we ensure that we protect, as much as we can, the merchant shipping upon which we all depend and that we do something about sanctioning the Russian fleet. If the noble Lord’s question is about building more ships, we are.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I welcome the Statement, which says:

“Russia is constantly probing us and testing us”.


In terms of the narrative of what is happening, is it perhaps time to use less of the euphemistic language of “malign actors”, especially with regard to the very large number of cyber attacks to which my noble friend has already referred? Let us take the recent case of an abortive drone attack on a German airfield, which, thank heavens, did not work. The German Government, as I understand it, have reached the view that they now have the evidence to openly blame the state of Russia for that attack. Is that an approach that we should take as and when the Government have evidence to that effect?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If you have evidence that something has happened, it is quite right to talk about, for example, drone attacks such as the one in Leipzig to which my noble friend refers. Sometimes, when I am asked questions, I want to go further than I do; I want to use language that is stronger and more powerful. However, I also recognise that, when you are a Government Minister, particularly at a sensitive time, particularly in a difficult situation such as this—this is true in the other place, and it would be true under whatever Government—you have to be extraordinarily careful about the language you use, in case you generate unintended consequences. I feel a real responsibility for that because I am not the person flying the jet, I am not the person on the ship, I am not the person undertaking various activities. My noble friend is absolutely right that, where we have the evidence, we have to say what has happened and explain the threat to the British people, while at the same time being extraordinarily careful with the language that we use in case, as I said, we generate unintended consequences.

Armed Forces Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, government Amendments 38 and 39 in my name are needed to make improvements to the Bill.

Amendment 38 makes a simple but important modernising change. It will allow formal call-out and recall notices for reservists to be sent electronically, in addition to the existing postal route, ensuring that our legislation reflects the way people communicate today. The existing postal system will remain available where needed.

When time matters most, electronic communication can provide faster delivery, greater assurance that notices have been received, and a more responsive process for communicating with reservists.

This is not simply an administrative improvement. The strategic defence review emphasised the importance of national resilience, preparedness and the role of our strategic reserves. If we are to strengthen readiness across defence, we must also ensure that the systems underpinning mobilisation are agile and fit for purpose.

In a crisis or national emergency, speed of communication can be critical. This amendment helps ensure that we can reach reservists more effectively, supporting a force that is ready to respond when the nation requires it.

It is a practical and proportionate measure that forms part of our wider effort to update our reserves legislation. It retains existing safeguards, modernises an outdated process and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to building a more resilient, prepared and responsive Reserve Force for the future.

Finally, Amendment 39 is needed to make a drafting correction. I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, this is a very sensible amendment and I support it. In the world in which we now live, and with the way in which we communicate with one another, are there people in our Armed Forces already thinking ahead to different, more urgent ways of being in contact; for example, via WhatsApp? Email may not be the only way we can use modern technology to achieve the ends set out in Amendment 38.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that these government amendments are limited and make perfect sense. Sending notices by email makes sense. I would be concerned about formal communications being sent necessarily by forms of social media, but, equally, it would be sensible for His Majesty’s Government to keep open the opportunities of using whatever modes of communication are relevant at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, thinks there is some intellectual coherence in the Government’s approach to regionalisation, given that in the last 24 hours, they have abandoned large swathes of it, including in my part of the world. However, I understand and take on board what he says.

I do not want to make a political point—having just made a political point. I strongly agree with the noble Lord in suspecting that this has the hands of officials all over it. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am not wholly convinced that this has his support. Of course, he will have to support it, as a government proposal, but I think he will get the arguments against it as well as anyone else would.

I am always nervous about any form of military reorganisation when it comes to recruitment. I bow to more distinguished military figures in this Chamber than I was, and it is very dangerous to speak about military experience, given how long ago, in my case, it was. However, I have witnessed over the years—and in the other place was a critic of—the move to change how we recruit our Armed Forces, not least through the use of Capita, which I always thought had disaster written all over it, in capitals. Indeed, that was a view shared at one point by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. I am pleased that the Government are transitioning to the Armed Forces recruitment programme, which will come into force next year. We can only hope and pray that it will do us better service than did the Capita project.

But, of course, what we lost during all that was the whole issue of recruiting regiments from their localities, which has been enormously important over the years, not least because it engenders comradeship among those who join together from different parts of the world when they serve abroad. We have seen that throughout history. I agree that to try to centralise everything goes against the Government’s idea of localism. I can quite understand some officials sitting in the MoD on a quiet Friday afternoon thinking, “We must bring all this together. We cannot have all these independent organisations. It is much easier to have one”. But I think it would be a great mistake.

In an article in today’s Telegraph, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, Louise Sandher-Jones, talked about the mobilisation of some of the 95,000 retired people who have served in the Armed Forces for an exercise next year. I know they have raised the age at which veterans can be mobilised from 55 to 65—unfortunately, that excludes me by a year or two, although I hope I might have some use somewhere along the line if they are going to do that—but my point is that, if we are talking about a mass mobilisation, it goes back to the debate we had on an earlier clause about how to contact people. We are talking about contacting people who have not been in contact for decades. They live all over the country. What better way of connecting with those people and fostering some sense of purpose and community than by doing it through the existing structure?

The whole way that we do our military, to use rather bad English, is going through a transition, with much more concentration on our Reserve Forces and mobilising them in the case of an emergency. I therefore urge extreme caution to the Government, and to stop tinkering with this at the present time. Of course, the RFCAs are not above criticism—I understand a lot of improvements have already been made—but it is senseless, and the timing is wrong, to follow what the Government are proposing to place in their wake.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I begin by apologising to my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard. I fear that what I am about to say may not be the most welcome contribution to this debate. I do not know half as much about this as the many noble and gallant Lords and other Members in the Chamber, but I do want to say this.

Last week, I went to an RAF base for an event—I declare an interest because my son-in-law is the station commander—and I was very struck by the extent to which it celebrated the local connection between the base and the community. There were representatives of local organisations and schools and others there, in addition to the lord-lieutenant, with whom I had a friendly word, and I got a sense of what lies behind the debate we are having today.

All I would say to my noble friend is that it is possible that we might lose something valuable by proceeding with this clause. But I am very grateful and interested to hear what he says in reply to this debate. I have an open mind, but I think that some valid points have been made.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I am chairman of the current Council of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friends for tabling these clause stand part notices. Since the Haldane reforms of the early-20th century, most recently renewed in the Reserve Forces Act 1996, to which my noble friend Lord Minto referred, many of the functions supporting the reserves and cadets have until now been provided by autonomous regional organisations known as the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations. Thirteen in number, with a wide membership across the UK, they are made up of former reservists, regulars and cadets—employers, politicians and representatives of universities and local government—all of whom wish actively to support the reserves and cadets from the communities in the regions.

These 13 regional RFCAs are being abolished by the Bill. Each of these RFCAs is run by an executive, overseen by a board, which is elected by the members and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, wholly unremunerated. Each board holds the executive to account for delivering against service level agreements covering estate management, support to cadet units, and carrying out employer and community engagement on behalf of the reserves, cadets and, indeed, defence generally, including running the employer recognition scheme. The unremunerated board is to be done away with by the Bill. The county lords-lieutenant are appointed as the RFCAs’ presidents and vice-presidents. The Bill removes the involvement of the lords-lieutenant.

Armed Forces Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to the noble Baroness; it is obviously a matter of great importance. I have a question to which she might be able to give an answer when she winds up on this debate. Amendment 24 includes the phrase:

“or is alleged to amount to”.

Am I right in thinking that, under this amendment, it would be entirely for the alleged victim to make the allegation that it involves domestic abuse, and that would be enough to trigger the provisions outlined in the amendment?

Secondly, I would like to ask whether this amendment is being tabled in the light of any specific examples that the noble Baroness knows of, which might assist the Committee in understanding and supporting the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support, in particular, Amendments 24 and 25. That is not to say that we on these Benches are not giving our full support to my noble friend Lady Brinton for Amendment 26, but I think the point of Amendment 24, taking the chain of command out of anything to do with domestic abuse and ABH, is very important. I very strongly want us, if the Committee does not want to press the Minister to accept the amendment as phrased, to find a way of amending the legislation such that it can be taken into consideration, so that an allegation of domestic abuse would not go to the commanding officer. If this amendment does not work, please can the Minister come back with something that the Government feel is appropriate?

On Amendment 25, as with others, my noble friend Lady Brinton has picked up the danger of people falling between service justice and civilian justice. If we need to amend the legislation then that is something we should be doing. Clearly, we do not want individuals slipping between the two.

Defence Investment Plan

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is time to hear from the Labour Benches and then we can hear from the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the publication of the defence investment plan and the recognition in it that science, technology and innovation are going to play a very big part in the future. Does my noble friend agree that it is not just a financial challenge that faces the defence investment plan; there is also a credibility challenge? We are going to have to explain to the public more effectively than perhaps we have been able to do so far exactly why we need a funding plan to reach 3% of GDP by 2030 and 3.5% by 2035.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed, as I said to the noble Baroness, of course we need a conversation to more fully and carefully explain to the public why we need to increase our expenditure on defence and security and, alongside that, to help them to understand why that might mean changed priorities for budgets within the sort of priorities that people would have. Whether that means less spending on this area or that area of government, I think we would all agree that the increase for defence and security is essential, and there will be difficult decisions ahead. As part of resolving that, we need to talk openly to the British people.

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

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

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”

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

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?

Ukraine

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Friday 31st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very glad to take part in this interesting and very worth while debate. I begin by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on his excellent opening speech. Like him, I declare an interest: I am very proud of the fact that my son-in-law is a senior officer serving in the RAF.

I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who lived up to his billing, if I may say so. To say that he brings with him the qualifications to speak in this debate is a classic British understatement. Anyone who has been ambassador to Ukraine, ambassador to Russia and ambassador to the European Union and National Security Adviser deserves the highest respect, and he is a very welcome addition to this House.

This debate is officially listed as being about the situation in Ukraine, and of course that situation is not at all good—but it is quite right that we take the opportunity to debate it today, and I thank the Government for allowing the time to do so. After all, Ukraine’s fight for its security is ours too. I am not sure that anyone could have predicted that this war on our European doorstep would still be going on more than three and a half years since the invasion began, but we can be very proud of the significant amounts of practical, moral and military assistance and the fact that we have welcomed and taken in Ukrainian refugees as well as scientists.

In the short time that I have available, I want to make a few points and ask a few questions of my noble friend the Minister who will be replying. My first point relates to the nature of the threat that we face from the Russian Federation. Recently, in the last couple of weeks, we have heard a lot about whether China is or is not regarded as an enemy state under the outdated Official Secrets Act, but the situation is perhaps clearer when it comes to Russia. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, referred to by our maiden speaker, said in conversation with the Lord Speaker recently that

“we’re already at war with Russia. It’s a different sort of war, but the hostility, the cyber attacks, the physical attacks, intelligence work is extensive”.

Chancellor Merz of Germany has said that Europe is

“not at war … but no longer at peace”

with Russia. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy earlier this year, there was no doubt that we regarded Russia as an obvious threat. Can my noble friend characterise for the House precisely what the Government’s official description is of the threat that Russia poses to the UK after nearly three and a half years of war in Ukraine?

My second question relates to the economics of this war and how it has changed. Can I ask my noble friend about the status of the frozen Russian assets? I believe that they amount to about $140 billion. Is there now agreement among the relevant countries that they will now be utilised in the form of loan to provide Ukraine with much-needed financial support? Does my noble friend agree that the use of those frozen assets, together with US sanctions on the two Russian oil companies, might finally begin to put real pressure on President Putin?

My third question relates to the changing nature of modern warfare. Like others, I remember seeing at the beginning of the war that line of tanks on its way towards Kyiv. They did not get very far—and how very dated that now seems, compared to the bleak but savage reality of the conflict now, with its extended great warlike trenches and killing zones, and its grey warfare. I am no expert and I do not pretend to be, but it is obvious to me that this has developed into the first truly drone war in history. The fact is that drones are less costly to lose, easier to replace and sustain, and lower costs mean that you can buy more of them. But this is a war that is also being fought on the basis of intelligence and data, and future wars will be won less by bullets and more by data. Can my noble friend the Minister say what lessons the Government have learned from this terrible conflict and whether she can reassure the House that they are carefully and comprehensively taking into account these lessons when applied to the strategic defence review, which we have already debated?

Next, I ask my noble friend what she can say about the coalition of the willing and its recent meeting. We have to deal with the destabilising unpredictability of the US president, whose approach to this war has zigzagged all over the place, but can my noble friend reassure the House that despite this, the Government’s expectation is that the United States will continue to help Ukraine in vital areas such as targeting and intelligence information?

Now I come to the possibility of a ceasefire, or an “armed pause”, as it was put earlier in this debate. We know that Russia has recently rejected the idea of a ceasefire, doubtless because President Putin thinks that he still holds the advantage in the long run, despite terrible losses. What is the Government’s attitude to a possible ceasefire plan? Were President Trump to finally walk away from the Ukraine war, does my noble friend agree that it is not unimportant that he does not blame Ukraine or the West for that impasse?

My final point is this. I belong to the generation born after the war, only too conscious of the sacrifice made by the generation above me that enabled most of the West to live in relative peace for my lifetime. Given the changing geopolitical landscape of the world in which we now live, can my noble friend say something about the intention of the Government to educate the public about the nature of the threats we face, whether they are hybrid warfare, cyber warfare or attacks on our critical national infrastructure, and how we should prepare for them? My noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen has spoken frankly about the need for public education, but there are new generations of UK citizens to whom the serious possibility of conflict or war has never occurred. There is a balance to be struck between causing alarm and raising awareness, but perhaps my noble friend can address this issue in her final remarks.

My time is up, but I hope it will never be up for Ukraine.

Undersea Cables: National Security Threat

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Viscount Stansgate]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the national security threat to undersea cables connected to the UK.

[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

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief, but first I join with the Minister in stressing the importance of remembering VJ Day. We on these Benches share his view.

I congratulate both the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the team that he stands with, including Luke Pollard, who I had the privilege to meet with. I just say to both of them that the outcome that has emerged now at the end of this process is, frankly, better than anything I had ever hoped for. What we have been promised by the Minister—because of the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in raising and pushing the issue, as well as the willingness of the Government to listen—is this much broader review of whistleblowing in the defence sector, led by the Minister for Veterans and People. That is exceedingly important, because it underscores a changing cultural attitude in the whole defence sector and in the Government, which means that in the future we can look forward to much greater transparency and much more effective paths for whistle- blowing right across the piece.

Once again, I add my congratulations to those who have been expressed earlier. We also will no longer attempt in any way to impede the passage of this legislation. Its content is very positive and we supported that underlying principle. It has been a privilege to be part of this discussion and this process. I accept on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith the opportunity to meet in the future, and we will put various thoughts in writing in order to assist the process.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be so brief that they will not have enough time to put my name on the annunciator.

I welcome the agreement that has been reached and I think that this is a good example of the House improving what is an important Bill, which I hope will succeed in every respect. I pay tribute to all noble Lords, because I have been involved in that sense with the Bill since the beginning—I have an interest, which I have declared previously. It has been a very useful, good example of the House in action, and I particularly congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who has behaved in an exemplary way throughout the entire process. I am very pleased to see that the result that we have agreed will pass through and that the whistleblowing defence review will take place.

I have failed: they have put my name on the annunciator.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in welcoming not only the review into whistleblowing but the movement on this Bill, because it is an important one.

I just want to ask a few questions about the whistleblowing review. I do not want to be cynical, but we know that, in good old “Yes Minister” parleys, if you want to kick something into the long grass, you set up a review. So it is going to be important that, once the review is published, the terms of reference are correct and there is an indication of a commitment of the department to implementing the review—I think the Minister suggested the Armed Forces Act coming up, which would be a good way of doing it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, this is going to be a major issue for defence. Rightly, defence needs to be secret at times, and it is also important that the chain of command is in place. But I see this not as a threat to defence but as an opportunity for defence, because some of the best companies and others that have adopted open access and whistleblowing methods have actually added to their capabilities by learning the lessons.

If we are going to do this, the terms of reference will be very important. Trying to get the cultural change to which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred is going to be important. I do not think the problem is necessarily in the Armed Forces. Part of it is going to be within the MoD itself, and I think we have seen that in the fiasco of the last few weeks over the Afghan data leak. From my experience of being a Minister there, I know the stock thing is to protect the organisation. We need to try to turn this on its head a bit and say, “Look, if we do this properly, we can have a situation whereby if someone comes forward with a whistleblowing issue, don’t see it as necessarily an attack straightaway on the department or the institution. It should be seen as an opportunity to learn from that”. The important thing in any whistleblowing change is that there has also to be a commitment to implement what is found, because so often, these things happen and then nothing changes. There will be a huge cultural issue within the MoD. That would not just be welcomed by the general public and the Armed Forces but lead to efficiencies and learning lessons. It should not be seen as a threat or “Somehow, we have to have a knee-jerk reaction, and the important thing is to protect the department at all costs”.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robertson and his colleagues on the report that we are debating today. I congratulate my noble friend Lord McCabe on his maiden speech. If the House will allow me, I join the many other people who are so pleased to see my noble friend Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield back in his place. If nothing else, he always brings poetry to our proceedings.

In some ways, it is difficult to grasp the changes we are living through, but the SDR is nothing if not a wake-up call. It must be the start of a sustained debate within this country; I support the whole-of-society approach.

I belong to the generation born after the Second World War. I have lived all my life under the broad protective umbrella of the United States and the post-war international rules-based order, which is now changing before our very eyes. Everything is less certain than it was, and that includes Article 5.

I am also all too conscious of the sacrifices made by the generation above me that made that security possible. My own uncle was an RAF fighter pilot who was killed shortly after D-Day. In grief, my grandfather, who was an air commodore and a Member of this House, was driven to join RAF operations as a rear gunner until he was discovered and stopped. Of course, there have been many wars and conflicts in the decades since then. My first political memories were of Suez, and I remember, as a boy, seeing the headlines during the Cuban missile crisis, which was a time of extreme danger. It is a very old-fashioned view to think that nuclear weapons do not remain an extremely grave threat.

But the situation we face now is different. For the first time in my lifetime, we face the possibility of state-on-state war with a peer adversary. People generally—I include myself—have no real idea of what that would be like were it to occur. It certainly would not be a rerun of the wars we have seen in the past. The next war will not be won by bullets; it will be won by data. That is why things such as the digital targeting web, the cyber and electromagnetic command and even the so-called secret cloud will be so vital.

At the beginning of this year, when I was still a member of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, we agreed to conduct an inquiry into undersea cables. As my noble friend and others have remarked, an enormous proportion of all the world’s financial data—up to 95%—is sent by undersea cables. We know all about the attacks, which sometimes take place daily, the cables that have been cut and the cyberwarfare that is being conducted against us.

However, a real war would be absolutely catastrophic. A major attack would be aimed at destroying our energy capacity, our financial capacity to conduct transactions, and our communications, not to mention inflicting damage of a kind that would dwarf anything we have seen before. Social cohesion and social order might be at serious risk of collapse, which we did not see in World War II. The capacity for an enemy to spread disinformation, especially online, could utterly undercut the nation’s ability or willingness to carry on. If people could not communicate with each other, use their phones, get money out of machines or pay for anything by bank or credit cards, what would happen and how would people react?

I have a number of specific questions relating to the RAF, which my noble friend probably will not have time to cover in his reply. We are to acquire new F35A planes with nuclear capability; how will they be resourced? How will these new planes change the RAF’s approach to basing? Do we have enough early warning aircraft? Given the legendary Ukrainian attack on Russian airbases using drones, does the RAF have sufficient hardened shelters to protect our own aircraft, and do we have enough bases to ensure that we can distribute our forces evenly and operate effectively?

In the short time left, I want to raise the question of space, which my noble friend over there has already raised. I attended a briefing recently with the Air Chief Marshal, and he said that we cannot assume that we will have control over our airspace in any future conflict, and I think this applies even more to our control of space itself. In any future real war, the realm of space will be where the crucial battle will need to be fought and won.

Members may know that a committee of your Lordships’ House is looking into our engagement with space. Although we are not primarily looking at the military aspects, we have learned a very great deal. I am now of the view that space, together with cyberspace, would be the key domains were we to be engaged in a state-on-state war. If my noble friend can comment further on this, I would be very grateful. We have seen the effect of this in Ukraine.

Perhaps my noble friend can also give the House any official view from the Government on how integrated the new UK Space Command and cyberEM command are going to be and whether they think we need a sovereign launch capacity. I have run out of time, but if eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, this debate and the SDR will be very worthwhile.